Rick Hubbard

Vorkosigan

Rick, can you explain why you reposted those two particular passages of Nomad's?

Michael

aerosolben

Jesus/Horus

Sauron

1. It is relevant because they both claim divine inspiration.

2. It is relevant because neither set of claims is verifiable, or rises to the standard of "evidence".

2. It is relevant if you accept one claim as true yet reject the other as false. That would illustrate a double standard and a bias on your part.

So you reject the divine inspiration of the Qu'ran, in spite of the testimony that it gives to being written by Allah.

Yet you accept the bible.

How convenient.

That's because it's unnecessary. Rejecting your unprovable fairy tale does not obligate others to provide you with an alternative explanation.

I may not know exactly what the moon is made of, but I can reject the "green cheese" hypothesis without being obligated to provide an alternative. The "green cheese" hypothesis is so absurd, and the proof for it is so so lacking, that it can be rejected, a priori.

In like fashion - in your case,it is sufficient to note that your "resurrection hypothesis" is not plausible and you have provided no evidence to support it.

Therefore, by definition, *any* explanation that is grounded in reality is automatically superior to your hypothesis.

Family Man

Oh darn, here I was hoping that Nomad would actually tell us the problem he has with the theory that the resurrection stories started not because of an actual event but because of dreams and visions. I guess I'll never know.

Kosh

I think we actually tired him out (now
that's a change).

Saw it tonight on TLC. Jesus survived
the crucifiction and was spirited away
to France, where he was joined by Mary
Magdalene, and they lived happily everafter.
Some guy who restored an old church found
the ancient documents and told it to a monk
on his deathbed. The Monk never smiled
again....

Nomad

My goodness, what an impatient lot many of you are. I'll address jd's post first, then return to Dennis' hypothesis. To be candid, I did not think he was offering it in seriousness, but as he does think that it is a plausible scenario, I will focus on his original offering in my next post.

Now...

Yes.

No. Matthew mentions it as well.

Actually, this is false as well. Virtually all of the principle gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons were male, and the chief gods (Zeus and Jupiter respectively) were definitely male.

No, this is also false. The chief deity in the Babylonian mythos was Marduk, who succeeded Tammuz. Both were male. In the Assyrian and Canaanite cultures it was Baal, coupled with his consort, Asterath. In Egypt the central god was Ra. All of the above, excepting Asterath were male.

It is not certain that the first Hebrews were, in fact, nomadic. The subject is very much open to debate, though I believe the best evidence is that pre-Moses (during the period of the Patriarchs) this was the case.

Actually, this is also false, and widely rejected in scholarly circles. The only clear examples we have of any kind of dying and rising gods is connected principly with fertility rituals, and therefore several gods of agriculture were seen to "die" during winter, after the harvest, and to "rise" again in the spring.

That said, this theme is completely rejected in Jewish practices and beliefs, until the arrival of Christianity, and the reasons for Jesus death and resurrection are completely unknown to any culture of the time. In other words, no gods died and rose again for the salvation of their people.

Actually, Luke mentions the fact that Mary was thought to be a virgin only in passing. Matthew spends much more time in explaining why she was a virgin, especially when he connects it to the prophecies of Isaiah.

Well, Campbell clearly has a very idiosyncratic definition of both "faith" and "evidence", as it is not possible to have faith in something for which there is no evidence at all.

In any event, you are correct joe, I am looking for something much more specific than what you have offered here. And no, I have no interest in using it to help strengthen my faith at all. I am merely curious to see if sceptics have thought about this subject much, and if they have, what conclusions and beliefs they have formed regarding the creation of the Christian faith at a specific place, in a specific moment in time.

Thanks for your feed back. I do appreciate it.

Nomad

Nomad

In spite of his smiley face attached to his post, Dennis insists that he was, in fact, being serious in offering this particular post. In that same spirit, he has asked that I now respond, so I will.

As I have already linked to my original post on this subject, I invite people to look again. What we will see is that nat, Iaian, jess, doc Earl and a few others offered partial attempts at an alternative explanation, so if Dennis is thinking of some other reply, I would be more than happy to examine it. I certainly hope it is better than what he provides for us below.

So far so good.

This is simply unsupported assertion. That Dennis would mistake it for a serious argument is quite astonishing. Is the 1st Century uniquely credulous and superstitious? Dennis doesn't say. Given posts I have seen on the prevalence of urban legends, whacko cults and the like in modern times, I hope that he is not trying to demonstrate anything by such a meaningless remark.

Now we can see the extent of the confused argument being presented. Were people relying upon dreams and other superstitious things more in the past? Or less? And why is this relevant? I hope he is not suggesting that psychic hotlines and 900 numbers existed in the 1st Century.

And still we do not have an argument being made. Now I hope Dennis better understands why I thought he was not being serious in this post. Is it his contention that "they just made it up"? If so, then he sees the rise of Christianity as nothing more than active promotion of lies. This strikes me as both unlikely, and implausible, yet it is the best that he has to offer.

So then you are saying that people in the 1st Century were, or were not, more credulous than they are today? Which is it please.

You appear to have the same problem here as did eh. Paul is an eye witness. So is John. Peter and the disciples and the 500 were eye witnesses. If you have evidence that leads you to reject that any of these people existed, then please offer it.

As I told you before Dennis, I already know why you reject the Resurrection accounts of the Bible. In this thread it is taken as a given that the Resurrection did not take place. I am looking for what you think happened, and thus far all you have offered is that "they made it up" (lied), and people were credulous enough to believe it. This is pretty thin stuff, but if that is what you believe, so be it. I was, however, looking for something substantive. Do you have anything?

And here I can only assume that you have already forgotten what I have told you in previous posts. By the end of the 2nd Century Christianity was considered to be one of the major religions in the Roman Empire. Even before this it was drawing considerable attention, especially in the East.

Now, as to your claim that the Jews were qualified to reject it, does this mean that you think that they were less credulous than other people in Rome? If so, please present your evidence in support of such a belief. And if they were not less credulous, then why did you offer credulity as an explanation for the spread of Christianity in the first place?

Perhaps, but speculating about history is a mugs game. We can play what if scenarios until the cows come home. All that we know is what DID happen, and in the span of less than 300 years Christianity went from a small religious sect within Judaism, to taking over the greatest Empire in the hisory of the Western World.

Nomad would appreciate it if you did not put words or thoughts in my head. As I have never made this claim, do not attribute it to me.

Now, Dennis, in a later post you told us that the sceptic does not have to offer an alternative, and you are correct. That said, some sceptics do have some serious theories and hypothesis' as to what happened during the foundation of Christianity. I am interested in talking with such individuals, and if you have something to contribute, please do so. But when you do, please do it on the basis of offering something serious, and provide some evidence beyond mere assertion on your part.

Thank you.

Nomad

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Vorkosigan

Dennis says: In the superstitous and credulous society of the 1st century, people had visions and dreams.

Nomad repliesThis is simply unsupported assertion. That Dennis would mistake it for a serious argument is quite astonishing. Is the 1st Century uniquely credulous and superstitious? Dennis doesn't say. Given posts I have seen on the prevalence of urban legends, whacko cults and the like in modern times, I hope that he is not trying to demonstrate anything by such a meaningless remark.

A typical twisty Nomad remark. Dennis does not identify the 1st century as UNIQUELY credulous, he mere says that it is so. Later he remarks that nothing much has changed, pointing to psychic hotlines as evidence of this. Nomad asks "Why is this relevant?" Dennis' basic point is that human beings remain human beings, and that we can locate some of the reasons for the mythical Jesus' emergence in a common human nature.

Nomad: You appear to have the same problem here as did eh. Paul is an eye witness. So is John. Peter and the disciples and the 500 were eye witnesses. If you have evidence that leads you to reject that any of these people existed, then please offer it.

There are no eyewitness accounts, just second-hand reports written down years later. None of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. Paul never saw Jesus, and only talked to those who had seen him. The "500 eyewitnesses" is merely a claim that such people existed. Such claims are common. Ancient historical chronicles contain many stories of miracles "witnessed" by thousands, such as Vespasian's miraculous healing in front of a crowd, or the ascension of Huang Ti and 70 of his ministers to heaven. Shang-Cheng Kung ascended in front of a pair of known scholars, according to third-person accounts. Clearly it must have happened. Huang Ti, incidentally, seems to be a completely legendary religious figure based on some dimly-recorded noble, who became the object of a cult a couple of centuries after he allegedly lived. Sound familiar?

In these cases of multiple witnesses, the alleged witnesses left no record of what transpired, and have no weight as evidence.

Nomad I am looking for what you think happened, and thus far all you have offered is that "they made it up" (lied), and people were credulous enough to believe it. This is pretty thin stuff, but if that is what you believe, so be it. I was, however, looking for something substantive. Do you have anything?

Nomad, Dennis is making the same argument you made about Mohammed (in this thread, no less), and Joseph Smith, and all other religions. Why would they make things up? For the same reasons the early Christers did. Influence over others, higher status in their chosen communities, a steady income, genuine if erroneous belief, belief that the visions they were having reflected something real, etc, etc, etc. It's human nature to share things we love with others -- just this Christmas I bought my sister all 11 novels in the Vorkosigan saga out of a similar impulse? Why would anyone make up a story that aliens were following a comet on a UFO, and then persuade others to believe it and then kill themselves? Human sociality is a marvelous thing, and marvelously subtle and complex. Most people would rather die than give up a part of their social identity. And most people feel compelled to bring others over to the way they think.

Nomad: Now, as to your claim that the Jews were qualified to reject it, does this mean that you think that they were less credulous than other people in Rome? If so, please present your evidence in support of such a belief.

Please. The Jews were right there, and most did not convert to Christ-inanity. They did not believe. It is not a question of creduility. They were right on the spot, and ignored the putative son of god.

Michael

Toto

Nomad posted:

Are you saying that the Roman Empire was greater than the British Empire? I think you need to qualify this. You could say that in less than 300 years Christianity was adopted by the military ruler of the most important empire at that time, which later sank into disarray.

You seem to attach some extraordinary significance to this event. I don't see why.

And what ever happened to Andrew Drenth? He started this topic, and has not returned to find his answer. Another drive-by Christian poster?