Layman
- Am I attacking YOU?? Heck No man - I wish you all the faith and best in the heavens - I am attacking your inadequate apologetics - that's it - look I wouldn't even harp at all if all you'd admit to doing is theology - I might even tell you that Meier's #2 reason for why he's doing it is ok with me: to get Jesus humanity back into the theological picture - although I may not totally agree with Meier, I think that is a fine enterprise - one that I hope to be engaged in myself someday - but it's not apologetics.........

And with that - I'll leave this discussion - and promise to never raise it again with you.
Forgive me for the offences -

Be well, and Godspeed to you.
many Thanks...

Perhaps you could demonstrate what apologetics really is then? I have yet to see any from you. Please direct me to a thread where you have articulated your apologetics.

Nomad - you asked for a naturalist account - I gave one. It remained as true to the text as could be given the premises, plus it was imaginative and, I think, has more plausibility then the ole "swoon" theories or the Jesus went to Chicago or Kashmir theories.

It also incorporates all kind of psychological possibilities, phenomena, etc... gray areas that make life interesting I think....

BTW - you certainly think Isalm is false correct? How do you account for it's rise and endurance? Is it purely to be "naturally" accounted for - or is it a "miracle" that it survives to this day and has such devoted adherents??

Islam spread from the beginning by the sword. Mohammad himself was an able general who killed in battle and also had some of his political opponents assasinated.

Toto

I think Nomad just conceded defeat to Koy. Good job!

And Nomad's game has become clear. He has twisted things so the burden of proof is on the non-believer to explain how the resurrection didn't happen if other parts of the gospels are true (but it's off limits to argue that they aren't.) A true exercise in futility.

L -
To be quite honest - I don't have any set "Apologetics Program" - but I do think the Gospel must be presented as the object of faith - not as a shaky conclusion to a probability argument....hmm I don't recall Christ saying "go forth into all the nations and proclaim probability arguments in my Name..." do you?

Godspeed to you...

Yeah, I figured you would like his arguments. For myself, I must admit that his line of reasoning is... unique.

See what I mean by skittish sceptics?

I see no reason, if we can discuss the idea of moral good and evil in the absense of God, why we cannot discuss history with the assumption that God (or the supernatural) does not exist.

My experience is that the majority of sceptics actually don't have a clue what happened in history, and for them that is alright. But for those that do think about this subject, I have assumed that they must have some working theory, and I would like to hear what it is. At the same time, I certainly don't see it as being unreasonable to ask these individuals to offer whatever evidence and arguments they do have to support their theories.

I don't know if I will have any other takers on this discussion, but I have found some of it very interesting. My hope is that nat, Iaian, max and/or I_AM will return with additional thoughts on this subject. At the same time, if you have anything to add Toto, I would welcome it as well. Just be prepared to back it up.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad, your 1), 2), 3), 4) are answered by the explanation of superstition in times of miracle-beliefs. However, religious miracles like the ones described in the Bible, are not moving anything tangible for 2000 years, and what was allegedly moved 2000 years ago according to the Bible, is disproved by science; science to its credit moves tangible things for more than 2000 years, especially in the last 300 years, and has long ways to go in further explaining the nature.

Hello Ion

This doesn't really explain the success of Christianity though, does it? I mean, people were superstitious a long time before Christianity rolled around. And since people were scoffing at it from the start I don't think that we can say that everyone was very eager to embrace it, even in the 1st Century.

Really? How do you know this?

Like what exactly?

This is cool. At the same time, I am more interested (on this thread) in understanding Christianity's success, especially in its first 300 years.

Thanks for your ideas,

Nomad

Thanks for the reply max, but your theory really only explains what happened after Constantine converted in 313. My question is more directed at what happened prior to that.

Hmm. According to your original post that started this thread that is not what you were looking for.

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?

This tells me you were wanting an explanation of why Christianity became so important/popular 300 years after its inception. My answer was directly to that point.

Now I am unclear as to what theory you are looking for. What is it that you want a theory of prior to the 300 AD time period you specified?

On the other hand, if more than one independent source tells you basically the same thing, would it be more likely to be true in your opinion or not? If not, why not? Also, if the reported thing were embarrassing to the specific pharoah, yet it was told to us anyways, would you consider this to be more reliable? Again, if not, why not?

Well of course that will depend on the claim. If the various sources tell me the Pharoah had magical powers or did some fantastic deeds that I have no good reason to believe can truly occur, then it'll take much more evidence than somebody's say so for me to believe it.

Hundreds of people claimed to have seen Elvis Presley after he died. Thousands have claimed to have seen ghosts. Dozens have claimed to have seen Bigfoot and the Lock Ness monster. Many claim to be able to tell the future, talk with the dead, and read minds. Numerous people have claimed to know about their past lives before they were reincarnated. Indians even today claim to be able to interact with the spirit world and communicate with their dead ancestors…

Well I could go on and on but I think you get the point. What is noticeable about all these things I mentioned is that they are all modern claims, attested to by far, far more people than any Christian claims and I still don't believe they are likely to be true. (And I suspect you wouldn't either.) There is insufficient basis for believing such claims can actually occur. There is lots of basis for believing people make things up, lie or are deluded.

First, is it necessary to know everything about an author in order to evaluate what he wrote?

Well I stated we know hardly anything and you leap to asking if we have to know "everything". I'm not sure why you did that.

Do you apply this standard to everything you read and learn? If so, how do you do this?

Well of course I pay attention to who wrote what I read, particularly when it comes to truth claims. Doesn't everyone pay attention to this? I could utilize information on the Holocaust from Aryan Nation organizations, but the inherent bias from the members of that group wouldn't make it a wise decision I don't think. I could also refer to the current Grand Dragon of the KKK for a complete understanding of Christianity but I don't think that would be wise either.

What are the writers credentials?, do they have the expertise necessary to make a reliable assessment of the data?, do they have any biases that could possibly cloud their judgement or research?, what actually is the evidence? (Pictures? Ruins? Dating criteria? Hearsay? )

Secondly, we know more about 1st Century Christianity than we know what to do with.

Err.. Is this supposed to be a meaningful evaluation? I highly doubt this is even remotely true. Historians and scholars are always looking for more/new information. But if you would quote a scholar or historian that concludes we have too much information it would help.

We have multiple books from multiple sources all written within the lifetime of the first and second generation of believers, plus those that they taught.

Yes, there are some writings that make claims. No doubt about that.

The manuscript evidence for Christian writings has been called an embarrassment of riches for very good reason, since we have absolutely nothing like it from any other culture or ancient source.

Well assuming that's true for a moment, I'm not sure what it proves other than the devotion of the believers in preserving their documents. In those days it took considerable resources to be able to create and preserve documents as it was a very arduous task. This translates to money, power and just being literate. (Something that was not taken so much for granted as it is now.)

It can also translate to just pure dumb luck in that the documents didn't get destroyed as many documents were.

Rejecting this evidence solely because it talks about the supernatural and miraculous is pretty naive from an historical studies perspective.

Hmm. So you conclude that its reasonable to accept claims of the supernatural based on textual evidence? Interesting. Do you apply this evenly across all faiths and beliefs or only for Christian claims? Is vocal testimony as convincing as written testimony or is there some quality to written testimony that makes it superior?

Oh, and where exactly does the supernatural typically fit into a "historical studies perspective"? (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.)

Are you aware that we do not have any equivalent from the ancient world that shows such rapid and early mythological development?

In order to be "aware" of such a thing I would have to study a great many different beliefs and faiths. It would take a very long time, if its even possible. The Elvis mythology only took a few weeks or even days to come about. The legendary exploits of characters of the old American West sprung up within the very lifetimes of those individuals. Mythological stories of Jesus in a tree, the Virgin Mary in a window, bleeding/weeping statues often develop in a matter of mere days.

The modern version of mythologies are often coined as "urban legends". These are plentiful and many seem to spring up almost over night.

In any case, is there some known principle that makes "rapid" mythological development more likely to be true than slow mythological development?

Historians of the ancient world (like A.N. Sherwin-White, and Michael Grant for example) tell us that the formation of all of Christian mythology within the first and second generation of believers is unprecedented. This does not automatically make it true, of course, but it does make it unique, and it is the explanation for this unique historical development that I am most interested in exploring.

Well I think others have effectively argued against any conclusive "uniqueness" for the development of Christianity and I'll let them continue on that point. I for one would be willing to assume the "uniqueness" of Christian development as I don't think it means much. I suspect the development of Islam and Hinduism are both unique with respect to Christianity. Likewise the development of African tribal beliefs, native American Indian beliefs, and Australian Aborigine beliefs are unique from each other and from Christianity as well.

I guess I just not sure what uniqueness gives you since history is full of unique happenings.

I understand all of this max, but what we do have is a mountain of 1st Century testimonial evidence.

A mountain? Is this a big mountain or a little one?

My first question would be to ask why you put so much import on 2000 year old testimonial evidence? Its not like you can cross examine these people or anything. So you have some writings from some believers that claimed some fantastic things. Is this supposed to be meaningful?

We have nothing like this from anywhere else about anything even remotely like the life of a single man.

Well again this would seem to at least prove the devotion, power and wealth of the believers.

I think its more interesting how scant the extra-biblical testimony is regarding these fantastic events that supposedly took place. ( Oh and I am aware of the typical list of writers that are brought forth to counter this, but I am also aware of just how little they actually have to say.)

The crucifixion of Jesus alone is considered to be the best attested event in the ancient world (no less than 5 sources from four different people written within 20-70 years of the events).

Well if a whole 5 people said it happened then it MUST be true…. (sorry but I couldn't resist the sarcasm there… my bad)

I could grant you the assumption that you actually have 5 independent sources but I'm not sure what that'll do for you. I'm kind of puzzled by your lack of skepticism in the face of extraordinary claims. Just how many people have to make a claim, (an extremely fantastic claim), in order for you to believe its true? Assuming the number is 5, (as you seem to indicate) do you then believe in ghosts since far more than 5 people have claimed to have experienced ghosts? Near death experiences? Psychic abilities? Channelers? Healing crystals? I'm sure you'd find at least 5 people to attest to their experiences with Allah or the Buddhist spiritual realm. There are lots of Indians who will attest to having experiences with their ancient ancestor spirits.

But on the other hand, what evidence do you have that these 5 sources used truly independent sources or were independent sources themselves? As I said, very little is known about who actually wrote these documents, when they wrote, etc. And it seems to me that your assertion flies in the face of modern scholarship that puts Mark as the first gospel writing and that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark. John was written later and could easily have been based on the growing myths surrounding Jesus.

I know we tend to not think of this as very impressive, but by any standards, it is pretty amazing when we consider that we have nothing like it about anyone prior to the invention of the press in the 1500's (and later than that actually. Newspapers really only came about in the 18th and 19th Centuries).

Even if I were to agree that this is "impressive" (I don't) I'm not sure where this gets us. Why would any of the things your saying make the claims within these writings true or even likely to be true?

It seems like your saying that, if you have "enough" people make a claim, no matter how fantastic that claim may be, its more likely to be true. (Argumentum ad populum?) I don't believe history or experience will support such a position. Even the idea of what constitutes "enough" people would remain controversial.

We have nothing like the evidence for these other mythologies that we have for Christianity. No one wrote about the lives of people they actually knew, and certainly if they did, we have very little evidence of it. Even after Christianity started, if we look at the written evidence for other cultures and myths, we have almost no manuscripts of real worth testifying to specific events, especially specific events about the life of a single individual that lived in the ancient past, and who never held any social position of any importance in his lifetime.

It seems that this would be an argument from ignorance. The factors that allows us to have Christian documents and not so many documents from other mythologies (assuming this is true as I don't know that its true) are probably quite varied. Just because more writings from other mythologies were not fortunate enough to have survived does not mean those mythologies are less true than the Christian mythology.

Today I can get first-hand testimony of a great many fantasitic things that have no relation to the Christian faith or the Christian God. I wouldn't even have to rely on old writings. I consider that kind of evidence far superior to any you could present, but that doesn't mean I would consider those claims as being true.

As for the Christian writers being actual eye-witnesses or independent "attestation" to certain events (however you wish to word it), you have yet to prove this assertion. I have not seen good reason to view these writings as anything more than myths and legends of an ancient people.