The root of Christianity

[DrZoidberg]

Based on the ideological premise that such a thing cannot happen, because it would be superhuman, which must be ruled out a priori. Understood. If you start with that ideological premise, a resurrection event is ruled out. But if you set that premise aside, allow whatever is shown by the evidence, or the facts we have from the time, then such an event has to be allowed as a possible explanation for the emergence of the new Christ cult(s) in the 1st century, from which the Christian "Church" finally evolved.

. . . wasn't historic at all, and seems not to have been key to the earliest christian (small-'c') church in Judaea.

How do you know what was "key" to the church(es) in Judaea? What written record from the time do you base that on? It's true there are modern sources which say things like that, but what 1st-century sources do they base this on?

One main 1st-century source for those church(es) in Judaea is Paul, writing his epistles around 50-55 AD (1 Corinthians and Galatians). He says those church leaders witnessed the resurrection of Jesus -- i.e., the 2 main leaders (Peter (Cephas) and James). He says this Resurrection event was important for all the early Christ believers. What 1st-century written record is there which says it was not important? Is there any 1st-century written record left by the "church in Judaea" which contradicts Paul?

Do you possibly mean the Epistles of James and Jude, which say nothing about anything Jesus did? These were teaching documents only, or instructional matter for the religious community probably sometime 30-60 years after Jesus was gone. They thought Jesus was important for some reason, because they identify him as "Lord" and themselves as his "slave" or servant. Paul says they had witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, which would explain why they took him as "Lord" and themselves as "slave" to him. What other explanation is there for them to relegate themselves to this inferior "slave" position?

Or, what other 1st-century written source is there showing what was "key" for the church(es) in Judaea? and saying the Resurrection was not important?

It was St. Paul the Evangelist — who never met the living Jesus and had little interest in his teachings — who founded the Christian (large-'C') religion.

There were other "Christians" who were not directly part of Paul's activity, probably even many who knew nothing of Paul.

For all of them there was the same interest in Jesus who had been arrested and crucified and buried and then risen back to life. Maybe you're right that Paul's main interest was not "in his teaching" but rather in his act of resurrecting, after being killed, and then "ascending" to a place of high power from which Paul says he offers eternal life.

However you explain it, Paul's "religion" is nothing without Christ as the center of it, having power and offering eternal life.

And the idea that Jesus was God wasn't agreed until the 4th-century Council of Nicaea, with Emperor Constantine the Great banishing those Bishops who disagreed.

No, this idea and others like it were agreed (and disagreed also) long before the 4th century. The Council confirmed some of these earlier ideas, based mostly on the 1st-century written sources.

The earliest writings about Jesus — the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q source — barely mention any Resurrection.

No, all the earliest writings about what happened mention the Resurrection. The Mark reference is more brief than the others.

The hypothetical Q source has not been identified. If you define it as a "sayings"-only document, then you automatically exclude the Resurrection from it because this is an event rather than a saying. But you can't simply define something into non-importance -- i.e., by defining Q as sayings-only and then declaring that the Resurrection must be artificial because it's absent from Q.

There is no agreed listing of texts distinguishing all the Q text from the Markan text and the Luke-only text and the Matthew-only text. Different interpretations arrange these text sources differently, so there's no agreed standard for saying what Q includes and what it excludes, unless you just define it to exclude what you want to exclude from it.

"The earliest writings about Jesus" that are confirmed are the Paul epistles, which very prominently mention the Resurrection.

The post-Crucifixion appearances of Jesus in the final 12 verses of Mark are thought to be late additions. An empty tomb story got embellished with fictions.

There's probably embellishment. Any true event which has impact is likely to undergo embellishment, so that it becomes difficult to separate fact from fiction.

We can try to separate out everything but the bare essentials. E.g., Paul's statement could be condensed: "Christ died, . . . he was buried, . . . he was raised, . . . he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve, etc." (1 Cor. 15:3-5). All the accounts say this, though Mark only predicts the appearances to happen later. Then all include their different details, which partly harmonize and partly contradict the others. Which is normal with important historical events about which people have strong feelings.

That the story got changed in the details from one account to another does not change the basic fact of the crucifixion, death and resurrection, which is the starting point for them all.

This article in The Atlantic discusses the Q source, and therefore the earliest non-Pauline christian religion.

the authors of Q did not view Jesus as "the Christ" (that is, as "the anointed one," the promised Messiah), or as the redeemer who had atoned for their sins by his crucifixion, or as the son of God who rose from the dead.

The "authors" in question, assuming we can identify them in some way, probably had differing interpretations of all the above, and not ascribing rigidly to the above doctrines. But also not repudiating them, especially not the Resurrection, which all our sources say was part of the Jesus narrative.

Again, Paul says the Resurrection was witnessed by them (those earliest -- around 30 AD), or that they witnessed his death but then saw him alive afterwards. There's no written record, e.g., Q etc., saying they did not know of the Resurrection, i.e., denying Paul's claim that they did know of it or witnessed it. Any theory that they didn't know of it is based on modern conjecture only, not on any 1st-century written sources.

Instead, they say, Q's authors esteemed Jesus as simply a roving sage who preached a life of possessionless wandering and full acceptance of one's fellow human beings, no matter how disreputable or marginal.

This could be correct -- it's conjecture, maybe good conjecture. But nothing about it excludes the likelihood of the Resurrection also. There's nothing about Q that rules out the Resurrection or that contradicts Paul. All that rules out the Resurrection is the ideological premise that it could not have happened, and also that hopefully it did not happen, because such things should not happen. Other than this, there's no reason to exclude the Resurrection as an event as reported in the Gospel accounts and also in Paul, which are our only definite reports about what happened.

In that respect, they say, he was a Jesus for the America of the third millennium, a Jesus with little supernatural baggage but much respect for cultural diversity.

It's OK to modify one's interpretation of Jesus to fit modern worldviews. But none of that can change the hard facts of what happened in 30 AD. A reported event from the 1st century cannot simply be erased from history by modern feelings people have about what should have happened back then. It's more honest to simply take the reported events from the past, and then work the modern beliefs into the picture as best as they can fit, without pretending to correct the past record by changing it according to what someone today thinks ought to have happened instead of what did actually happen, based on the accounts from that time, including any new findings.

Of course this can include corrections, if mistakes or discrepancies in the sources are discovered. But the reported facts of what happened 2000 years ago cannot be based on modern philosophizing about what should have happened, or on a modern need to install certain wholesome thinking patterns into children, and thus erase facts from the historical record, like a Jesus who might have done something which today we're not supposed to believe even if it did happen.

More scientific, and healthy, is to acknowledge our uncertainty about some of the past history, and so we can think in terms of the probabilities, and do some guesswork about what happened, without dogmatically excluding possibilities for which there is evidence. I.e., there is evidence that the Jesus miracles did happen, but one can still disbelieve because of doubt, so that some believe because of the evidence and reasonable hope, while others disbelieve because of doubt and skepticism. And also it's reasonable to believe, from the evidence, while still having doubt.

Do you remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? They come from the sect the Essenes. Their writings are very similar to what became Christianity. But they're not. They pre-date Jesus. But Jesus joined another group. Whatever that was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

BTW, nobody witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Resurrection isn't a real thing. I don't care how strong your Christian faith is, believing that Jesus was literally resurected is retarded. It's clearly a mythical artifact. It's a story invented and is symbolic somehow. It didn't actually happen.

 

[atrib]

Well I'm not so sure of the ten 'thousand story examples' thought method. As this particular thought-line imo, suggests you have a flaw for conclusions, i.e. taking from the various examples - when they are being their own indivdual belief systems. And... despite the individual differences between the theologies, ideologies or doctrines. Between them somehow, you've deduced that they can be representative of each other e.g. identically, like for like, All ten thousand being "one and the same," and so therefore the conclusion, in a manner of speaking: "Either they ALL have God of the bible, or, 'non' of them do."

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the thousands of gods that humans have invented are all somehow identical, or have similar origins. I am saying that all of these stories have one thing in common - none are supported by evidence that would point to the stories having a supernatural origin. The stories all originated in naturalistic ways, some of which are known to us and have been studied in detail (the cargo cults for example). The historians who study these stories have never concluded that the stories originated because of some supernatural act. And more broadly, for everything we have discovered about the universe, the answer or explanation has never been supernatural in origin.

Understandable when you challenge theists to prove or demonstrate the supernatural through some repeatable scientific method - which is rightly so, if the religious individual claims this and claiming the science is showing this. However, when you ask theists who don't make the claim (by any scientific method), who alternatively believes simply by faith, inference or... having had their own personal experience etc., there may be a problem....

because the person asking for evidence or demonstration, whilst knowing the believer can't demonstrate or repeat the experience (usually a one off) through any scientific method. This then is where the tactical, disengenous 'technicality lawyer speak" may come in, knowing the demostration method's unattainable, whilst still insisting for evidence, which can be done even when speaking clear English.

Whose problem is that? Is it my fault that you are not able to demonstrate your god's existence? Why should we believe any story if it cannot be supported by evidence?

We have zero evidence that the thousands of stories of god that humans have invented are based on supernatural events. This includes the Biblical supernatural stories involving Jesus. And we have vast volumes of evidence that everything we observe has a naturalistic cause. That makes it vastly more probable that the Jesus supernatural stories are based on naturalistic explanations, and not on actual supernatural intervention. That is the argument. If you make the claim that the Jesus stories are based on actual supernatural events, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it with verifiable evidence, which you admit you don't have.

If you don't have the evidence, stop making the fucking claim. Being a believer does not make you exempt from facts and reason.

You cast aside reason because you have been indoctrinated into believing whatever you believe about gods. And the indoctrination is so strong that you cannot even bring yourself to accept any sound logical arguments that demonstrate your beliefs to be unreasonable. You would never apply the same standard of "unreason" to anything else in your life; you would never accept that the missing cookies were taken by an invisible flying zombie despite what your 5-year old might have told you. But when it comes to your religious beliefs, you become immune to facts and logic. As you said, "obviously because I am believer too". Religion turns honest men into liars.

Have you ever reasoned the obvious, why there are no scholars (sectarian or theist), or places of worship today, for santa, doctrines for the missing cookies, and flying zombies? I think theres a level of seriousness for these learned people to spend their time and effort on.

There are billions of people who take Allah and Vishnu very seriously. In ancient Greece, Thor and Zeus were taken very seriously. There are millions of temples, modern and ancient, that attest to such beliefs. But saying that many people believe in god and take it seriously says nothing about whether the gods actually exist. This is also a fallacious argument (look up argumentum ad populum), and fallacious arguments are unreliable:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"^[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so

Building temples does not make gods real. Many people believing in gods does not make gods real.

Either way, depending on the person - religion can turn Liars into Honest men. Having said that... You don't have to be religious to be a liar.

I did not make that claim, so you are attacking a strawman here. Which is also a fallacy.

By the way, accepting the proposition does not make divine intervention impossible, just highly unlikely. Accepting the proposition would not logically require you to stop believing in your god, just in case you didn't understand that.

Your wisdom noted.

You don't need to be wise to understand the argument. You have to be able to read and understand English, and have a basic knowledge of how logic works. And you have to be willing to go where facts and reason take you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the thousands of gods that humans have invented are all somehow identical, or have similar origins. I am saying that all of these stories have one thing in common - none are supported by evidence that would point to the stories having a supernatural origin. The stories all originated in naturalistic ways, some of which are known to us and have been studied in detail (the cargo cults for example). The historians who study these stories have never concluded that the stories originated because of some supernatural act. And more broadly, for everything we have discovered about the universe, the answer or explanation has never been supernatural in origin.




Whose problem is that? Is it my fault that you are not able to demonstrate your god's existence? Why should we believe any story if it cannot be supported by evidence?

We have zero evidence that the thousands of stories of god that humans have invented are based on supernatural events. This includes the Biblical supernatural stories involving Jesus. And we have vast volumes of evidence that everything we observe has a naturalistic cause. That makes it vastly more probable that the Jesus supernatural stories are based on naturalistic explanations, and not on actual supernatural intervention. That is the argument. If you make the claim that the Jesus stories are based on actual supernatural events, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it with verifiable evidence, which you admit you don't have.

If you don't have the evidence, stop making the fucking claim. Being a believer does not make you exempt from facts and reason.

You cast aside reason because you have been indoctrinated into believing whatever you believe about gods. And the indoctrination is so strong that you cannot even bring yourself to accept any sound logical arguments that demonstrate your beliefs to be unreasonable. You would never apply the same standard of "unreason" to anything else in your life; you would never accept that the missing cookies were taken by an invisible flying zombie despite what your 5-year old might have told you. But when it comes to your religious beliefs, you become immune to facts and logic. As you said, "obviously because I am believer too". Religion turns honest men into liars.

Have you ever reasoned the obvious, why there are no scholars (sectarian or theist), or places of worship today, for santa, doctrines for the missing cookies, and flying zombies? I think theres a level of seriousness for these learned people to spend their time and effort on.

There are billions of people who take Allah and Vishnu very seriously. In ancient Greece, Thor and Zeus were taken very seriously. There are millions of temples, modern and ancient, that attest to such beliefs. But saying that many people believe in god and take it seriously says nothing about whether the gods actually exist. This is also a fallacious argument (look up argumentum ad populum), and fallacious arguments are unreliable:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"^[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so

Building temples does not make gods real. Many people believing in gods does not make gods real.

Either way, depending on the person - religion can turn Liars into Honest men. Having said that... You don't have to be religious to be a liar.

I did not make that claim, so you are attacking a strawman here. Which is also a fallacy.

By the way, accepting the proposition does not make divine intervention impossible, just highly unlikely. Accepting the proposition would not logically require you to stop believing in your god, just in case you didn't understand that.

Your wisdom noted.

You don't need to be wise to understand the argument. You have to be able to read and understand English, and have a basic knowledge of how logic works. And you have to be willing to go where facts and reason take you.

Fun fact. In the ancient world there was no distinction between a messiah, soothsayer, stage magician or philosopher. They were all called prophets. Making water into wine, making items appear out of thin air, and bringing back pigeons to life (after chopping it's head off) were popular and well known stage magic tricks to the ancients. Tricks stage magicians use today. Faith healing, which essentially are also stage magic tricks, are as popular today as it was back then. I don't know the significance of that for Biblical interpretation. But it does make the miracles seem a hell of a lot less miraculous.

 

[Learner]

Do you remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? They come from the sect the Essenes. Their writings are very similar to what became Christianity. But they're not. They pre-date Jesus. But Jesus joined another group. Whatever that was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

BTW, nobody witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Resurrection isn't a real thing. I don't care how strong your Christian faith is, believing that Jesus was literally resurected is retarded. It's clearly a mythical artifact. It's a story invented and is symbolic somehow. It didn't actually happen.

Hey Doc, just a little mention for the moment, there's no real evidence that these were actually from the Essenes. They were given credit some how, yes because it's mention that there were some Essenes in that area near Qumran, But so did others live by there, in the wilderness, and even though it's said there are few of them (as compared to the other sects) , they lived all over. In short... the Essenes which became the convention and dominant theory for a while (not agreed upon by some scholars,); sort of reduces the need by scholars to go further and look into this particular bit of biblical history, updating what has been for a while the "accepted" theory. Interestingly some scholar(s) have thought John and his diciples were Essenes,(because He was also around there! Oh yes!) but I think that doesn;t make real sense, John being an Essene, for one: there are no texts found of the Essenes anywhere in Qumran! Which in itself has several implications.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? They come from the sect the Essenes. Their writings are very similar to what became Christianity. But they're not. They pre-date Jesus. But Jesus joined another group. Whatever that was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

BTW, nobody witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Resurrection isn't a real thing. I don't care how strong your Christian faith is, believing that Jesus was literally resurected is retarded. It's clearly a mythical artifact. It's a story invented and is symbolic somehow. It didn't actually happen.

Hey Doc, just a little mention, there's no real evidence that these were actually from the Essenes. They were given credit some how, yes because it's mention that there were some Essenes in that area near Qumran, But so did others live by there, in the wilderness, and even though it's said there are few of them (as compared to the other sects) , they lived all over. In short... the Essenes which became the convention and dominant theory for a while (not agreed upon by some scholars,); sort of reduces the need to go further and look into this particular bit of biblical history, updating what has been the 'accepted' theory 'for a while'. Interestingly some scholar(s) have thought John and his diciples were Essenes,(because He was also around there) but I think that doesn;t make real sense, for one: there are no texts found of the Essenes anywhere in Qumran.

That wasn't quite my point. But you made it for me anyway. These ideas were floating around at the time in a variety of ways. My point is that Jesus wasn't special. He's only special in the sense that he got an inordinate amount of focus for later generations. He got to embody all the ideas. But his ideas were well established when he lived. Or to put it another way, he was, to a large extent preaching to the choir. The ideas of Jesus didn't come from Jesus.

History was re-written after the fact to make the Biblical ideas come from him. And since Christianity is basically the Jesus fan club, they have a bad habit of uncritically accepting this as true. Even though we're flooded by evidence to the contrary. Christians like to just ignore it.

 

[atrib]

Fun fact. In the ancient world there was no distinction between a messiah, soothsayer, stage magician or philosopher. They were all called prophets. Making water into wine, making items appear out of thin air, and bringing back pigeons to life (after chopping it's head off) were popular and well known stage magic tricks to the ancients. Tricks stage magicians use today. Faith healing, which essentially are also stage magic tricks, are as popular today as it was back then. I don't know the significance of that for Biblical interpretation. But it does make the miracles seem a hell of a lot less miraculous.

I don't know that much has changed. Modern humans cloak themselves in a veneer of sophistication, but underneath it our hearts and minds are still largely stuck in a world filled with magic and miracles, and superstition runs rampant. And you don't have to dig deep to find it.

 

[steve_bank]

Christian theology is all had waving and misdirection from the blatant truth with convoluted arguments.

The blatant naked truth is it all comes down to a blind belief in the gospels written by unknown authors with no corroborating evidence. A belief that the gospels are absolute truth. Theology and apologetics are all about rationalizing that blind faith.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also a constantly stated assertion that the gospels are "eye witness accounts" -- which, as far as I can tell, they don't even claim to be.

 

[Politesse]

Also a constantly stated assertion that the gospels are "eye witness accounts" -- which, as far as I can tell, they don't even claim to be.

You'd have to actually read the Gospels to realize this, and these guys don't actually read the books, they just put them on a pedestal and worship them. Occasionally they hear a verse or two quoted out of context, all neatly numbered as though the numbers were a part of the book rather than an excuse for vivisecting it, but they don't sit down and read it critically and contextually the way you would any other significant literary work. They can't. They have made of the Bible their god, and one doesn't read a god.

The printer may go out to cut down cedars,
or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.
It is used as fuel for burning;
so some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”
From the rest he presses out some paper and makes a paper god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
“Save me! You are my god!”
The paper god knows nothing, it understands nothing;
its only eyes are metaphors, it cannot see,
the minds who wrote it are dead, they cannot understand.
No one stops to think,
no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
“Half of this wood I used for fuel;
I even baked bread over its coals,
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a sacrilege from what is left?
Shall I bow down to a leftover block of wood?”

Is it surprising that the Bible is usually printed on the cheapest paper available? Their respect for the actual texts is as thin as their empty philosophy.

If any of the authors of the Gospels ever learned what had been made of their work, but especially whoever wrote John, they would be utterly furious. They didn't set out to write a book so it could be alternately praised/worshipped and then on other days used as a cudgel to hurt people. I say "John" would be especially mad, partly because he or she was almost certainly Jewish, but also because they are the one who originated the phrase "Word of God" in the Christian context, and it was definitvely not in reference to their own writing, or any other physical book. The whole thing is anathema to traditional Jewish philosophy. Can you imagine the reaction of any of these authors to an "Illustrated Children's Bible"? With drawings of God decorating the inside?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also a constantly stated assertion that the gospels are "eye witness accounts" -- which, as far as I can tell, they don't even claim to be.

They're hagiografies. They're not even trying to be accurate. They're supposed to be inspiring. Ie, you are supposed to follow the example of Jesus in the Bible. Not the real Jesus

 

[Learner]

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the thousands of gods that humans have invented are all somehow identical, or have similar origins. I am saying that all of these stories have one thing in common - none are supported by evidence that would point to the stories having a supernatural origin. The stories all originated in naturalistic ways, some of which are known to us and have been studied in detail (the cargo cults for example). The historians who study these stories have never concluded that the stories originated because of some supernatural act. And more broadly, for everything we have discovered about the universe, the answer or explanation has never been supernatural in origin.

I think I got the gist of your reasoning: So IF instead, one of these stories were to be true, how then would you be able tell, if those ancient people who claim they've seen such things with their own eyes; who documened & wrote about those particular events?

What is that something, you would have been able to recognise? What would be so different and missing from the text or story, that would not be written (in this case) in the current Bible, which would for you, determine the story of the Bible was genuine?

Would the evidence you expect to see, require even "more texts" to be read...just to be sure, preferrably with rays of light coming from each letter? Or perhaps still ... you need to see for yourself a particular 'patent' trademark with the " Heavenly Creator " holographically stamped on the oldest rock formation available? Because it seems to me, I don't think you can really determine or demonstrate a natural or supernatural origin by what you're saying. At best you can say, which you have done, is say: ' it's more likely'(from assumption).

Whose problem is that? Is it my fault that you are not able to demonstrate your god's existence? Why should we believe any story if it cannot be supported by evidence?

Doesn't have to be a problem, which coud be remedied with some mutual consideration. Like considering what to expect, like if asking a priest or the believer (by faith) to demonstrate their beliefs in terms of QM and astro-physics etc.. I was also on about your main focus being on the rethoric (paraphrasing): " Lumpy does this... and he's done that... for years and years" while not really engaging with his actual post (there's an argument term for that isn't there?).

You'll notice Swammerdammi and Doc Z are able to respond to his questions without needing to bring up their personal history with Lumpy.

Why should you you believe? All I can say is you'll have to take it as you see it....

We have zero evidence that the thousands of stories of god that humans have invented are based on supernatural events. This includes the Biblical supernatural stories involving Jesus. And we have vast volumes of evidence that everything we observe has a naturalistic cause. That makes it vastly more probable that the Jesus supernatural stories are based on naturalistic explanations, and not on actual supernatural intervention. That is the argument. If you make the claim that the Jesus stories are based on actual supernatural events, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it with verifiable evidence, which you admit you don't have.

If you don't have the evidence, stop making the fucking claim. Being a believer does not make you exempt from facts and reason.

That's what I thought, knowing there exists among the science community...believers. But alas you mean me.

Believers come to their faith differently. and the only thing I've seen or done myself, close to making claims on the forum, is in the vein of the "more likely" term, just like you used... concluded from a 'logical inference.' from whats available. I'd used the term or similar phrase myself, for example to say that it's 'more likely' the writers of the Gospels were not lying, which would therefore imply they were likely to be telling the truth (extending to the mass-delusions debates and discussion inquiry), there is no evidence for them to "make this up," if one could tell, from the aspect of psycological scrutiny. There's no evidence that these were superstitious very imaginative goat heardesr or shepards (old retired argument some atheists used to use).

There are billions of people who take Allah and Vishnu very seriously. In ancient Greece, Thor and Zeus were taken very seriously. There are millions of temples, modern and ancient, that attest to such beliefs. But saying that many people believe in god and take it seriously says nothing about whether the gods actually exist. This is also a fallacious argument (look up argumentum ad populum), and fallacious arguments are unreliable:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so

Building temples does not make gods real. Many people believing in gods does not make gods real.

Well yes, theres serious studies on Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Zeus. The bible also acknowledges the various nations and tribes having different gods. But regarding your previous post: What about the billions of people or any number of people "taking seriously" the other characters you previously brought up: "flying Zombies, and the missing cookies, or even santa?" No seriousness in that tent.

Isn't that called 'Reductio ad ridiculum?' 'Appeal to ridicule?'

Either way, depending on the person - religion can turn Liars into Honest men. Having said that... You don't have to be religious to be a liar.

I did not make that claim, so you are attacking a strawman here. Which is also a fallacy.

It was a direct response to your statement:

"As you said, "obviously because I am believer too". Religion turns honest men into liars."

 

[steve_bank]

Learner is giving us a demonstration of apologetics.

There are the gospels, what more evidence do you want?...but that is the issue, there are only uncorroborated brief writings with little in the way of direct quotes by Jesus.

What wollud be helpful would be a letter from a Roman Tiberius to a friend, "hey Marcus you just have to come down to Palestine and see this guy turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise the dead. He is unbelievable".

Contemporaneous accounts from various independent Roman observers. There are none.

Same today. A lot of here say on faith healing but nobody ever sees it for themselves. Along with the fake faith healers apparently curing people faking sickness and disability. Religious fakery has always been part of human civilization.

The best description of the gospels I heard is embellished promotional material targeted at new converts just like todat=y.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think I got the gist of your reasoning: So IF instead, one of these stories were to be true, how then would you be able tell, if those ancient people who claim they've seen such things with their own eyes; who documened & wrote about those particular events?

What is that something, you would have been able to recognise? What would be so different and missing from the text or story, that would not be written (in this case) in the current Bible, which would for you, determine the story of the Bible was genuine?

Would the evidence you expect to see, require even "more texts" to be read...just to be sure, preferrably with rays of light coming from each letter? Or perhaps still ... you need to see for yourself a particular 'patent' trademark with the " Heavenly Creator " holographically stamped on the oldest rock formation available? Because it seems to me, I don't think you can really determine or demonstrate a natural or supernatural origin by what you're saying. At best you can say, which you have done, is say: ' it's more likely'(from assumption).



Doesn't have to be a problem, which coud be remedied with some mutual consideration. Like considering what to expect, like if asking a priest or the believer (by faith) to demonstrate their beliefs in terms of QM and astro-physics etc.. I was also on about your main focus being on the rethoric (paraphrasing): " Lumpy does this... and he's done that... for years and years" while not really engaging with his actual post (there's an argument term for that isn't there?).

You'll notice Swammerdammi and Doc Z are able to respond to his questions without needing to bring up their personal history with Lumpy.

Why should you you believe? All I can say is you'll have to take it as you see it....

We have zero evidence that the thousands of stories of god that humans have invented are based on supernatural events. This includes the Biblical supernatural stories involving Jesus. And we have vast volumes of evidence that everything we observe has a naturalistic cause. That makes it vastly more probable that the Jesus supernatural stories are based on naturalistic explanations, and not on actual supernatural intervention. That is the argument. If you make the claim that the Jesus stories are based on actual supernatural events, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it with verifiable evidence, which you admit you don't have.

If you don't have the evidence, stop making the fucking claim. Being a believer does not make you exempt from facts and reason.

That's what I thought, knowing there exists among the science community...believers. But alas you mean me.

Believers come to their faith differently. and the only thing I've seen or done myself, close to making claims on the forum, is in the vein of the "more likely" term, just like you used... concluded from a 'logical inference.' from whats available. I'd used the term or similar phrase myself, for example to say that it's 'more likely' the writers of the Gospels were not lying, which would therefore imply they were likely to be telling the truth (extending to the mass-delusions debates and discussion inquiry), there is no evidence for them to "make this up," if one could tell, from the aspect of psycological scrutiny. There's no evidence that these were superstitious very imaginative goat heardesr or shepards (old retired argument some atheists used to use).

There are billions of people who take Allah and Vishnu very seriously. In ancient Greece, Thor and Zeus were taken very seriously. There are millions of temples, modern and ancient, that attest to such beliefs. But saying that many people believe in god and take it seriously says nothing about whether the gods actually exist. This is also a fallacious argument (look up argumentum ad populum), and fallacious arguments are unreliable:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so

Building temples does not make gods real. Many people believing in gods does not make gods real.

Well yes, theres serious studies on Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Zeus. The bible also acknowledges the various nations and tribes having different gods. But regarding your previous post: What about the billions of people or any number of people "taking seriously" the other characters you previously brought up: "flying Zombies, and the missing cookies, or even santa?" No seriousness in that tent.

Isn't that called 'Reductio ad ridiculum?' 'Appeal to ridicule?'

Either way, depending on the person - religion can turn Liars into Honest men. Having said that... You don't have to be religious to be a liar.

I did not make that claim, so you are attacking a strawman here. Which is also a fallacy.

It was a direct response to your statement:

"As you said, "obviously because I am believer too". Religion turns honest men into liars."

The Bible is a kind of litterature that isn't even trying to be true and accurate. Why would we believe any of the stories are true, other than in the broadest sense?

 

[Swammerdami]

Reza Aslan discusses the Resurrection in Chapter 13 ("If Christ has not been risen") of his Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. That book has helped form my own thinking. My only contribution to this thread should be: Read Aslan's book.

Aslan emphasizes the importance of the Resurrection by quoting I Corinthians 17:15:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If Christ has not been risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain.

(The first rendition is from King James' version; the 2nd is Aslan's.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Reza Aslan discusses the Resurrection in Chapter 13 ("If Christ has not been risen") of his Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. That book has helped form my own thinking. My only contribution to this thread should be: Read Aslan's book.

Aslan emphasizes the importance of the Resurrection by quoting I Corinthians 17:15:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If Christ has not been risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain.

(The first rendition is from King James' version; the 2nd is Aslan's.)

The Bible is wisdom literature. It's just supposed to make you stop and think. It's a collection of talking points intended to train you into becoming a better person. This might as well be a statement intended to provoke the reader to think about sacrifice and sinning. Rather than writing us on the nose. it's also specifically written for one congregation having a specific theological issue. There might be context missing.

That said Paul is a pretty clear thinker and writer. But that doesn't mean we can just take whatever it says literally. That's not the kind of book it is.

Just because there's now a Christian literalist/fundamentalist tradition, and the early church spent a lot of time hammering out doctrinal unity, doesn't mean that's what the writer intended when he wrote it.

Paul had no idea his letters would be included into the primary Christian fetish they worshipped. In his mind he was writing talking points to interpreting the Torah. I think it's a bit silly to read this in any other way.

 

[atrib]

I think I got the gist of your reasoning: So IF instead, one of these stories were to be true, how then would you be able tell, if those ancient people who claim they've seen such things with their own eyes; who documened & wrote about those particular events?

What is that something, you would have been able to recognise? What would be so different and missing from the text or story, that would not be written (in this case) in the current Bible, which would for you, determine the story of the Bible was genuine?

Would the evidence you expect to see, require even "more texts" to be read...just to be sure, preferrably with rays of light coming from each letter? Or perhaps still ... you need to see for yourself a particular 'patent' trademark with the " Heavenly Creator " holographically stamped on the oldest rock formation available? Because it seems to me, I don't think you can really determine or demonstrate a natural or supernatural origin by what you're saying. At best you can say, which you have done, is say: ' it's more likely'(from assumption).

It is not an assumption; it is a statement of probability based on everything we know about the universe we live in. As I have explained about three times already, nothing we know about the workings of our universe has ever required supernatural intervention as an explanation. Not one thing. No scientist or historian has ever concluded that any phenomenon or material they have studied can be attributed to a supernatural cause, or is inexplicable considering naturalistic processes. Not once. In contrast, we have zero verifiable evidence that any of the tens of thousands of god stories developed by humans are based on the existence of gods with supernatural powers. Zero. Therefore, the odds that the supernatural events described in the Bible are actually based on supernatural intervention are vanishingly small. It is vastly more likely that the Bible stories are the product of natural processes, story telling and myth making, which is something that humans do a lot.

We know dead people don't come back to life after days of being dead. We know people can't fly off into the sky under their own power. If you claim that the corpse of Jesus was resurrected and then flew off into space, you need to provide the appropriate evidence to support the claim. Evidence that would overcome our natural skepticism to such a claim, based on our past experience that dead people don't come back to life or fly off into space. I don't know what form such evidence might take since I am not the one making the fucking claim.

You keep making up shit to defend a position that is clearly wrong. You keep repeating fallacious arguments despite detailed explanations of why such arguments are flawed. While you do appear to have a real problem with reading comprehension, I think a significant part of your inability to understand simple concepts is self imposed; you don't care about facts, you don't care about logic, you simply want to keep arguing even if you have to sacrifice your personal integrity to do so.

Why should you you believe? All I can say is you'll have to take it as you see it....

Why should we believe that the stories of Jesus performing miracles are true? Why is the fucking question so difficult to answer?

Believers come to their faith differently. and the only thing I've seen or done myself, close to making claims on the forum, is in the vein of the "more likely" term, just like you used... concluded from a 'logical inference.' from whats available. I'd used the term or similar phrase myself, for example to say that it's 'more likely' the writers of the Gospels were not lying, which would therefore imply they were likely to be telling the truth (extending to the mass-delusions debates and discussion inquiry), there is no evidence for them to "make this up," if one could tell, from the aspect of psycological scrutiny. There's no evidence that these were superstitious very imaginative goat heardesr or shepards (old retired argument some atheists used to use).

Given that we have no evidence that a corpse has ever risen up from the grave and flown off into space, and vast amounts of evidence that people make up stories all the fucking time, the default position would be to remain skeptical until the claim was demonstrated to be true. We have no idea who the authors were, why they wrote the stories, and what sources they used. To argue that we should believe the claim simply because we don't know these details - "Why would they lie" is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy. We have talked about this before. Arguments based on logical fallacies are flawed, and are unreliable in determining the truth of the underlying claim. That is why we should not rely on such arguments.

There are naturalistic explanations as to how such stories originate. And there is a vast amount of evidence that tells us that people make up stories about gods performing supernatural acts. There is vast amount of evidence that people are gullible, and easily fooled into believing untrue things. A naturalistic explanation is vastly more likely to be true than a supernatural explanation which has never been demonstrated to be true. In order to demonstrate that the Jesus supernatural stories are true, you would have to rule out every possible natural explanation first. Which you cannot do.

There are billions of people who take Allah and Vishnu very seriously. In ancient Greece, Thor and Zeus were taken very seriously. There are millions of temples, modern and ancient, that attest to such beliefs. But saying that many people believe in god and take it seriously says nothing about whether the gods actually exist. This is also a fallacious argument (look up argumentum ad populum), and fallacious arguments are unreliable:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so

Building temples does not make gods real. Many people believing in gods does not make gods real.

Well yes, theres serious studies on Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Zeus. The bible also acknowledges the various nations and tribes having different gods. But regarding your previous post: What about the billions of people or any number of people "taking seriously" the other characters you previously brought up: "flying Zombies, and the missing cookies, or even santa?" No seriousness in that tent.

A zombie is an undead creature that has risen up from the dead. The Bible claims that Jesus rose up from the dead and was reanimated as a zombie. Billions of people people believe in the undead zombie Jesus and take their beliefs very seriously. How is the story of zombie Jesus different from any other supernatural claim, and why should we believe the zombie Jesus story but not the tens of thousands other supernatural stories?

Isn't that called 'Reductio ad ridiculum?' 'Appeal to ridicule?'

It was an example meant to illustrate the point I was making. I need to do this because you don't seem to understand plain English. Ignorance, especially the self-imposed kind, is not a virtue.

Either way, depending on the person - religion can turn Liars into Honest men. Having said that... You don't have to be religious to be a liar.

I did not make that claim, so you are attacking a strawman here. Which is also a fallacy.

It was a direct response to your statement:

"As you said, "obviously because I am believer too". Religion turns honest men into liars."

I was responding to the part in bold. I never claimed that you have to be religious to be a liar.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think I got the gist of your reasoning: So IF instead, one of these stories were to be true, how then would you be able tell, if those ancient people who claim they've seen such things with their own eyes; who documened & wrote about those particular events?

Not terribly interested in a hypothetical. YOU think some of those ancient stories are true.
Which stories?
Why?
What can you offer as evidence in support of that conclusion?
Any actual eyewitness accounts?

 

[steve_bank]

Alleged rue stories in more modern times.

1. JFK was a family man. A political rafted façade beloved by many in the day.
2. George Washington and the cherry tree story, never happened.
3. From a kids book I read, Abe Lnicoln was in poverty walking miles barefoot to school and doing arithmetic in charcoal on a shovel. In reality his family had property.
4. The story of Johnny Appleseed who wentt around as a naturalist sewing apple seeds. In reality he was an entrepreneur starting apple orchards for profit.
5. Many believe Trump is a skilled businessman, despite his long history of failures.
6. Many people believe John Wayne was actually like the cowboys he played.
7. Paul Bunyan.

The idea that the gospels represent any kind of objective reporting of eyewitness accounts is far fetched at best. We do not have that today, except for a small percentage of news media which is biased to some degree.

Today fake news and embellished news quickly spread. Back then it would be hear say gossip.

 

[Learner]

Learner is giving us a demonstration of apologetics.

I bet you think thats the norm anyway, with theists posting on these threads.

There are the gospels, what more evidence do you want?...but that is the issue, there are only uncorroborated brief writings with little in the way of direct quotes by Jesus.

Witnessing and testimony is highly emphasized, for good reason, unlike other faiths. The 'mentality' speaking the truth is ultimately a must, in the 'understanding of compassion,' hearing how Jesus talks about it (witnessing)... the level of truth of the narrative to be told, while being 'in the fear of God and judgement etc..'

What wollud be helpful would be a letter from a Roman Tiberius to a friend, "hey Marcus you just have to come down to Palestine and see this guy turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise the dead. He is unbelievable".

Contemporaneous accounts from various independent Roman observers. There are none.

Reply to Tiberius: "Yeah best keep that to youself Tiberius, I'd hate to tell the old emporer Caesar that there's a King high above him, and above our gods and He's... er.. let me wipe the sweat of my forehead... He's Jewish!"

 

[steve_bank]

From my face to face experience yesyit is the norm.

That the gospels are accurate reporting of events is the single basis of Christianity. Gospel ytaslates as
good news'. A Christian trying to hook me might say, 'Have you heard the good news Jesus arose from the dead!'.

There can be no questioning of the supernatural stories in the gospels, if so the faith falls apart.

There is also the well know modern ubreliabilty of witnesses to crime. One witness saw a short fat guy, another saw a rall skinny guy.

There are philosophical Chtistians who reject divinity and that split existed at the time of Nicaea, whether Jesus was divine or not.

Thomas Jefferson is labeled a Deist mot a Christian. He produced a version of the bible minus the supernatural.

From a bio of Gandhi he was a down to Earth guy with his own set of quirks and foibles. Young Europeans who came to hang out with him put him on a mythical pedestal.

The gospel Jesus is most likely a myth that evolved on the retelling and gossip of the day. There were no newspapers, gossip was how information propagated. Word of mouth.

There is the kids game. Line up a bunch of kids in a row. Whisper a story into the ear of the first kid who passes it down the line. Invariably the story changes.