Toto

It's here:

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000936&p=" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000936&p=</a>

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Muad'Dib/Toto

Thanks for your help


Hi Nogo - I would like to add something. In the KJV verses NIV thread there is a discussion between Guy and Nomad regarding major contradictions in the resurrection account, how long did Christ stay on earth after resurrect. Act says 40 days. Luke says one day.

Tjun Kiat

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Family Man

I apologize for having to drop out of this thread, but in the past two weeks, aside from work and school, I also bought a house, painted it, and moved in. Naturally, time for things like this had to drop to the bottom of the list.

And I do realize that much of what I have to say has already been said by others, but I wouldn't want Nomad to think I couldn't answer him.

But I'm pleased that Nomad has responded, though as others had noted, I barely recognize my own arguments. It appears to me that Nomad is unable to counter what I actually said, so must resort to making alternative claims so he can appear to counter what I have to say.

First, while I suspect that first-century people were more credulous than they are today, that never was the thrust of my argument. My argument is that humans, in general, are credulous. We can see this today in all sorts of ways. I've already mentioned some, and could mention more. In fact, I think Nomad is a perfect example of someone who is completely credulous in his argumentation, as well as cynical in his own presentation.

Second, the credulous of people in general explains why people came to believe in the resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth. I could demonstrate numerous cases of people believing the sublime and ridiculous, even in face of evidence against it, because they want to believe it. I'm sure you could too, but then that would blow your desired end out of the water. It is simply credulous to assume that the accounts given in the NT are accurate.

Third, Sanders book is available in any library. If you insist on the exact page, I can provide it the next time I visit there. And exactly how many scholarly sources would I need to provide before you'd concede the point. After all, I've got the entire Jesus Seminar, which contained a large number of NT scholars, all of whom claimed that Jesus said very few of the sayings attributed to him. Since my claim is that early Christians were, in essence, making up much of what we have in the NT, the Jesus Seminar conclusions completely support what I've said on this thread. In short, the credulous position is yours, where you accept what was written in the holy book of yours without question.

Fourth, you were asking for an alternative theory, not proof. Obviously, I wasn't there and don't know for certain if the resurrection stories were started through dreams and visions. All I need to do is to demonstrate that this theory is far more plausible that the riduculous notion that a man, who was actually a god, rose from the dead. Your inability to directly tackle that thesis merely demonstrates the weakness of your position, especially in light of the scholarly views that much of the NT is not based on historical events, but later inventions.

Fifth, I am not aware of Paul being an eyewitness to any resurrection. My understanding is that he had visions of Jesus, and was not an eyewitness. And as John, according to the scholars I'm familiar with, was written between 90-100 BCE, it is extremely doubtful that John was an eyewitness to anything. Yes, you'll want my evidence for that, and after I unpack I just might oblige. But Sanders, for example, refused to consider John as a reliable source of information for the historical Jesus. He considered it a theological, not historical document. I think John's claim to be an eyewitness can be dismissed.

Sixth, I hope you read biographies more critically than your favorite theological document. Most biographies I know of document their sources, or at least explain in their text where they are getting their information from. I can also judge how the author uses his sources: is he writing a balanced account that both criticizes and praises his subject as appropriate. Nor have I ever read a biography that claimed a supernatural event actually happened (which, after all, the resurrection is). If it did, I'd toss it as being unworthy to read. In short, your little remark only demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position: you want us to accept the resurrection as fact, but can't provide a single parallel in secular history.

Finally, not previously dealt with but simply begging to be, is that the NT was not designed to be a factual, balanced, objective account. It was designed to promote a particular religious view. Because the authors were more interested in promoting a faith than providing opposing points of view, the proper skeptical position is to take what it says with a large grain of salt. Throw in the absurdity of what is claimed in it, and it is very apparent that the alternative theory is far more likely than the one that Jesus actually was resurrected.

Finally, Nomad, if the best you can do is to question how I read history by demonstrating your own inability to do so, I suggest you don't bother responding. After all, you're only hurting your own cause.

Sauron

It's nice to see that Nomad's nonsense isn't going un-answered. And Earl, as always, <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

There is one small contribution that I'll make here - I'm sure others may have seen it and/or commented on it already. I've watched Nomad conduct a particular kind of bait-and-switch that several freethinkers have unwittingly fallen for.

1. Nomad will ask for an alternative explanation for some biblical event, or claim.
2. Someone offers him a naturalistic explanation of the event, or claim.
3. Nomad responds with, "What is your proof that it happened that way? Sources, please."

But notice the subtle shift of the burden of proof here. First Nomad asks, "Give me a reasonable alternative explanation". Then he says, "Now prove that it happened that way." Having received the alternative explanation, Nomad now moves the goal posts and sets up a different hoop for the skeptic to jump through.

But that wasn't Nomad's original request. Nor did the skeptic ever claim to have proof that the alternative, naturalistic explanation was correct. Indeed, proof isn't necessary; this is a comparison of which explanation is more reasonable and likely, given the evidence at hand. As many others have said, any explanation that doesn't invoke or require the supernatural is, by definition, a better explanation than one which involves miracles or the supernatural.

NOGO

Hi Kosh,

You are right about the way things can get really confused. there is however three points that I wish to add to your comments.

First your story is rather distant from the actual events. If you were the brother of one of the terrorists and participated in the sept 11 attack then I would expect you to have the facts straight.

So imagine that two people told you that they participated in the sept 11 attack and in the first man's story he claimed that the plane that did not make it was planned for the whitehouse,
while the second man claimed that it was planned for the pentagon. You would call both of them liars.

Similarly since Matthew and John cannot agree, one the other or both are making up this story.
These people knew each other. They had plenty of opportunity to talk about these envents and sort out discrpencies.

The second point is that apologists also claim that these people wrote under divine guidance.
There is no room for contradictions. Apologists admit to none.

Thirdly, people who misinformed you probably passed on disinterested hearsay. That is, the reason it can get so off the mark is that people don't make it a point of getting and passing accurate infromation.
However the gospels do not qualify as disinterested information passing. There were written to convince people.

HRG

[quote]Originally posted by Nomad:
[QB]

Now I will make the same point to you that I just made to Earl (in case you did not read my response).

I am not arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection accounts found in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter. This thread is premised on these accounts being false. What I am looking for are hypothesis and theories from sceptics that have one as to how Christianity came to take over the Roman Empire within 300 years of its creation.
[quote]

People have already pointed out why this "take-over" as an argument is rather a weak reed; and please remember that 300 years after the Hedschra Islam stretched from Spain to the Indian border.

In addition, please consider the following explanation. Let us regard Christianity as a meme complex, among whose main memes are the following:

1. If you believe me, you will be rewarded with eternal bliss. Otherwise, you will be punished with eternal pain ("carrot/stick").

2. I am a jealous meme. Remove all competing meme from your brain space (elimination of competition).

3. Doubt is sinful. You just got to have faith (attacking the immunity defenses of the mind).

4. Convince others that I am true (spreading the infection).

It should be obvious that the success of such a meme complex is far from being evidence of its truth.

But you expect us to swallow your mere assertion that "GJohn was written by an eye witness".

So does the testimony of the witnesses to Joseph Smith's Golden Tablets.
Coming to think about it, Moby Dick (aka the Gospel of Ishmael) does too.

IOW, what a text itself says about its author has hardly any evidentiary value.

Regards,
HRG.

Kosh

Good points. I for one don't believe the Gospels
were written by eye witnesses or the persons
they are ascribed to... but that's another topic.

aikido7

Let's get real.

Reading the four Easter accounts in parallel. it becomes clear to me that the literal inconsistencies and unrecordabilities of the post-crucifixion events CANNOT BE HARMONIZED. This FACT alerts me to the reality that something more profound is going on here, something more profound than secular journalism or factual, biographical history.

I see three elements which sometimes overlap:

1. RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY, in which the word myth is defined--as anthropologists do--as being the closest thing to absolute truth human beings can approach.
2. PROPHECY recast as "actual history," and/or
3. PARABOLIC description as typifying and mythologizing historical events.

The tendency for both sides to debate and justify snippets of the four gospels is in fact an excercise in fundamentalist literalism in which each group (theistic and skeptic) make arguments from a priori assumptions based on popular notions about the New Testament.

The Easter accounts are not biographical history. They are faith documents and as such are a complex amalgam of remembered history and overlayed mythology.

NOGO

I agree on everything that you say. What I fail to understand on your position is the conclusion. Should we all be Christians despite the contradictions, inconsistancies and errors and myths?

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

aikido7

My "conclusion" is that there has been a failure to communicate the results of sound biblical scholarship to those of us in the pews, resulting in an inexcusably high index of biblical illiteracy, a lack of curiousity about reality and a real fear of the "intellect" or "worldly wisdom" (code for "mortal folly") among believers.

Your final question not only needs to be asked more often, but taken seriously, faced honestly and debated openly.

Here are some of my questions to add to the mix:

Are we willing to let the Second Person of the Trinity become a first-century human figure of history again?

Are we then willing to let him speak for himself?

Are we going to continue to attempt to live facing forward while using ancient creedal formulations and an outdated first-century mindset?

Is the church going to continue to worry about gays, abortion and Harry Potter to the exclusion of standing up to the evils of racism or poverty?

What would the REAL Jesus do?