Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KnightWhoSaysNi · 08-02-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
The time in between the writing of the gospels and the death of Jesus was too short for legends to arise.

This is something I've heard quite a lot from Christian apologists. Does anyone here know where they get this argument from? What scholars do they cite in support of this form of argument? Does this claim of "too short a time for legends to arise" after a particular event have a lot of support by professional historians?

If we look at our more recent past like Roswell, Billy the Kid, Joseph Smith and golden tablets, and others, the claim makes little sense. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Grumpy · 08-02-2002, 03:51 PM

How fast can a legend, or a religion, take root?

Take one example from life: The Mormon (LDS) church traces its <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1820_1831/eom.htm" target="_blank">founding</a> to Joseph Smith's "First Vision" in 1820. He allegedly received the gold plates from which he translated the "Book of Mormon" in 1827.

By 1831, he already had a group of followers migrating cross-country. The church was flourishing by the time of Smith's (ignominious) death in 1844.

How fast is that? Twenty-four years? Seventeen? Less? And since speed of transmission is proportionate to accuracy (so we've heard), the LDS version of Christianity must therefore be the correct one.

Commence the spirit baptisms!

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2002, 04:08 PM

[QB]I am an atheist, have been for maybe 6 years now, but i still have Christian friends who think i am being irrational in my atheism in light of historical "proof" of Jesus's resurrection and so on.[/b]

The time in between the writing of the gospels and the death of Jesus was too short for legends to arise.

Most people have already mentioned that that is plenty of time, but I'll throw out another issue: the gospels claims are reliable because they are close in time to the events they report. How do we know that they are close in time? Because they are reliable!

See the circle there? What if the crucifixion never happened, or did not occur under Pilate, or was not a crucifixion? There were at least two stories circulating in the first century, one that it happened under Herod, one that it happened under Pilate. Luke tried to reconcile these with his shift of Jesus back-n-forth behind Herod and Pilate, but the Gospel of Peter said Herod did it.

He appeared to 500 people after his resurrection!

A common missionary lie. No evidence of this.

Why would the Apostles spread the word of the resurrection if it it was a lie? No one would die for something they knew was false

People do it all the time. Being religious is an identity, not a just a belief stance. I can name literally dozens of colonial rebellions in which people followed leaders who lied to them, and must have known that the magic systems they used did not work, but went on for years anyway. For example, in the Maji-maji revolt in Tanzania at the turn of the century, followers believd magic water would protect them from bullets. Despite obvious failures on the battlefield, things nevertheless went on for years. My personal favorite example is the modern one of Alice Lakawena, who told her followers similar stories about magic powers to make weapons out of sticks and rocks, but whose personal bodyguard was armed with AK-47s! People will kill themselves rather than admit they erred in a matter of such cruciality.

Another good topic is the Rabbi Schneerson, the modern lubavitcher messiah, and see how he is already being credited with miracles and messiahship by a minority of his followers, even though he had a stroke that incapacitated him and died a natural death, and even though a large number of followers do not believe he was the messiah or credit him with miraculous powers.

Vorkosigan

Grumpy · 08-03-2002, 10:02 AM

I just thought of a counter-example, Vorkosigan. Remember the story of the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/29/twins/index.html" target="_blank">Htoo brothers</a> who led a rebellion in Myanmar a couple years ago? Their followers claimed the pre-teens had magical powers given to them by God (FWIW, they're Christian). In the end, the rebellion didn't go so well, and the boys gave up. They later denied they were divine. No sense dying for a lie, right?

So where's the sense in dying for a hat?

Under the category of "dying for a lie," I file the case of the <a href="http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/" target="_blank">fez uprising</a> in Turkey in the 1920s. Men died in riots and were tortured in prisons because they resisted the government ban on the traditional fez. Truly, the hat of hats.

GunnerJ · 08-03-2002, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Why would the Apostles spread the word of the resurrection if it it was a lie? No one would die for something they knew was false

This is a somewhat subtle argument that can't simply be brushed off with tales of other martyrs in other religions. The argument is not simply "Why would someone die for a false belief?" but, "If they were in a position to know the truth about a professed belief, why would they die for it if it was in fact a lie?" The easy counter is to ask him to name names. What people were in a position to know whether or not Jesus has ressurected, and who were not only put to death because they claimed Jesus rose form the dead, but could have saved themselves by recanting? Answering this is a much harder task for the apologist to surmount than the existance of martyrs in other religions, who may not have been in a position to know the truth.

King Arthur · 08-03-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

He appeared to 500 people after his resurrection!

<strong>
A common missionary lie. No evidence of this.</strong>

Lie? And you have proof of this lie, Vorkosigan? Is there some ancient writer that I don't know of who said "No, there were not 500 people who saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection"??

There are ancient manuscripts, called the New Testament, which say that Jesus was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. There's your proof. It's more than you've got against.

You are so stinkin' dogmatic, Vorkosigan. You don't have to be. There is no threat here to your life. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can be critical without being dogmatic. Try, "Well, 500 is probably too many", or "well, maybe someone else appeared to them whom they thought was Jesus". Why a lie??

Grumpy · 08-03-2002, 02:20 PM

The testimony of 500 witnesses would be powerful evidence indeed. However, an unverifiable claim that 500 witnesses saw something is practically worthless.

Why should it take 500 witnesses to make a persuasive case anyway? All it takes is one witness to provide proxy testimony of the 500 to convince most Christians.

The claim itself may not be a lie, but it has the same shape as a lie.

xeren · 08-03-2002, 02:27 PM

King Arthur,

Vorkosigan may have been a little overbearing in that instance, but think about what you said:

Quote:

Is there some ancient writer that I don't know of who said "No, there were not 500 people who saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection"??

Think about this: If 500 people didn't actually see jesus after he came back from the dead, then obviously no one would write about it not happening! And please don't tell me that if someone had made up the story of Jesus appearing to 500 people, jesus' followers would have been all over the lie, he didn't have some goon-squad who's only purpose in life was to go around destroying myths all day every day.

Quote:

There are ancient manuscripts, called the New Testament, which say that Jesus was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. There's your proof. It's more than you've got against.

Vorkosigan doesn't have to have proof against it. When you make a positive assertion like the 500 men thing, the burden of proof is on you.

xeren · 08-03-2002, 02:59 PM

Rimstalker,
You said

Quote:

This is a somewhat subtle argument that can't simply be brushed off with tales of other martyrs in other religions. The argument is not simply "Why would someone die for a false belief?" but, "If they were in a position to know the truth about a professed belief, why would they die for it if it was in fact a lie?" The easy counter is to ask him to name names. What people were in a position to know whether or not Jesus has ressurected, and who were not only put to death because they claimed Jesus rose form the dead, but could have saved themselves by recanting? Answering this is a much harder task for the apologist to surmount than the existance of martyrs in other religions, who may not have been in a position to know the truth.

Your post piqued my curiousity, but i din't quite understand exactly what you were getting at, do you mind further explaining this naming names thing to me?

Vorkosigan · 08-03-2002, 03:16 PM

I just thought of a counter-example, Vorkosigan. Remember the story of the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/29/twins/index.html" target="_blank">Htoo brothers</a> who led a rebellion in Myanmar a couple years ago? Their followers claimed the pre-teens had magical powers given to them by God (FWIW, they're Christian). In the end, the rebellion didn't go so well, and the boys gave up. They later denied they were divine. No sense dying for a lie, right

They were smart. A lot of them never admit it was a lie. Alice Lakawena eventually did too, as I recall.

where's the sense in dying for a hat?

Under the category of "dying for a lie," I file the case of the <a href="http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/" target="_blank">fez uprising</a> in Turkey in the 1920s. Men died in riots and were tortured in prisons because they resisted the government ban on the traditional fez. Truly, the hat of hats.

LOL. That's what I mean about identity.

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

08-02-2002, 03:51 PM	#12
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	How fast can a legend, or a religion, take root? Take one example from life: The Mormon (LDS) church traces its <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1820_1831/eom.htm" target="_blank">founding</a> to Joseph Smith's "First Vision" in 1820. He allegedly received the gold plates from which he translated the "Book of Mormon" in 1827. By 1831, he already had a group of followers migrating cross-country. The church was flourishing by the time of Smith's (ignominious) death in 1844. How fast is that? Twenty-four years? Seventeen? Less? And since speed of transmission is proportionate to accuracy (so we've heard), the LDS version of Christianity must therefore be the correct one. Commence the spirit baptisms!

08-02-2002, 04:08 PM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QB]I am an atheist, have been for maybe 6 years now, but i still have Christian friends who think i am being irrational in my atheism in light of historical "proof" of Jesus's resurrection and so on.[/b] The time in between the writing of the gospels and the death of Jesus was too short for legends to arise. Most people have already mentioned that that is plenty of time, but I'll throw out another issue: the gospels claims are reliable because they are close in time to the events they report. How do we know that they are close in time? Because they are reliable! See the circle there? What if the crucifixion never happened, or did not occur under Pilate, or was not a crucifixion? There were at least two stories circulating in the first century, one that it happened under Herod, one that it happened under Pilate. Luke tried to reconcile these with his shift of Jesus back-n-forth behind Herod and Pilate, but the Gospel of Peter said Herod did it. He appeared to 500 people after his resurrection! A common missionary lie. No evidence of this. Why would the Apostles spread the word of the resurrection if it it was a lie? No one would die for something they knew was false People do it all the time. Being religious is an identity, not a just a belief stance. I can name literally dozens of colonial rebellions in which people followed leaders who lied to them, and must have known that the magic systems they used did not work, but went on for years anyway. For example, in the Maji-maji revolt in Tanzania at the turn of the century, followers believd magic water would protect them from bullets. Despite obvious failures on the battlefield, things nevertheless went on for years. My personal favorite example is the modern one of Alice Lakawena, who told her followers similar stories about magic powers to make weapons out of sticks and rocks, but whose personal bodyguard was armed with AK-47s! People will kill themselves rather than admit they erred in a matter of such cruciality. Another good topic is the Rabbi Schneerson, the modern lubavitcher messiah, and see how he is already being credited with miracles and messiahship by a minority of his followers, even though he had a stroke that incapacitated him and died a natural death, and even though a large number of followers do not believe he was the messiah or credit him with miraculous powers. Vorkosigan

08-03-2002, 10:02 AM	#14
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	I just thought of a counter-example, Vorkosigan. Remember the story of the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/29/twins/index.html" target="_blank">Htoo brothers</a> who led a rebellion in Myanmar a couple years ago? Their followers claimed the pre-teens had magical powers given to them by God (FWIW, they're Christian). In the end, the rebellion didn't go so well, and the boys gave up. They later denied they were divine. No sense dying for a lie, right? So where's the sense in dying for a hat? Under the category of "dying for a lie," I file the case of the <a href="http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/" target="_blank">fez uprising</a> in Turkey in the 1920s. Men died in riots and were tortured in prisons because they resisted the government ban on the traditional fez. Truly, the hat of hats.

08-03-2002, 02:20 PM	#17
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	The testimony of 500 witnesses would be powerful evidence indeed. However, an unverifiable claim that 500 witnesses saw something is practically worthless. Why should it take 500 witnesses to make a persuasive case anyway? All it takes is one witness to provide proxy testimony of the 500 to convince most Christians. The claim itself may not be a lie, but it has the same shape as a lie.

08-03-2002, 03:16 PM	#20
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I just thought of a counter-example, Vorkosigan. Remember the story of the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/29/twins/index.html" target="_blank">Htoo brothers</a> who led a rebellion in Myanmar a couple years ago? Their followers claimed the pre-teens had magical powers given to them by God (FWIW, they're Christian). In the end, the rebellion didn't go so well, and the boys gave up. They later denied they were divine. No sense dying for a lie, right They were smart. A lot of them never admit it was a lie. Alice Lakawena eventually did too, as I recall. where's the sense in dying for a hat? Under the category of "dying for a lie," I file the case of the <a href="http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/fez_2/" target="_blank">fez uprising</a> in Turkey in the 1920s. Men died in riots and were tortured in prisons because they resisted the government ban on the traditional fez. Truly, the hat of hats. LOL. That's what I mean about identity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.