|
Post by Josh on Aug 31, 2008 18:57:12 GMT -8
Mo:
In regard to this hypothetical, thanks for doing this knowing I'm going to pick it apart. I think it's worth it to look at hypothetical alternatives to the Christian account of early Christianity because I think the atheist has to come up with a more compelling hypothetical take on the beginnings of Christianity than the Christian message itself in order to be persuasive.
Perhaps this will help you refine your understanding of the early church (wherever you end up).
Claiming to be the Messiah wasn't blasphemy. What would Jesus' blasphemy have been then?
Why would they have believed this? Based on things Jesus said?
The gospel of Matthew tells us that a Roman guard was placed on the tomb. It also says that the Jews circulated the story that the disciples stole the body while the guard was asleep, and that at the time of the writing of Matthew, that story was still in circulation. Why would the Jews admit that there was a Roman guard if there wasn’t one? And how would the disciples have stolen the body of Jesus under the guard’s noses?
Your scenario also requires that all the disciples and other followers who saw the risen Jesus were in cahoots* and that they all remained in cahoots. If even one of them had admitted the conspiracy, the Jews would have made headlines of it.
It’s much easier to postulate this kind of conspiracy with one or two or maybe three conspirators (such as in Mormon or Muslim** history)- conspirators who were willing to fight for their beliefs.
Peter wasn’t the first martyr. The suffering and martyrdom of the early Christians (conspirators, according to your scenario) started in earnest within 1-3 years after the resurrection.
Most likely at least 2 and more likely 3, and possibly all 4 gospels were written before Peter’s death.
* Definition: Questionable collaboration; secret partnership: an accountant in cahoots with organized crime. **I’m not sure that Islam was a conspiracy, but I’m pretty convinced Mormonism was.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 31, 2008 19:07:58 GMT -8
How so? They didn't gain property and there wasn't ever really any prospect of this and their status was limited to their sub-culture and based on their integrity, which is being called into question by the conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 12:35:19 GMT -8
Granted. Sometimes strange ideas, vis a vis their strangeness can become wildly popular. However, deceptive fabricators still don't usually purposefully hurt their case. I've asked this elsewhere (somewhere) but I didn't get a response: do you lean towards the view that the disciples deceitfully invented a new sect/ religion? Or that they were sincerely mistaken? I don’t think these are the only two options. The Pharisees were the folks with the view closest to the early believers on the matter of resurrection. They affirmed a literal physical resurrection-- they just saw it as only occuring at the final judgment. Now that’s rather surprising. The way I understood you, the resurrection claims were so outlandish for the Jews of that time that it would have be unlikely for anyone to invent such a story. Maybe I got you wrong. But apparently the idea of a resurrection wasn’t that strange back then. Is there any evidence that might give this creedence? And how would postulating a belief such as "resurrection" help toward such a goal? As for the evidence that could give credence. I don’t know. All I know that it is more probable than an actual resurrection. As for the second question: Just look how the thing turned out. If one reads the New Testament, it's clear that the early Christians still believed that God could be wrathful. They didn't attempt to nullify that truth at all. Well, maybe they didn’t want to nullify God’s wrathfulness. Maybe they just wanted to give Judaism a new direction. In regard to the Romans, why did the early Christians and Jesus treat the Romans so kindly and favorably then? One would expect (if political revolution was their motivation) the early Christians to invent a Jesus who delivered woes to the Romans not the Jews. If I’m not mistaken there was at least one Zealot among the disciples (I could be wrong, it’s something I remember from church). The Zealots were rebelling against the Romans. So there might have been at least the hope that Jesus might rough up the scene a bit. Why treat the Romans kindly if they were the actual target? Because a stab in the back is often more effective than a frontal attack. This tactic can be found over and over again in history. What kind [of power] exactly? Any kind. You choose. Maybe they were fed up being hard working fisherman and dreamed of being respected people. You know, gathering a small fellowship, getting some food for free by sympathizers, being listened to. Maybe they just wanted to be heard. Maybe they wanted some attention. Maybe they wanted to be famous. You know, the heros of the village. What do I know, there are a million possibilities. Each one more probable than a resurrection. And was what they ended up "doing" or "saying" the best way to acheive such power? Apparently. Two thousand years later we are still remembering their names and discussing their motives. The problem is that so many of the things they said happened were beyond their ability to be mistaken about. Seeing and touching and eating with a man who walks through walls, watching Jesus feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes isn't something one can be mistaken about. These kinds of details lean heavily toward either deliberate lies, rumor written down, or the truth. Sincere but mistaken eyewitnesses is problematic. Not if they consumed some kind of hallucinogens. The decisive question for me is: Who’s testimony are we facing here? Did the one who touched Jesus wounds (Thomas?) actually write down his experience? Did anyone of the 5000 people who consumed the multiplied bread actually testify that? Or are we relying on the testimony of the gospel authors who wrote that down years later and (maybe?) didn’t even eyewitness the events? I seriously don’t know. Please tell me. We have no evidence of this. And they'd all have to be taking intoxicants. So? I think it is way more probable that a group of friends is taking intoxicants together than that a dead person rises after three days. Please say that you agree. All of them [schizophrenic]? No. Maybe just those who were quoted. Next question. Who of the original 12 is part of the authors of the Bible? What was paid for? By who? Maybe some Roman or Jew could profited from the tumults around Jesus’ execution and paid the disciples to keep the story alive and not let the region rest. Maybe someone who wanted to get Pilate’s job by showing Rome that Pilate wasn’t in control of the region. Speculation, speculation. Again, There are a million possibilities. The general idea that someone sponsored the disciples in order to keep the story alive rings much truer to me than the actual resurrection of a corpse. This [underestimation of the consequences] is one thing that definitely can't be leveled against Peter and Paul who purposefully turned the world upside down. Can’t it? Maybe Peter thought he was safer than he really was. Maybe he had a plan of how to save his skin. You can’t know. What are you thinking they were thinking "it would cause"? A better world? I can imagine scenarios where folks would do this, but I don't see this idea as applicable to the disicples in conisdering the details. What details? Some of the earliest NT texts we have speak of the deliberate and purposeful endurance of mistreatment and torture for the sake of the gospel message (2 Cor. 11:23-29) The believers in Jerusalem faced persecution from the get-go with the stoning of Stephen and the imprisonment of Peter and James. Yeah, but what I was saying is: Maybe they were ready to take the pain and deliberately faced it, yet totally underestimating what this really means. Maybe Peter, with the experience of being crucified upside down, wouldn’t do it all again today. Speculation. Most of the NT was written while most of the eyewitnesses were alive and active in ministry. That doesn’t mean they didn’t try to blow it off. It doesn’t mean either that the eyewitnesses actually had any chance to influence the content of the gospels. I’d like you to fill me in more about the date the gospels were written and what we know about the authors. What you say, namely that it was written while the eyewitnesses were alive contradicts what I have learned in church. I’d like you to tell me if there is unanimous agreement about the scholar you are referring to or if there are still historical scholars who argue that the date was much later. Besides the fact that we have no information at all toward this view- what about the other martyrs? What about all the times that the disciples could have died but didn't recant? What disciples are you referring to? The original 12 or post Jesus disciples? The latter could easily die for their beliefs in the same way Mohammed Atta & company sacrificed themselves at 9/11. Concerning the original twelve: I’d like you to list them and tell me about their destiny in just one sentence if you’d be so kind. Which ones? Some books are more easily shown to be authentic than others. But the most easily shown to be authentic (Paul's letters) contain all the essential Christian beliefs. But Paul wasn’t there when the crucified Jesus appeared to the twelve, was he? He wasn’t there when Jesus walked over the water. He wasn’t there when he turned water into wine and made Lazarus return from the dead. All these events can’t be confirmed by Paul. What do we know about Paul for a fact? The idea that there was a combination of several factors must be your conclusion because it's too complicated to be simply explained. If you do think it's a combination of many factors, don't hide behind that statement, Are you kidding me? I just randomly enumerated a variety of different possibilities of which every single one is more probable than the version of a divine Zombie crawling out of his tomb and you are telling me that I’m hiding behind the conclusion that the single motives could also be combined? I’m not hiding anywhere. If you can’t think of a possible combination I can. Maybe there was a conspiracy going on AND the facts were contorted by hearsay. Maybe Peter tried to save his skin. Maybe the disciples wanted to be famous AND did drugs. Maybe the disciples had something to gain AND tried to save their skins in the last minute. There’s no end to what I’m saying. This could go on forever. Mo: I totally disagree with you here. This just belies a bias against the supernatural. Josh, of course I have a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural is totally contradicting everything that I ever experienced. Do you know James Randi? His organisation offers a million dollars to anyone who can perform anything supernatural under controlled experimental conditions. To the present day, the money is still available. Don’t sell me for a fool. I don’t believe in Dragons, I don’t believe in Fairies, I don’t believe in Vampires and I don’t believe in resurrections after three days of decay. If we want to assume that something like a resurrection is an actual fact and not merely the flapdoodle of some, there must be strong, compelling evidence to back this up. A resurrection claim can’t be compared to other historical happenings. If ancient documents tell us about a war, this is way more probable than a resurrection, because wars are something anyone can experience even today and throughout the entire history. Don’t pretend as if the testimony of a couple of ancient people attesting a resurrection is comparable to the testimony of a couple of ancient people attesting a famine. It simply isn’t. Claiming to be the Messiah wasn't blasphemy. What would Jesus' blasphemy have been then? Uhm, okay… well, I find this rather embarrassing, but… Mark 14:61-64 61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. And John 19:7 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.I would have thought you knew that… Why would they have believed this? Based on things Jesus said? You mean why would the people believe in his divinity? Presumably because of the gossips they heard about him. Maybe they were also impressed by his appearance and eloquence. I guess most of the regular crowd wasn’t too educated and rather supersticious. The gospel of Matthew tells us that a Roman guard was placed on the tomb. It also says that the Jews circulated the story that the disciples stole the body while the guard was asleep, and that at the time of the writing of Matthew, that story was still in circulation. Why would the Jews admit that there was a Roman guard if there wasn’t one? And how would the disciples have stolen the body of Jesus under the guard’s noses? Haha, as if a Roman guard would settle the case. Hm, what would I do in their situation? I guess a bit of money should have worked. Maybe a woman. Maybe they waited until the guard really was asleep. Maybe they waited until the guard had to go to “the toilet”. I think the first one is most likely. I was a soldier. I know for a fact that it just takes a little money or other articles of exchange and nobody has seen anything. Sad but true. Your scenario also requires that all the disciples and other followers who saw the risen Jesus were in cahoots* and that they all remained in cahoots. If even one of them had admitted the conspiracy, the Jews would have made headlines of it. It’s much easier to postulate this kind of conspiracy with one or two or maybe three conspirators (such as in Mormon or Muslim** history)- conspirators who were willing to fight for their beliefs. The less people involved, the better. This much is certain. But given the motives I described in my hypothetical scenario, they had enough reason to conspire. Maybe some of them even gave the secret away. Maybe there were headlines. Unfortunately there were no newspapers at that time. Maybe the word of the conspiracy never made it to those who were powerful enough to make this information last. Maybe there were documents confirming the conspiracy but they were destroyed by later generations with special interests. If I was the Pope and would get my hands on such documents I wouldn’t have to think twice what to do with them. All this is more probable than a resurrection. Peter wasn’t the first martyr. The suffering and martyrdom of the early Christians (conspirators, according to your scenario) started in earnest within 1-3 years after the resurrection. So? Most likely at least 2 and more likely 3, and possibly all 4 gospels were written before Peter’s death. Again I’d like you to tell me more about that. However, according to my scenario it doesn’t matter whether Peter was alive or dead. How so? They didn't gain property and there wasn't ever really any prospect of this and their status was limited to their sub-culture and based on their integrity, which is being called into question by the conspiracy theory. What did they do before they met Jesus? Fishermen, craftsmen? Following Christ opened doors for them. They could escape their dull businesses, travel, gain influence on people. Maybe they would come to a village and be received in the house of a follower who would provide them with food and maybe a bit of money for the journey. It isn’t the most unpleasant prospect. The more the movement grew, the more influence they gained. That they might have been conspirers doesn’t mean they were bad people. Maybe they wanted a better world and deserved being received and fed even though they actually lied to people. The decisive thing is: This is merely ONE scenario I could think of. We can change passages and make them fit, we can invent entirely new passages. We can discuss the speculations for ever. The scenario, the way I described is more probable than the claims of the New Testament. The Chances to manipulate decisive passages are numerous. The possibility that there might have been counterstatements and other evidences against the Christian claims, maybe even solid proof is undeniable. The more we go into this, the more you will see how fragmentary the historical evidence about the eyewitnesses is. That we barely know anything about the authors. That all this stuff isn’t trustworthy.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2008 9:53:07 GMT -8
Mo, You're just straight up killing me with all these posts. How do you have so much time on your hands? There's no way I can keep up with you!!! I have to pick and choose and leave some time for myself to post on other threads that I'm interested in exploring as well So take a mini-vacation- Spain, perhaps? Oh, yeah, that makes me think, YOU haven't responded to MY question on the "favorite places in the world" thread on the Ponderings forum. You're slacking, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 17, 2008 11:54:02 GMT -8
Mo, You're just straight up killing me with all these posts. How do you have so much time on your hands? There's no way I can keep up with you!!! I have to pick and choose and leave some time for myself to post on other threads that I'm interested in exploring as well So take a mini-vacation- Spain, perhaps? Oh, yeah, that makes me think, YOU haven't responded to MY question on the "favorite places in the world" thread on the Ponderings forum. You're slacking, buddy. Josh, the sad thing is that I haven't got the time AT ALL. I'm writing here instead of working on my thesis. This is total madness and I'm so gonna regret it as the deadline approaches. Here is my proposition: take your time! Write your replies down in MS Word but don't post them yet. Let's reduce the dialogue to just one thread, you choose. By the time I'm done with my thesis, you can throw all the gathered replies at me. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2008 18:20:13 GMT -8
Moritz:
OK, I've got time for this.
Because of passages in the OT (notably Daniel 12), most* Jews of Jesus' day believed in a resurrection of all dead humans at the end of history- at the final judgment.
What was unusual about the early Christian beliefs about Jesus' resurrection was their claim that Jesus would raise in history (rather than at the final judgment), appear in the flesh but in a radically different kind of bodily existence (as the “firstfruits” of the final resurrection as Paul would put it), and then ascend to the Father. This particular idea of resurrection doesn’t have precedent in Jewish (or pagan for that matter) thought.
*A notable exception to this was the sect known as the Saducees, which believed in the Mosaic law but not in the existence of heaven, hell, resurrection, angels, demons, etc..
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2008 19:58:45 GMT -8
Mo, I'm not going to respond to every detail indiviudally (although there are a few details to clear up). I have a general response which covers much of your rejoinders. First, the few details: 1.Mo: Well, I'm agreed that some of Jesus disciples probably followed him because they hoped he would be a political revolutionary (esp. Simon Zealotes). But that was just early on. It didn't take long before folks began to realize that Jesus wasn't aspiring to political revolution. As to your "stab in the back", I'm actually in agreement with you in one way- the Christian message was a challenge to Rome (and was eventually perceived as a threat). However, it wasn't the threat of violent overthrow. It was the radical idea that Jesus was Lord and not Caesar. So, yeah, there was some "sticking it to the man" but in a very unlikely way- in a way that involved a "kingdom not of this world", "loving your enemies", "praying for those who persecute you", "not returning evil for evil", "praying for the rulers and authorities and submitting to them as much as possible". This wasn't going to be, on it's own, a crowd-drawing manifesto. Yet it was before long because the disciples convinced folks that the resurrection was credible. 2.I wrote: To which you responded: Your response here might be a good answer if I had asked "were they successful", but I asked was it the "best way"- in other words, if you were plotting to acheive power, would their "strategies" have made sense. 3.Since you're asking a lot about specific authorship and eyewitness issues, there are some threads already started along those lines: For the authorship and dating of the gospels specifically: www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=reliable&action=display&thread=408(There's a lot more follow-up that could be made to that post) For the authorship and dating of the entire NT*: www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=reliable&action=display&thread=405*This thread has a side-track discussion between Hume and I that's pretty much about the whole "Chinese whisper" thing. You'll probably like that one because he called me out of some things and helped me scale back my position a bit. Also, there's the other thread that actually (I think) came out of our original discussions that I think it helpful for this whole line of conversation: Jesus: the Undisputed Facts4.Mo: I don't want to neglect this. Perhaps it would be better on one of those threads? It'll take some time. 5.That's a great question. I think that might be a good separate thread too. 6.It's not just the fact that some folks "testified".... it's all the attedant details, the sum total of facts and evidence that points toward their testimony being trustworthy. 7.First off, the Matthew text claims there was a group of guards and that they sealed the tomb securely. If one doubts Matthew on this, then one has to ask why he says that the Jews were still claiming that the disciples stole the body rather than claiming that the Christians made the story up out of whole cloth. This is decent evidence that the Romans did guard the tomb and seems to push us more towards seeing that the disciples did steal it, but then, imo, that presents even more problems than the theory that they made the whole thing up. 8.You wondered why I wrote: I said this in response to your theory that maybe the disciples in the beginning didn't know what kind of trouble their claims would get them in, being that Peter, for instance, died for his faith so many years later. But from the get-go they were aware of the the kind of suffering that would come their way. That was the point. More on this kind of thing in a bit...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2008 20:59:30 GMT -8
After I said that claiming to be the Messiah wasn't blasphemy, you responded:
But the answer is quite clear.
The Pharisees believed in and hoped for a Messiah to come. At earlier points in the Gospels they even send messengers to ask Jesus if he were claiming to be the Messiah and if so, what signs would he produce to prove it?
The problem the Pharisees had with Jesus wasn't that he was claiming to be the Messiah, but that he had done blasphemous things (from their perspective) AND was claiming to be the Messiah.
If you go back just a few verses in Mark (and also in Matthew) you see that one of these "blasphemies" was Jesus' words about the Temple being destroyed (Mark 14:57-59 and see Mark 13:2 and John 2:19 for what he did actually say) His dismissal of the importance of the physical temple was an incredible affront to the Pharisees. From their point of view the Messiah would never had said such things.
Another blasphemy Jesus committed, according to the Pharisees, was forgiving sins (as if He were God):
Luke 5:21
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
This also was an affront to the Temple cult/ sacrificial system.
Getting Jesus to say he was the Messiah was, in their view, a trap. Because if He could be shown to have committed blasphemy, then it was all the worse if He said He was the Messiah. The Messiah would, in their view, never do or say these things.
Also, Jesus really enflamed them with his "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One/ coming on the clouds" because he was saying not only was he the Messiah, but he would be their judge.
The view that the main reason that Pharisees wanted rid of Jesus was because of how he challenged the Temple cult is a pretty well respected view by Jesus scholars of both conservative (Wright, for example) and critical (Borg, for example) stripes.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2008 21:18:21 GMT -8
Okay, Mo, here's the main point I want to make. You've considered a huge variety of alternative possibilities to the Gospel claims.
Here's a list of possibilities you’ve considered:
There are other options other than that the disciples were lying or sincerely mistaken.
They wanted to reform Judaism (or the Jewish view of God) for the better
They felt oppressed and wanted to fight or challenge the Pharisees or the Roman occupying force.
They strived for some kind of power.
They truly believed but were mistaken.
They took intoxicants.
They were schizophrenic or paranoid or had any other kind of distortion of perception.
They had something to gain.
They were paid to lie (by some Romans in competition with Pilate perhaps)
They underestimated the results of their claims or the amount of suffering they would face.
They were willing to sacrifice themselves for a known falsehood.
They recanted but this was never recorded.
They hatched a conspiracy.
Actual events were contorted by hearsay and oral tradition.
The solution is a combination of several of the above possibilities.
They wanted to be respected and listened to.
They wanted to be famous heros.
They wanted to get free meals.
They took hallucinogens (as a group)
Peter had a plan to save his skin.
The disciples bribed the guards at Jesus’ tomb with money, sexual favors or waited until they went to sleep or relieved themselves.
Documents confirming the conspiracy were destroyed.
The disciples hoped to escape their dull lives.
I applaud you for leaving very few stones unturned.
However, in response to this quote of mine:
you said I was accusing you of "hiding behind" the idea that there might be a combination of factors.
But that's not true. If you note, you cut my sentence off with a comma. Here's what was after that comma:
What I was saying (and if it needs clearing up, let it be clear) is that if the Gospels stories are wrong, of course there must be a combination of alternative factors. What I was saying was don't just say that- rather, produce a complex alternative theory that makes more sense of all the relevent facts and evidence than the Gospel claims.
Obviously, all your alternative theories I listed above cannot all be simultaneously true. In other words, you can't use them all together to make a better alternative story.
Attacking single elements of the Christian story isn't enough imo. A good rebuttal of New Testament claims would involve a single (or multiple) completely coherent set of cohesive claims.
Now, I know that it's not fair to ask of you what people devote their whole lives to attempting. But I want you to think about sticking with a particular set of theories and testing it out until it is either proved to be sound or needs to be discarded. If you keep changing things up with contradictory alternatives then there's no way to analyze the strength of your alternative story.
Again, I have never seen an whole alternative theory that makes better sense of all the facts and evidence.
Lastly, summing up, if you want to compare the probability of the resurrection claim to an alternative theory, that alternative theory must be a fully fleshed out cohesive theory as I'm arguing above- not just an objection to one element of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 26, 2009 22:35:56 GMT -8
Earlier I wrote: Mo, in light of this recent discovery this argument may need to be retracted or seriously modified. Don't say I'm never willing to concede anything!
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 1, 2009 10:52:50 GMT -8
Mo, in light of this recent discovery this argument may need to be retracted or seriously modified. Don't say I'm never willing to concede anything! This entire passage doesn't mean anything to me. You can keep it or modify it, I don't think it's important. What I was saying was don't just say that- rather, produce a complex alternative theory that makes more sense of all the relevent facts and evidence than the Gospel claims. Attacking single elements of the Christian story isn't enough imo. A good rebuttal of New Testament claims would involve a single (or multiple) completely coherent set of cohesive claims. Now, I know that it's not fair to ask of you what people devote their whole lives to attempting. But I want you to think about sticking with a particular set of theories and testing it out until it is either proved to be sound or needs to be discarded. If you keep changing things up with contradictory alternatives then there's no way to analyze the strength of your alternative story. Again, I have never seen an whole alternative theory that makes better sense of all the facts and evidence. Lastly, summing up, if you want to compare the probability of the resurrection claim to an alternative theory, that alternative theory must be a fully fleshed out cohesive theory as I'm arguing above- not just an objection to one element of the story. Josh, I don’t think it is necessary to make up coherent alternatives. Any alternative is more coherent than the resurrection story after all. Man, the history of mankind is full of balloneyish stories like the one of Christ. Just because this one happened to be more successful* it doesn’t mean there’s a particle of truth to it. If I had to construct decent alternatives to every bogus people come up with, I think I’d be rather busy. You seem to hold the view, that every story deserves its fair shake no matter how outlandish or obviously made up the claim. But something tells me you don’t live up to that. I guess, and I could be wrong, that you haven’t put a fraction of your time and energy checking out alternative religious claims. Let’s talk about Jim Jones and his bunch of crackpots. Jim Jones claimed he was the reincarnation of Jesus and Lenin. His followers witnessed him performing miracles like healing and walking on the water. Hundreds of them committed suicide at his command. Now, something tells me you don’t believe he really was the unification of Jesus and Lenin, do you? What does his story mean to you? *due to a lot of fortunate circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2009 21:56:08 GMT -8
Which passage? The link or the comments I made above??? Geez. Throw a guy a bone!
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 4, 2009 10:53:08 GMT -8
Which passage? The link or the comments I made above??? Geez. Throw a guy a bone! So... what do you think I'm supposed to do with that bone? Your concession that the claim that Jesus would raise in history perhaps wasn't really a new concept appears of little worth to me. What does it tell us about the reliability of the gospel? It's like as if I wanted to sell the fact that I'm willing to assume that the historic figure "Jesus" really existed as a big concession. Apart from this not being a generous concession, it doesn't bring us a single iota closer to the core of the question. You’ve claimed that the resurrection idea of the followers of Jesus was so outlandish for the Jews of that time that it would have been unlikely for anyone to invent such a story. Now it seems to turn out that it wasn’t a new idea. What do you expect me to do now? Triumph? I guess you haven’t changed your mind the least bit, did you? I guess you haven’t come to doubt the story, have you? On the contrary, I sense that the next thing coming is that you are going to sell this resurrection in stone story as another fulfilled prophesy. Anyway, what do you think of the Jim Jones story?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 4, 2009 13:24:56 GMT -8
I dunno, maybe think, "gee, I'm glad Josh can see that he might have to retract an argument in light of fresh evidence".
I mean, I agree with you that this discovery doesn't change the overall debate (it's as much a postive evidence for some Christian claims as it is counter-evidence for others). But, hey, I was staking a sizable argument on it and it may turn out that I need to retract it.
Well, for anyone who is interested in the implications of the discovery, jump back over there for more discussion.
As to whether I would take this as a new "fulfilled" prophecy, no.
However, it does occur to me that I'd always wondered why the Jews didn't have a more developed expectation that the Messiah would die and come back to life based on Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 53:10-11. It appears that some of them did.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 13, 2009 4:11:12 GMT -8
I dunno, maybe think, "gee, I'm glad Josh can see that he might have to retract an argument in light of fresh evidence". Okay, I'm glad about that Now let's move on to Jim Jones please. The point is this: One of your main arguments is that Peter claimed to have witnessed Jesus divinity and was hence willing to take martyrdom. You couldn't find a plausible reason why someone would be willing to die for a lie. Now let's look at those hundrets of Jim Jones followers (and there are many more suicide sects) who committed suicide at his command and who claimed to have seen him performing miracles and who believed he was the reincarnation of Jesus and Lenin. How do you explain that?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 13, 2009 22:30:20 GMT -8
OK, the Jim Jones response.
mo wrote:
No, I don’t hold this view. Whether one should attempt to construct a decent alternative to a radical claim is determined by two things: 1) the gravity, seriousness, or import of the claim and 2) the preponderance of favorable evidence for the claim.
mo wrote:
Well, I don’t know how I’d quantify it. I’m sure I’ve put less time into alternative religious claims than into Christianity by now. But there have been periods of my life where I did attempt to do so in a substantial way and even to this day I really try my best to think from alternate viewpoints in order to test out their veracity, and welcome hearing from and debating with others from differing viewpoints.
But, as I said above, I think there are very few alternative religious claims that have the gravity/ import of the Christian claim. If Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Ba’hai, atheism, or even Islam is right, then what does it matter if I’m wrong if I live a “good life”? It doesn’t really.
mo wrote:
The Jim Jones story fails my 2nd criteria- there is not a preponderance of favorable evidence for his claims. In fact, there's a preponderance of evidence against them.
mo wrote:
I don't recall saying I couldn't find a plausible reason why someone would be willing to die for a lie. I said that people don't willingly die for things they know to be a lie. Two things must be added for fuller treatment of this-
1) we must be talking about sane people and 2) Arguably, if he was still sane, Jim Jones would not have committed suicide unless he believed that the authorities were soon going to capture him. I believe that's correct in his situation, right? And suicide is a lot different than willingly being executed.
As to the followers who believed in Jones, they simply believed in a lie.
|
|