FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-2001, 02:50 PM   #101
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hello I_AM, and welcome to the Boards and the discussion.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by I_AM:

... Did not all the disciplies know about Eljah & Elisha in the Old Testament did they not know about Lazarus .. does that not provide and adequate background for the resurection posibility.....</font>
I just replied to this point in my last post to jm. I apologize if I accidentally attributed that question to him, but I am trying to get through everyone's posts here.

Basically, Elijah's being taken up into heaven can account only for the Assension part of the Resurrection narrative, but not the expectation of a lone physical resurrection from the dead. Also, it is difficult to use Lazarus as evidence that such a thing could be believed before Jesus' disciples started saying He was risen. At the same time, if Jesus did rise from the dead, than believing that He also raised Jairus' daughter, or Lazarus is much more believable as well.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Does not one of the Gospels claim that Temple or Roman guards were set in place to prevent the body from being stolen. A very shakey account to me.</font>
Since the guards story lacks multiple attestation, nor is it embarrassing, historians will generally not grant it as being historically true. It is plausible, and possible (and I certainly believe it is true), but it cannot be proven from the text as we can prove, for example, that Joseph of Arimathea was a real person.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Does that not hint at not just rumors but a possiblity someone perhaps was at the tomb before the accepted witness either stole the body or found a swooned / seriously injured not dead Jesus. Who was nursed back to sigficient health to appear in public (who may have died soon after).</font>
The swoon theory has a great many problems with it, most of which I addressed in my reply to nat. If he (or another) should return to press this point, then we can explore it further, but right now I do not think the swoon theory can be rationally defended.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Item 4 and some others are only one version (gospel) of individuals actions</font>
Each of the points I raised has multiple attestation (i.e. is mentioned by several Gospels, especially Mark and John, which are independent of one another), and are highly embarrassing to the early church, making them very likely to be historically true. In the absense of strong evidence against their historicity, they are generally accepted as being true events.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Number 7 (Judas betraying Jesus) on the above list has always been one that has puzzled me and until I recently discovered some work investigating other possible motives ie Jesus actually sent Judas (somewhat hinted at by Jesus seemingly doing things purposely to fill Prophesies, Judas being a zealot not a thief (another shaky Gospel explaination).</font>
The existence of Judas as a betrayer, especially as one of the Twelve is another extremely embarrassing detail, and one mentioned independently in John and Mark. If Judas had been in on a conspiracy with Jesus to fulfill a prophecy, then it would have certainly been mentioned by someone in the New Testament (at least as some kind of apologetic defence of Judas' actions).

Another possibility is that Judas wanted to provoke Jesus into taking more decicive action (by staging the arrest, and thereby getting Jesus to miraculously save Himself), but that the plan failed, and he got to see his hero killed instead. This is pure speculation of course, and without any other evidence to support it, is not easily defended.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> One avenue all but ignored in searching for answers to "What" happened. It sticks me that NO ONE can say what happened in to Jesus (based on unbaised evidence) after the Crucxifiction. I find myself left with two extreme choices. Unquestioning belief that He was a divine figure who did raise from the dead or a unsatisfying mystery which at every turn only leads to more questions.</font>
I agree I_AM. The point of this thread was to have sceptics offer their own theories on what happened after Jesus was killed. While it is easy to say that one does not believe a certain thing happened, it is far more challenging to come up with what did, in all probability, actually happen. We do not need to know with certainty, but as you have noted here, we would have to account for the events that we DO know happened.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> What did Saul / Paul see and when any how many others also experienced something similair. Simply because some believed in a physical resurection why is that the only conclusion to be reached by examing the evidence (The Gospels for there is no other source of the claim.</font>
I agree that the only hard evidence we have is from the Gospels (plus Paul). At the same time, there is obviously more than one theory as to what actually happened. Muslims, for example, deny that Jesus was executed at all, but I have never seen this defended on evidentiary grounds. Other speculations seem to also lack much in the way of genuine evidence. Finally, none of the competing theories appear to account for everything that happened after Jesus reportedly rose from the dead, and this has left me puzzled. What do sceptics think happened (if anything) to explain the events that began c. 30AD in Palestine.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> In closing I have to applaud Nomad for placing the idea on the table ... Yet I am somewhat unsure about why he has only presented counter arguements to the basic framework of some theories that address filling some of the holes / contradictions left by the Biblical accounts .... Looking forward to seeing more on this thread even if it seems most have abandoned the effort.</font>
As I said earlier, it is easy to be a sceptic about a thing. It is much easier to actually defend a belief, and since I consider history to be something about which we can debate, I want to hear what others think.

I hope that some will continue to make the effort.

Welcome again I_AM. And peace,

Nomad

 
Old 04-02-2001, 03:13 PM   #102
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Now that's a twist: I appeal to Scriptures - Nomad, I also appealed to Mark 8:31,32 where Jesus is said to teach his death and arising plainly and in the open! - and to Matthew 27 - his enemies were obviously listening - perhaps Judas was bright enough to pass the info on??? Hmm? But now not even Matthew counts as 'evidence' - and perhaps not even Mark 8. damn. I thought I was sticking to the evidence quite well.....Oh well just goes to show that 'evidence' based on these criteria can be anything you want it to be - even if it means dropping one part of Scripture for another....if it doesn't fit your pre -determined view of course....

O btw- I did answer your question: they did not anticipate it, but certainly were aware of it, disbelieved at first (except John who understood it all along and believed first of course...), but then believed due to multiple attestation/visions.
I like Mark 16 where Jesus appears to them all whilst in a meeting (mark 16) to yell at them for their unbelief. Jesus didn't even knock - he suddenly appeared. Jesus then took the express elevator up. Of course, not before doing alot of eating, cooking, household chores, vanishing acts, changes of form, being seen by 500 all at once, etc....
hey let me ask YOU one question:
why didn't Jesus appear to his enemies???
Wouldn't that have been the ultimate evidence - He could've settled the issue right then and there! Imagine this:
The risen Christ suddenly popping out in front of the money changers and giving them the soiled pants - yelling and retaking what was His - "See I told you I could raise this temple in Three days!!!
Ultimate comeback - and convincing.....
But alas, Jesus only appears to the faithful - just like Mary of Lourdes........
 
Old 04-02-2001, 03:19 PM   #103
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:

I want to know what YOU think happened max. Do you have any thoughts on the matter, and can you back them up with anything more than mere speculation?</font>
While we cannot be 100% certain about history, the ideas we hold about what happened in the past should at least be able to account for the events that we know did happen, and not only be plausible, but have some supporting evidence. I hope you would agree with this, otherwise we are left not knowing anything about history at all.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">With the lack of definitive evidence that is typical in historical science there will always be speculation as to what happened at such and such a time. Studying history, particularly ancient history, is often a game of approximations and maybes. With the relative dearth of verifiable evidence this is inevitable.</font>
I agree, at the same time, we certainly can consider something to be more probable than another, and hopefully do so by rejecting as many a priori assumptions about what could have happened as possible. In the case of this thread, we are rejecting the miraculous, but looking to account for the rest of the events we know about.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Given the following:

- people lie
- people invent stories and pass them off as truths
- people have been and are superstitious
- people have believed in all sorts of gods and spirits
- people have invented numerous stories about the deeds of their deities and/or holy men associated with those deities
- people make fantastic claims of all sorts(channelers, pyschics, mediums, tarot card readers, NDE's, ghosts, UFO's, demons, spirits, etc.)</font>
While all of these things are true, if we assume that because some people have lied, therefore a specific person ACTUALLY lied, we still have the burden of proof to establish such a thing.

Further, disproving one extraordinary claim does not automatically disprove any other extraordinary claim. Each must be treated on it own, and evidence for and against it considered on their own merits.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What is the most reasonable thing to speculate as to what happened?

- people lied about Jesus and any actions he may have done.
- people told stories about Jesus that developed into they myths and legends surrounding him.
- a man named Jesus who was an interant preacher in an isolated, middle east region was actually God incarnate

Of course you probably know what my answer will be.</font>
You have not said which you believe max, but we have already agreed to reject the last option. Which remaining explanation do you find most likely, and why?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> With the understanding of the givens, my answer is based on experience, knowledge of history, and the common sense outlook that extraordinary claims require very strong evidence to support them. It is hardly "mere" speculation. </font>
And what IS your claim?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">{Snip remaining question that evades the point of this thread.</font>
As I have said before max, if you have a theory, please offer it. If not, no problem, and thank you for the discussion.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 02, 2001).]
 
Old 04-02-2001, 03:48 PM   #104
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:

Now that's a twist: I appeal to Scriptures - Nomad, I also appealed to Mark 8:31,32 where Jesus is said to teach his death and arising plainly and in the open! - and to Matthew 27 - his enemies were obviously listening - perhaps Judas was bright enough to pass the info on??? Hmm? But now not even Matthew counts as 'evidence' - and perhaps not even Mark 8. damn.</font>
As I explained jm, evidence that can easily be dismissed (like that which has no multiple independent attestation, nor is it embarrassing to the early church) is difficult to use in support of a theory. Just as it is difficult to prove a case on the basis of a single witness, or piece of circumstantial evidence, it is hard to build a theory around a lone Gospel account.

I apologize that I have not spent more time on the criteria needed to be considered acceptable historical critical evidence, but when evidence like Matthew's account of the guards at the tomb lacks these criteria, it is more easily dismissed by the sceptics.

As for Jesus talking privately with His disciples (as in Mark 8:27-38), we cannot assume that any of His enemies were listening, or knew what He was saying here. Speculating on what Judas may have told them may be interesting, but could hardly be used to establish that he actually did this.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I thought I was sticking to the evidence quite well.....Oh well just goes to show that 'evidence' based on these criteria can be anything you want it to be - even if it means dropping one part of Scripture for another....if it doesn't fit your pre -determined view of course.... </font>
Once again, evidence is considered to be more likely to be historical if it is embarrassing to the early Church, has multiple and independent attestation (like from Mark and/or John and/or Paul), or can be found outside of the Bible in non-Christian sources. None of your evidence passes any of these tests, and that is why I have dismissed it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">O btw- I did answer your question: they did not anticipate it, but certainly were aware of it, disbelieved at first (except John who understood it all along and believed first of course...), but then believed due to multiple attestation/visions.
I like Mark 16 where Jesus appears to them all whilst in a meeting (mark 16) to yell at them for their unbelief. Jesus didn't even knock - he suddenly appeared.</font>
Are you referring to the passage in Luke 24:35-49?

In any event, I do not see Him yelling at them, but merely wondering at their lack of belief. If anything, however, this story helps to reinforce that the disciples were not at all prepared for Jesus' resurrection:

Luke 24:37-41 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">hey let me ask YOU one question:
why didn't Jesus appear to his enemies???</font>
He did.

Acts 9:1-4 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Galatians 1:13-16 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Wouldn't that have been the ultimate evidence - He could've settled the issue right then and there!</font>
Yes it was, and yes it did.

Peace,

Nomad
 
Old 04-02-2001, 09:15 PM   #105
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Koy

Go with any theories you want. But offer your evidence. If you want to say the Gospels are frauds, go for it. If you want to say the disciples and early Christians were con artists, take your best shot. But if you think that anything that pops out of your fertile imagination will not be challenged, and that I will not ask for supporting evidence and arguments, then you have not been involved in enough challenging threads.

I am not interested in mere speculation and theorizing. I want to see how you account for what happened, and if you want to challenge any of the assumptions of the thread (like the burial tradition), take it to the appropriate thread. In the case of the burial of Jesus, the thread is called, Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?, and I have not seen you present any arguments there. In fact, aside from Earl, I haven't seen anyone really challenging the basic premise that Jesus was definitely buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

So get started please. I want to see your ideas, and your supporting arguments. Where it will take us, who knows, but I hope it will be interesting.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 02, 2001).]
 
Old 04-03-2001, 09:17 AM   #106
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad, I did. I offered the synoptic gospels as proof of the resurrection myth.

Read my post please and respond to several pages of detailed deconstruction.

And please get your story right. If you're not interested in theorizing and speculation, then why did you say, "assume the resurrection was a fraud?"

You know what? Strike that. I don't care what you said or didn't say. Address the entirety of my post point-by-point please.

Thank you.

(edited for - Koy)



[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 03, 2001).]
 
Old 04-03-2001, 02:43 PM   #107
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad -
Paul was not appeared to by the "Resurrected Christ" - but by a vision of Christ (who had already took the up elevator by then). Paul doesn't count - sorry....
Try again...........


As for Jesus talking privately with His disciples (as in Mark 8:27-38),

Therefore he only spoke about this privately?

Invalid inference. There's not enough premises to conclude that He spoke this only to the disciples privately. Indeed, we have evidence that the enemies knew about it and claimed they heard it from Him anyway.


 
Old 04-03-2001, 02:57 PM   #108
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jmcanany:

Paul was not appeared to by the "Resurrected Christ" - but by a vision of Christ (who had already took the up elevator by then). Paul doesn't count - sorry....</font>
Umm... how do you know this?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for Jesus talking privately with His disciples (as in Mark 8:27-38),

Therefore he only spoke about this privately?</font>
Yes. Reread the text please..

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Indeed, we have evidence that the enemies knew about it and claimed they heard it from Him anyway.</font>
Could you please site some proof texts of this?

Nomad
 
Old 04-03-2001, 03:52 PM   #109
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Koy:

Your continued evasiveness is getting tiresome Koy. But if this post is the one that you wish to use as an argument, so be it. From what I have read, you didnít actually present an argument however, but merely a set of unsupported assumptions.

Quote:
Nomad: Now, [Koy] you have raised the possibility that fraud was what happened. Cool.

Koy: No, you raised this possibility. You told us to assume this was the case. From your post to lpetrich:

Nomad: I want to know what happened after Jesus died, and I want you to do it by assuming that the Resurrection is a fraud.

Koy: Do you even read your own posts, let alone ours?</font>
Try not to be this dense. Assume anything you wish, but support your assumptions. That is how debate is done. Sadly, you are one of the worst offenders on the boards for hurling unsupported assertions, and things are not improving here.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> So, let's be clear: You want us to state what we think happened and then provide evidence to prove it, correct? </font>
Yes.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I see no reason to assume from the start that the evangelists that wrote the Gospels did not actually believe the story as they told it, but it is obviously a possibility.

I was just basing that on what you had said. If I am to assume fraud as you had earlier stated, then the assumption would also go toward anyone writing about that fraud, which is why I pointed out that we can't assume the story to be fraudulent without also assuming the synoptics to be fraudulent, or, at the very least, in serious question as to remove their use for purposes of eyewitness accounts, which is what you've been using to discredit other's theories.</font>
If you are going to remove the Synoptic Gospels from your discussion, that is fine. I assume you will use John and Paul then. At the same time, I do not have to accept your assumptions, and will ask you to back them up.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just want to be clear. If I am to assume fraud or that the event did not happen the way it is written in the synoptics, then both of us must necessarily assume that the synoptics are not reliable as evidence either for or against any theory I propose.</font>
You brought up the Synoptics. From what I can see, you still do not understand the operating premise of the thread. We are to assume that the resurrection given in the Gospels did not happen. Go from there, and anything you have to offer is open to challenge, and requests for supporting evidence and arguments.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If instead you are asking me to prove that the synoptic account of the resurrection is a fraud, well, obviously that's an entirely different matter requiring a different set of rules and regulations.</font>
Why have you confined yourself to the Synoptics? How did you make this leap?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think you're asking for us to come up with what really happened and then explain how and why the authors of the NT wrote what they wrote, correct?</font>
I have not asked you to go to the next step, but if you wish to address that part, it would help build your case.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What I am looking for is your theory Koy, then let's see how it hold up.

Ok, but "hold[s] up" to what? To the synoptics? To your personal whim? What standard of evidence are we using to "hold" it up to? A theory is not necessarily backed up by "concrete" evidence, remember? Oh, wait, as you display in a moment, you don't remember, my bad.</font>
It is when you post things like this that I am further left to question your seriousness on this thread Koy. Do you understand how to offer evidence to support your claims or not? From your posts on this and other threads I have drawn the conclusion that you do not know how to do this. I hope you will at least try.

As for what kind of evidence you are allowed to use, choose anything you wish. It will be up to me to question it, and to see if it has any holes in it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So, this is why I requested specific ground rules. For example, if you are going to use the synoptics as counter-evidence, then we have no standard as the synoptics are a mythical account of an event that did not actually happen (unless of course you have evidence which proves the validity of the synoptic myths).</font>
And there you go again. Even if the Synoptics are myths, that does not make them untrue. But if you wish to present this argument, you will have to support it. How do you propose to do this?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you would like my theory on how the myth was created, no problem; but if you are attempting to argue that the synoptics represent verifiable and legitimate evidence in support of the bodily resurrection of a man from death, then we've got problems.</font>
I have specifically and repeatedly stated that this thread assumes the bodily resurrection did not happen. I hope that this is clear by now, since I have no idea how to make it any clearer to you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A premise must have some supports Koy, if you wish to assume that the Gospel writers were participants in a fraud, give us some evidence and arguments to look at.

Ok. To begin with, I offer as evidence for fraud the synoptics. Within the three gospels you can read contradictory accounts of an extraordinary event that allegedly took place some thirty to forty years prior to the chronicling of that event, from writers who give the impression that they were there and saw exactly what occurred, which is a lie.</font>
What you have done here is called an assertion Koy. Cite examples, back them up. If you are going to say that the Synoptics contradict one another, but not support that claim, I will merely say that they do not contradict one another. We are then both on the same level.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Further, the story that they relate is of a person resurrecting from death to walk amongst his friends, who then see him raised bodily into the sky. </font>
Just because it didnít happen as described (and then only in Luke) doesnít mean that Luke didnít believe it happened. To argue fraud, you must establish that the perpetrator knew of the lie. How would you do this? Further, since the Assension is only mentioned in Luke, how does this impede on the credibility of Mark, Matthew and John?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Perhaps, then, your use of the word "fraud" is too harsh; however use of the term "myth" is certainly extant and no evidence exists to the contrary.</font>
Myth is fine. Again, do not mistake the word myth for fraud however. The City of Troy was thought to be mythical until it was found by archeologists.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If, at the same time, you want to suggest that the pre-Gospel resurrection accounts were also fraudulent, be my guest. But please support your assertions.

First, I have (see above).</font>
No you havenít Koy. You have asserted it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Second, why is it an assertion to point out what is extant? There is no assertion in stating "Star Wars is a movie." That is an extant fact just as stating "The Bible is a collection of ancient myths" is an extant fact.</font>
If you cannot tell the difference between Star Wars and the Bible, then this will be a short conversation. Do not assume facts. Prove them. On the other hand, if you are giving us your opinion, and not calling your opinion facts, then that is acceptable.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you have evidence which proves that the Bible is not a collection of myths, however, then I'd be more than happy to look at it.

Or is that "off-topic?"</font>
If you can prove to me that you are not certifiably insane, then I am happy to look at it.

Donít ask people to prove negatives Koy.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME:...are you instead asking us to prove that the resurrection story is a fraud (vastly different from assuming it is a fraud and then theorizing on what actually happened to Jesus)?

YOU: I am not asking you to prove anything conclusively, but I would like to see why or how you decided that the resurrection was a fraud, then we can examine how good your evidence and arguments really are.

Well, that's a tad contradictory, but I've provided my evidence--the synoptic gospels.</font>
Now you see why I did not reply to this post. You have not offered any evidence at all, only assertions. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between your own opinions and facts bodes very ill for any rational discussion with you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> As to the argument, well, since there exists no evidence to support the resurrection myth beyond two thousand year old anonymous and demonstrably specious hearsay accounts, I'd say that the evidence of extant myth is firmly in my court.</font>
Since there is no evidence to support that Julius Caesar (Cleopatra, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, ect.) ever livedÖ.

Now, donít distract the discussion again Koy, and tell us what you think happened.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Or do you have any extraordinary evidence that we have not seen, which proves the validity of the synoptics and, therefore, the resurrection myth? </font>
We have the Synoptics, the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul, and the existence of the Church itself, dating to c. 30AD in Jerusalem. I am trying to get you to tell me how these things came about. Thus far you have not told me.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: You seem to want to have it both ways. You want us to assume a fraud and forward an alternate theory only to have you turn around and then you use the fraud as evidence against our theories?

YOU: Perhaps if you reread the premise of the thread, then you would better understand what it is actually about.

Nope. Didn't help, but I'll get into that at the end.</font>
Yeah, I saw that too. That is another reason I did not reply to this post originally.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Which is why I am sincerely asking you to explain what you want us to do: Prove it is a fraud so that you can deconstruct the proof utilizing the alleged eyewitness accounts, or assume it is a fraud and provide an explanation for why and how a fraud of this nature was perpetrated?

YOU: We can compare any arguments and evidence you have in support of any theory you wish to put forward against that offered in support of any other theory. What I want to avoid on this thread, however, if dealing with the resurrection as being true. Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud. You can, however, make this argument if you wish.

So, you want us to assume that the story was just written down wrong and based on that assumption explain what really happened?</font>
Read my reply again. I will requote it for your benefit.

] We can compare any arguments and evidence you have in support of any theory you wish to put forward against that offered in support of any other theory. What I want to avoid on this thread, however, if dealing with the resurrection as being true. Assuming that the Gospels got the story wrong does not equate to the resurrection being an actual fraud. You can, however, make this argument if you wish.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If this is the case, then what evidence are we comparing our theories to? The synoptics? You repeatedly refer to them in other posts here as if they represented the truth, which doesn't make sense if we are to assume that the resurrection did not happen.</font>
Do you always repeat your questions this many times? Use ANY evidence you wish. I will do the same. We can then compare them to see how reasonable your theory happens to be. What we will not be discussing is the possibility that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are correct.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The only evidence that we have of the resurrection is the synoptic gospels (which is to say, no evidence at all due to their contradictions and use of symbolic imagery as well as the fact that they are biased hearsay accounts that none of them actually witnessed), so if we throw out the resurrection as something that actually occurred, we would also have to throw out the gospels which chronicle that resurrection.</font>
You have used the phrase ďsynoptic gospelsĒ so often I am wondering if you know what they are. To help you out:

The Synoptics are Matthew, Mark and Luke. We also have the testimony of Paul and John to contend with. If you have other evidence (like the non-Canonical gospels, or other epistles) please do so.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Regardless, I think I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the synoptics offer no legitimate evidence in support of the resurrection myth as anything other than a myth, so, case closed.</font>
You havenít offered any evidence at all Koy. That is the problem.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you are actually then interested in my theories as to why these people created their resurrection myths, well then we have a discussion. There are many many theories as to why a cult creates their myths, number one in my book being deliberate subjugation and control. If you wish, we can discuss cult motives and strategies in another thread, as I think that would be off-topic.</font>
When will we get to discuss your theories Koy? I am still waiting.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Let me repost the original assumptions again for you Koy:

About 300 years after a peasant Jew lived, was crucified and was buried, the religion He founded took over the greatest, and most cosmopolitan empire in all of ancient history. The question remains, how did this extraordinary event actually happen?

Well, history supposedly records that a fellow named Constantine declared the religion to be the reigning state religion and that any other religions should be subordinate to it. </font>
History ďsupposedlyĒ recordsÖ.

See why I do not take you very seriously Koy?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Military force, then, is your answer.
</font>
No. Constantine converted after Christianity had come to dominate the Empire, not before. So your answer is incorrect factually. This is why you cannot find evidence to support it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As to why this happened, as you know, I have my own theory in that "other thread," but this isn't so great a mystery as you continuously imply. Millions of crackpots in powerful positions have believed all kinds of idiotic crap. </font>
Yes, I can see that from your posts.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Hell, even you believe that a myth is a factual event instead of a fantasy event, so go figure?

Regardless, it only proves one thing: people are idiots.</font>
And I am taking you less and less seriously by the post Koy. If things do not improve, we will be done again.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[i]Now, the basic facts of the story are not supernatural, and are well enough attested to be pretty agreeable to serious historians. They are:

1) A person by the name of Jesus of Narareth was born around 4-6BC

2) His ministry lasted about 3 years c. 30AD

Koy: Do not agree. The Sayings Gospel Q does not necessarily attest to how long he "ministered" or even that he ministered. The original Jesus cult was not about divinity or trinity; it was primarily about wisdom sayings with certain layers of apocalyptic sayings layered in latter. </font>
Q has not dates in it at all, nor do the Synoptics. We rely on Johnís gospel, and the general agreement is that Jesus taught for about 3 years.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But, for the purposes of your post, I will extend a courtesy you have never extended to mine and grant this point for the sake of your thought experiment.</font>
I will support my assertions. I hope you will do the same.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3) He was executed by crucifixion by then Roman governor Pontius Pilote,

Agreed. A man named Jesus was crucified by Pilate, which, of course, means that he was crucified by the Romans. Want to go check out my post again now or later?</font>
I am going to pass on your thread Koy.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> and was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimathea

ÖAs for who owned the tomb, as far as I know we have only the synoptics to attest to this, so I can't firmly "agree" with it, but, again, since it's your post, I will grant that in the myth chronicled in the synoptics the tomb discussed was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea. Ok?</font>
Alright.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">4) Within days of that event, Jesus closest friends, followers and even some of His family members were saying that the tomb was empty and that Jesus was alive again.

Do not agree. An anonymous author commonly referred to as "Mark," claimed that a resurrection of sorts had occurred some forty years after the alleged event. Then other anonymous authors (in some instances, decades later) embellished this first story, adding in claims of witnesses and contradictory details they did not see for themselves and could not attest to, too far after the event to be of any evidentiary use.</font>
Paul was claiming the same thing Koy, and the Christian church existed long before Mark put quill to papyrus. These are known as historical facts.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">They believed this against all opposition,

Do not agree. Hearsay cult propaganda.</font>
By Tacitus? He was not a Christian you know.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> and eventually (about 300 years or so) the religion that they founded swept over the Empire

"Swept" over the Empire after 300 years, eh? Nice sweeping...

Addend the following phrase to the end of your statement and then I can agree: "through brutal military action and the absolute decree of their murderous dictator."</font>
What brutal military action from 30-320AD? Donít tell me you are still clinging to your wing nut theories please.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How did this happen?

State mandate. This isn't rocket science.</font>
Thatís it? Thatís the best you can come up with? You explain what happened from 30AD-320AD by claiming it all happened by state mandate???

Proof please.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So, what do we "agree" on? We agree that a guy named Jesus said some quotable wisdom platitudes and a few apocalyptic warnings. </font>
No Koy. We donít agree on anything. You are so completely lacking in historical knowledge as to make discussion with you nearly impossible. If you will not offer any proofs, evidence or supports in your next post, then we are done.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for how I account for the cult spreading like the virus that it is, it's very simple. If Constantine (and his ilk) didn't manufacture the Christian cult as I hypothesize in my thread and he wasn't clinically insane, then obviously he saw that the Christian cult easily and readily usurped Judaism in the region, while at the same time turned otherwise intelligent, free minded people into easily manipulated sheep. </font>
And if this is your idea of a working theory, and you continue to offer no proofs, I will classify you with the Holocaust deniers and conspiracy nuts of the world.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">{Snip remaining blather}</font>
I hope you will get serious after this Koy. To be honest, you still look like a loon to me. So don't make me respond to this much stupidity again please. Offer arguments, supported by evidence, or this conversation is over.

Nomad
 
Old 04-03-2001, 04:26 PM   #110
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I hope you will get serious after this Koy. To be honest, you still look like a loon to me. So don't make me respond to this much stupidity again please. Offer arguments, supported by evidence, or this conversation is over.

Nomad
</font>
I'm impressed Nomad. Wading through a bunch of crud and actually responding to it took more patience than I had. Especially considering that its poster was seriously entertaining the notion that NERO secretly invented Christianity in an effort to strengthen the Roman Empire.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.