Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 07-13-2009, 09:24 AM

When Paul visited Jerusalem and the church there, he showed a remarkable lack of interest in the places where his Lord and Savior had been crucified and resurrected. This oddity suggests that if there was a historical Jesus Christ, then Paul had not been aware of him. It also fits Jesus mythicism very well.

Another interesting circumstance is the lack of a precise date, like in which year of Pontius Pilate's reign or Tiberius Caesar's reign. The Ides of March are well-known as when Julius Caesar was assassinated; why not something similar for Jesus Christ?

Susan2 · 07-13-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

When Paul visited Jerusalem and the church there, he showed a remarkable lack of interest in the places where his Lord and Savior had been crucified and resurrected. This oddity suggests that if there was a historical Jesus Christ, then Paul had not been aware of him. It also fits Jesus mythicism very well.

Another interesting circumstance is the lack of a precise date, like in which year of Pontius Pilate's reign or Tiberius Caesar's reign. The Ides of March are well-known as when Julius Caesar was assassinated; why not something similar for Jesus Christ?

In reference to the bolded segment of the post:

It seems to me that if Paul is replacing Jesus, he certainly would show a lack of interest. Rather cunningly? Perhaps it is that he not only got in Peter's face, but Jesus' as well, after all he does record such an event. Paul is obviously the new boss in town.

jemand · 07-13-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthurnoll

Skimming through all the responses spawned by this question, I do not see anyone considering another possibility. Lets consider some things here, like the viewpoint of the people who killed Jesus. It is said that they "feared the people". Why? And why, exactly, did they kill him? For blasphemy? Claiming to be the son of God? Do you kill someone for that, or do you just consider him crazy? Pilate saw no harm in him to begin with. Is there something else going on here? Why would rich Jews desperately want him dead, while a Roman was indifferent? And then the Roman agrees with them? What did they tell him?

Seems to me it would logically be something to do with Jewish law, a law or custom the Romans didn't have and didn't take seriously. What could it be?

You really don't have to look far. Jesus said at the beginning of his preaching, that he was there "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord". The "acceptable year of the Lord", is considered by many Bible scholars, to be the Jubilee year. And what is the Jubilee year? It was the third Sabbath, the year following 7 cycles of 7 years, or every 50th year, and what was supposed to happen was a "rest", from the money game. Like starting over with the board game of Monopoly. In the Jubilee, debts were forgiven, servants got out of debt bondage, land was redistributed. Old Jewish law, that a Roman wouldn't have known or cared about, but the Jews who could read, could have known and cared about these laws, supposedly from Moses, a famous figure. Whether a law from Moses was followed or not, would be of great interest to Jews, and the law itself, can easily be seen as political dynamite. Do you think most of the rich Jews wanted a Jubiliee year? About as much as they wanted a hole in the head, I'd say. I think they viewed someone preaching for a Jubilee year and drawing crowds as a very dangerous person. And Pilate would not have known about this feature of Jewish culture. But once told, he might well have seen Jesus as a potentially dangerous man. Romans had had their own serious troubles in the past with people trying to restore greater equality to society. Understanding that, he could have agreed to follow their wishes, and to even go along with their schemes.

And what scheme might that have been? What could they do? They had a difficult problem. They couldn't shut him up with debate. He "put all to silence". They could kill him- but how? And how to deal with the crowds he had been attracting? It is clearly written, that "they feared the people". How about applying the illusionist's basic principle of distracting attention? Make the man into a mighty miracle worker. First tell people they were putting guards on the tomb to prevent the body being stolen and look like he had resurrected himself. "Remember", that he had said words about being resurrected. That they could have been taking such words out of context didn't matter. The context being that Jesus was talking about very long amounts of time before he would be resurrected, and there are also words by others about "a thousand years is as a day to the Lord". So, three thousand years? But most would say that this is just meant to mean a long time, because Jesus was emphatic that "of that day and hour, no one, not even the son of man", knows." So, take those words out of context, tell everyone he had said he would come back to life in three days, plant this story of being afraid that people would steal the body to make it appear he had resurrected himself, put the body in an expensive tomb with a big rock in front of it to make the illusion even more dramatic, and then do exactly what you said you didn't want to happen, steal the body and make it disappear. They had motive and opportunity. The result would be a great distraction of attention. Which obviously worked beautifully. Nobody was talking about Jubilee years anymore, everyone was talking about the empty tomb and about this enormous miracle. Nobody was talking so much about how the evil authorities had killed an innocent man, because after all, he had risen, they had failed to really kill him.

And all sorts of other symbolic stories the man told could be taken literally and make him into even more of a miracle worker, after the fact. The fact that nobody in their right mind would have laid violent hands on a man who really did miracles, is seldom considered, as are some other incidents reported. Like the incident of the people asking Jesus to give them some sign that he was the messiah, and he said there would be no sign but that like Jonah, he would disappear and then come back. If he really could do miracles, why didn't he show them something as they asked?

But letting people bury the man in even more miracles, happened very easily, and conveniently, given the initial push of the illusion of the empty tomb.

And it has continued to work very well for a couple thousand years, here we are, people still passionately arguing about this, and completely ignoring the implications of what a Jubilee year is, or what the logic for that might be. The possibility of miracles is fascinating to many human beings. Illusionists have been playing on that for eons.

Some Christians know what the Jubilee year is, (you can find the details in Leviticus 25) but not many in my experience. And most of those who know what it is, in my experience are still very distracted by the concept of miracles happening. They would much, much rather believe in the possibility of miracles, than to accept the idea that Jesus was just a man talking about rules for society and the consequences for society of ignoring objective arguments. And lots of rich people I'm quite sure, would still much rather let the whole concept of a Jubilee year, and any logic for it, rest quietly buried with Jesus under a thick covering of miracles.

And I think Jesus knew it likely would happen. Because it had happened before. He is recorded as saying, "you polish the tombs of the prophets, but you would have killed them".

I think most who reverence Jesus today, are in awe of an illusion, and many of those who despise him are in disgust about people taking what they feel must have been an illusion, seriously. But dig under the illusions and stories of miracles, resurrect some real possibilities here and you get the concept of a real man, someone preaching the Jubilee year, someone pointing out the inter-dependence of human beings, pointing out the need for cooperative teamwork and rational sharing of wealth and need for rational looking ahead at what resources will be available in the future. Subjects about which a lot of people are apt to get quite passionate about, right to the present.

Arthur Noll

that is an awesome theory! I like that it is harder to fight from a biblical point of view than the "Paul thought of spiritual resurrection-- later turned into literal"

The first objection I heard when talking to people about it was "the Bible lied on the nature of the Pharisees" which isn't exactly the kind of thing a dedicated apologist is really going to be arguing..

Petergdi · 07-13-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Nope, that's an interesting fallacy you have got there.

No, you need to take a class in Logic 101.

I have taken an introductory logic course at university. I had to learn stuff like this .

Logicians use "logic" by itself to mean "formal logic." Most non-logicians use the word to mean "sound reasoning" or what is sometimes called "informal logic." I would be surprised to find a university course entitled anything like "Logic 101" about anything other than formal logic. For this reason, I do not think you have ever taken such a course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Of course it is!! If it is reasonable to expect the mention given knowledge, then its absence creates a reasonable doubt about that knowledge. That is, after all, the whole point of the initial condition.

I think you are confused. The likelihood that someone knowing X should mention X, considered by itself, is not the same as the likelihood that someone not mentioning X does not know X. If the first likelihood is near certain, you have good reason to think the second likelihood high, but if the first likelihood is only "reasonable" then the second likelihood remains unknown. The reason for this is that you do not know the strength of the other possible reasons why the person might not mention X.

In order for an argument from silence to have any strength at all, you need some justification for thinking that the possibility that the silence is due to a lack of knowledge is stronger than other possible reasons for silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

1. If your mom knew your girlfriend, it is reasonable to think she would have mentioned it when you introduced her.

2. Your mother did not mention knowing your girlfriend while you introduced her.

Therefore:
3. It is reasonable to doubt your mother knew your girlfriend.

According to your "reasoning", you would have no basis for that doubt.

You are trying to pick an example where "reasonable" is supposed to be the same value as "near certain," but this is the very thing you objected to earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Your argument requires that the empty tomb is something that anyone who knew of it would normally mention during a discussion of the resurrection.

No, it only requires that it is reasonable to expect Paul to have mentioned an empty tomb if he had known about it.

So earlier you objected that a level of "anyone who knew of it would normally mention" was too high a bar, and that it only had to be "reasonable to expect." But your present example seems intended to indicate a very strong expectation indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

There is no logical connexion between the two "reasonables."

What do you think it means to have a "reasonable expectation"? It means that it is an expectation that one is justified in thinking will be fulfilled.

You earlier made it to be something less than "anyone who knew of it would normally mention."

I think I reasonably took you to mean something rather weaker than the level of expectation that I required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It means one is justified in one's surprise when the expected outcome does not actually occur. And it means one is justified in doubting that the initial conditions of the expectation were ever met (ie "If he knew...").

If you are now defining a "reasonable expectation" to mean one for which "one is justified in doubting that the initial conditions of the expectation were ever met" then your argument is in very serious trouble indeed. Look up "petitio principii".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, they are clearly and quite logically connected. Logic 101, amigo. :wave:

I have very good reason to doubt that you have ever taken such a course.

Peter.

badger3k · 07-14-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I may be horribly wrong, but I had heard that there was at least one Jewish source that made the claim that a body had been stolen. Was this the later (2nd century?) writing that had Jesus as the bastard son of a centurion? (It's the only one that comes to mind off hand, but I haven't managed to read any of the Jewish sources so my knowledge is very lacking in that regard).

I think you mean the Pantera story, which may have started with Celsus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberiu..._Abdes_Pantera

afaik references to Jesus in the Talmuds are all late, like 5th or 6th C

Yeah - that's what I was thinking of. Thanks.

JoeWallack · 07-14-2009, 07:41 AM

JW:
Okay, none of the Christians here want to consider what "Matthew's" possible sources may have been for the claim of guards at the tomb, so let's force the issue:

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew Matthew 28
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	28.1-8. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

JW:
Clearly "Matthew's" source for the basic Empty Tomb story is "Mark". "Source" is an understatement as "Matthew" is going beyond just using it as a source and using it as a base and than editing it. The only known source than for "Matthew" here, "Mark", does not mention any guards. So what exactly was "Matthew"s" source for adding guards? Someone, anyone, Beutahller?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-14-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Point I was trying to make was: Many people have been willing to die for religious beliefs that they felt were true(including religions outside of Christianity). I do not believe that the gospel writers were liars trying to start a new religion. I believe the gospel writers were mistaken, and that they might have been willing to die for mistaken beliefs.

Luke says

(Luke 1:1) Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, (Luke 1:2) like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:4) so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

you think that the author of Luke actually believes that 1) there were many eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, 2) that he interviewed them following all things closely from the beginning 3) so he could create this orderly account.

He doesn't say he interviewed witnesses, nor could he have. What he was referring to as having been "passed on to us" were the source texts he used (i.e. Mark and Q, and possibly others). Luke spoke to no witnesses, nor were his source texts written by witnesses. We simply have no eyewitness testimony of Jesus whatsoever.

Amaleq13 · 07-14-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I have taken an introductory logic course at university.

Now take Humor 101.

Quote:

Logicians use "logic" by itself to mean "formal logic."

And regular people use "Logic 101" to refer to the fundamentals of logical thought. You wasted a lot of time trying to look smart.

Quote:

For this reason, I do not think you have ever taken such a course.

Thank you for another example of how your flawed reasoning leads to unreliable conclusions.

Quote:

But your present example seems intended to indicate a very strong expectation indeed.

To make the concept more comprehensible to you. Apparently without success.

Quote:

I have very good reason to doubt that you have ever taken such a course.

No, you don't. You have the conclusion you wanted from the start regardless of the evidence or argument. You have faith in an empty tomb despite the reasonable doubts about its existence.

That's all there is to it.

sschlichter · 07-14-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Justin was one Christian. You do understand the distinction between "most Christians" and "one Christian," do you not?

I recall clarifying in my post that Justin Martyr wrote much about other Christians, the doctrines of the church, and the life of the church. he certainly spoke for the church at some level. I can guarantee you that 100% of Christians then and now, beleive that Christ rose from the dead.

(1 Cor 15:16) For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. (1 Cor 15:17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.

Quote:

That is only because your dogma says you have to believe in the resurrection in order to be a Christian.

exactly true!

Quote:

Are you assuming that the Dialogue with Trypho is the record of an actual conversation he had?

He says he studied philosophy, not literary criticism or historiography.

literary criticism? your argument can only be rebutted by a 2nd century literary critic or a historian whose focus was his own lifetime? Are you sure you are not just being difficult?

I do not have any reason to assume one way or the other. I do assume that when making his rebuttals, they are logically in response to an accusation. If he is responding to an accusation publicly, I am logically coming to the conclusion that he at least beleived the accusation existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why not? Every ideology accuses its detractors of being deceitful. I have seen skeptics who claim that all Christians are liars.

of course, you are stating what I just said. you are logically concluding a motive behind his point. You accept the point but ignore the fact that the basis for his accusation against christianity was his contrasting view of the resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Christians were claiming that Christ rose from the dead.

If Christians were claiming that Christ rose from the dead then it is evident to these Christians that the gospels were not intentional fiction as you claim.

It is illogical to conclude that early Christians knew it was fictitious and later Christians did not. the gospel writers were writing to those that thought the stories were already true as transmitted orally. Internally, they do not read like fiction, externally, there is no reason to believe that anyone early on thought it was fiction.

What reason do you have for believing the author thought it was fiction?

sschlichter · 07-14-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Luke says

(Luke 1:1) Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, (Luke 1:2) like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:4) so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

you think that the author of Luke actually believes that 1) there were many eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, 2) that he interviewed them following all things closely from the beginning 3) so he could create this orderly account.

He doesn't say he interviewed witnesses, nor could he have. What he was referring to as having been "passed on to us" were the source texts he used (i.e. Mark and Q, and possibly others). Luke spoke to no witnesses, nor were his source texts written by witnesses. We simply have no eyewitness testimony of Jesus whatsoever.

I beleive Luke is referring to his interviewing of eyewitnesses for a couple of reasons. 1) he says he followed things closely from the beginning. I am not sure what that means if it does not mean talking to those that were with Christ in the beginning.

2) He is the same author that wrote Acts and the "we sections" in Acts place Luke among eye-witnesses several times (Peter, the apostles, Mary).

3) there is internal evidence in the text that he did just that, such as this...

(Luke 2:19) But Mary treasured up all these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean.
something only Mary would have known.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2009, 09:24 AM	#161
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	When Paul visited Jerusalem and the church there, he showed a remarkable lack of interest in the places where his Lord and Savior had been crucified and resurrected. This oddity suggests that if there was a historical Jesus Christ, then Paul had not been aware of him. It also fits Jesus mythicism very well. Another interesting circumstance is the lack of a precise date, like in which year of Pontius Pilate's reign or Tiberius Caesar's reign. The Ides of March are well-known as when Julius Caesar was assassinated; why not something similar for Jesus Christ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.