Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Mriana]

Isn't it great that God could even forgive a mass murderer?

 

The god of the OT is a mass murderer- ie The Flood Story, Sodom and Gomorrah, and others.

 

Only God sees the heart, we cannot.

 

Then why do you try to judge people? IF it is up to something outside ourselves to know what is in a person's heart, then it isn't anyone's place to judge others or other groups of Xians, which is something you have been doing this whole thread. It would seem you take away from the words "They will know us as Christians by your love". BTW, that is a song in either the Episcopal Hymnal or the LBW (or was it my Evangelical grandmother's hymnal), I forget which. No matter, which it was, you seem to contradict what is taught in some churches.

 

BTW, I was going to answer you in the new thread that the mod created, LNC, just for you when an opportunity came up, but now seems as good of a place as any:

 

Mriana, on 16 June 2009 - 03:00 PM, said:

That is because morals are created by man, not some sky-daddy, yet all too many Xian have a need to attribute such things to an invisible sky-daddy.

 

LNC said: If I understand what you are saying, you are telling me that God exists and you love him very much, right?

 

Interesting how you twist things, BUT if God exists, IT is beyond anything humans can conceive of. IT is neither male or female. IT is an experience- external stimuli that triggers internal neurons which cause the feelings of transcendence. IT has no mass or form, much like the wind, as Spong says. IF god (lower case intentional) exists then IT is within every single person, animal, plant, the earth, the universe and is experienced through compassion, love, our relationship to the earth and our pets, and various other wonderful feelings. I doubt you would have any comprehension of such a relationship with a "deity" that is within us and not some external source, such as a sky-daddy. (and there is a reason I put deity in quotes) However, you would just love it if I believed in your non-existent sky-daddy, then you would feel so rewarded. Well, you know, life doesn't work that way, esp when one doesn't know something that does not exist, but of course, you have no clue what I am talking about either because it is beyond your comprehension.

 

Really, I am just applying your logic. Man created morals including the moral that truth is a good thing, but that is not objectively the case since it is merely a construct of man. Therefore, we can interpret statements any way we want and it is OK since lying is just a construct of man. If man invented god, then who invented man?

 

No you are not applying any of my logic. You have no concept of my thoughts on morality, "god" (notice the lower case "g" which is intentional), that which could be considered numinous, unless you know something about pantheism, psychology, and neuro-science. You hang around that boards telling everyone "you're wrong" almost constantly, expecting them to see your view of things, but you don't take the time to read the main blog. That is where one gets to know other people's actual thoughts, IMO. Personally, I'd rather be having a discussion with Bishop Spong, than you, because he is less judgmental, calls himself a non-theist, and abhors Evangelicalism, probably as much as I do, if not more. He and I would have a whole lot less to argue about at least, even though we do have our disagreements.

[dagnarus]

DevaLight, Neon Genesis, and Hans,

 

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

 

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

I have to ask why are you talking about mass murders and such anyway. We all know that in your worldview people don't get punished in the next life for such crimes. The only crime which people are punished with eternal torment for is unbelief. The unbeliever who murdered and raped will burn right along side the unbeliever who led a good life caring for his fellow man. Likewise the believer who murdered and raped but believed into Jesus will enter into eternal life right alongside the believer who didn't do any of these things. The crime of murder has absolutely no bearing on your eternal destiny in you worldview because everybody was condemned to hell right from the womb because of what Adam did 6000 years ago. If you want to argue that your worldview is somehow more just than ours (something which has absolutely no bearing on whether it is real or not by the way) you should argue about how there's no justice that people whose ancestors ate a particular fruit would have the same fate as those whose ancestors didn't.

[Mriana]

DevaLight, Neon Genesis, and Hans,

 

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

 

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

I have to ask why are you talking about mass murders and such anyway. We all know that in your worldview people don't get punished in the next life for such crimes. The only crime which people are punished with eternal torment for is unbelief. The unbeliever who murdered and raped will burn right along side the unbeliever who led a good life caring for his fellow man. Likewise the believer who murdered and raped but believed into Jesus will enter into eternal life right alongside the believer who didn't do any of these things. The crime of murder has absolutely no bearing on your eternal destiny in you worldview because everybody was condemned to hell right from the womb because of what Adam did 6000 years ago. If you want to argue that your worldview is somehow more just than ours (something which has absolutely no bearing on whether it is real or not by the way) you should argue about how there's no justice that people whose ancestors ate a particular fruit would have the same fate as those whose ancestors didn't.

 

I don't understand it either, because IF one does not face the human law for their crime(s), then there is no justice. The victim gets nothing under LNC's ideology.

[agnosticator]

Language is taught, not conjured up. Prove otherwise. My example is not explained by saying it came from oneself.

 

I don't have to prove otherwise as language may just be the thought of the person who is thinking us. We may be the expression of some higher form, ala Plato. So, your example doesn't in fact prove your conclusion.

 

So, the fact that you are speaking english wasn't learned? That's ridiculous.

 

People are shot in the head every day without their knowledge and awareness. Does that mean the other persons and the bullet they shot don't exist? The funeral is a figment of their imagination?

 

If Plato was right, then they don't exist as you would say. And yes, again if Plato was right (and I am not a Platonist) then the funeral is a shadow of the form as well.

 

My point was that the bullet, persons, and the funeral exists in objective reality and was not just someone's fantasy.

 

Certain mammals besides us are self-conscious and social. The more scientists learn, the more dualistic beliefs will be exposed as the fantasy they are. Without neurons firing, there can be no thoughts. Just because we don't know all the "hows" of the way thoughts arise from the brain via neurons firing, doesn't mean we could decide to assign thoughts to be from a separate ghostly entity. A non-physical "self" is pure fantasy.

 

I agree that certain animals besides humans have consciousness and are social; however, that doesn't mean that they are conscious in the same way that we are. Animals may have a degree of self-awareness, but it has not been shown that they are aware of their self-awareness. In other words, animals have thoughts, but not thoughts about their thoughts as do humans.

 

You have no way to know or prove that they don't have "thoughts about their thoughts". Scientists who specialize in this area may in due time.

 

Scientists will not prove dualism to be false since that question falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. You can't make that conclusion that without neurons firing there can be no thoughts as that is not scientifically provable. All you can conclude scientifically is that there are no neurons firing, but that is where the science stops. Your conclusion is actually a religious conclusion, not a scientific one.

 

Again, your are conflating science and philosophy with your discussion of the mind. Science will not disprove the existence of a non-physical mind since that is outside of the realm of science and in the realm of philosophy. However, it seems that you are pushing for a form of determinism in reducing the mind to brain states, are you not?

 

And you are removing the mind from the skull to the "realm of the immaterial-supernatural from god" fantasy. Religion is about the supernatural. The type of dualism it seems you are embracing is the nonmaterial influencing the material, as in the soul separating from the body at death, or spirit beings (angels, demons, devil, on up to god) able to change,influence, or take part in the physical universe. That is the dualism I refer to that is fantasy.

 

What about feelings? They are immaterial, yet can't be separated from the body. How could an immaterial mind feel emotion? Without emotions the mind is less that a disembodied person. It would be more like a computer or the fictional Spock. Science will continue to discover how the brain/mind works together and will influence philosophy as it has in the past. Philosophers used to argue about angels on pins...

 

I don't see how mind and body would exist separately. We can't have one without the other. Another form of dualism may be true, I don't know. But it wouldn't be about the supernatural/natural existing side by side.

[agnosticator]

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

Others in the posts above have answered your objection with valid points. I'll add this:

 

We are not "ok" with, or feel it is fair that criminals such as Idi Amin get away with their crimes. That's the reality we have to fight against and try to change. It has nothing to do with our "worldview" being better. But to believe that the christian heaven/hell scenario is fair, and is justice, is insane! Once someone murders in cold blood, the fact that they murdered doesn't change. Forgiving them for this irreversible act trivializes it. Then it's not a big deal to murder. It can always be forgiven.

 

But unbelief (leading to rebellion, as you say) is a big deal. It supercedes ethical actions, making belief essential and morality irrelevant. In the end, faith belittles morality.

[chefranden]

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

Seriously you can't be this stupid! No one says its better. It just the way it is. If you get your arm chopped off in the hay baler you can pretend your arm is still there, but the fact is it isn't there.

 

That there is no justice after death is not better. It is just reality. If you want justice you'd better get it now.

 

Maybe a green sky is better, but it is fucking blue. Deal with it.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I have given evidence in the past for the existence of God, evidence that has not been addressed on this site. The fact that you can construct a coherent argument in response to my post is evidence enough that an immaterial reality exists and that gives evidence that God exists. No one has addressed that argument as of yet, so maybe you could give it a try.

 

I don't particularly care whether the people were raised from the dead as it says in the Gospel since I don't use that as evidence for the resurrection. I have not argued the evidence based upon the inerrancy of Scripture either, so the point is irrelevant to the case that I have made. I don't know why you keep beating that drum and keep ignoring the actual evidence that I have provided. I am not arguing against atheism either since I think it is also irrelevant. I have made arguments for the resurrection that should be addressed since that is what this thread is about. Maybe we can start a separate thread after this one is through on arguments for the existence of God if that is of interest to you. But for now, let's focus on whether Ehrman's arguments are valid since that is the topic of this thread.

You're such a hypocrite and a liar. You specifically said that the gospels are not myths, that they are historically accurate and you even claimed that non-Christian scholars believe they are yet cited no sources of non-Christian scholars to back up your claims. These are your words, not mine. Either everything in the gospels are historically accurate as you claimed and this story of the Jews being raised from the dead must be true, or if you admit this story is just made up, then the gospels are not historically accurate and they do contain mythology and they are not reliable sources. You can't have it both ways. I don't know how much more you want me to dumb this down for you. And it's frankly hypocritical of you to accuse me of taking the thread off-topic when you're the one taking the thread into an off-topic rant about divine justice and the purpose of life. If you don't want to take this thread off-topic, then stop accusing us of being immoral people that support Hitler and that we should all die or start a new thread on this subject about hell if you want to discuss it. And my question about the resurrection of the Jews is not an off-topic discussion. It is related to this thread because I am using this example to counter your claim that the gospels are historically accurate and contain no mythology. If you don't have the answer to this question, then admit you don't have the answers and retract your earlier claim that the gospels have no historical errors in them and are not mythology. Otherwise, don't try to claim any counter-point I make against you is off-topic just because you want to silence me because answering my questions would be inconvenient for you. And if my question is really off-topic, RationalOhkie or one of the mods can tell me.

[centauri]

What brand of Christianity?

Do you imagine that it's one big happy family of believers?

There are Protestants that call the Roman Catholic Church a cult.

If I remember correctly that happened a few weeks ago on this forum.

Jack Chick is a Christian and he has depicted the Catholics to be very misguided and false.

There are Christians that call the Mormon Christians a cult.

Jehovah's Witnesses are also called misguided.

There have been severe schisms between the sects all along the timeline of Christianity.

They've been calling each other misguided for centuries.

 

Christianity doesn't come in brands it is either properly followed and understood or improperly followed and understood. There are many ways that it is improperly followed and understood, but that is not my concern, mine is to properly follow and understand the Bible and Christ's teachings. I used to be a Roman Catholic and moved away from it because what was taught in RC didn't seem to match up with what I was reading from the Bible. I wouldn't consider the Mormons to be Christian from a Biblical understanding of that term since they deny the deity of Jesus Christ in the sense taught in the NT, the same would hold for the JWs.

Don’t be silly, of course Christianity comes in flavors.

You haven’t established what “proper” Christianity is.

Once you’ve done that you can proceed to educate everyone about it.

 

LNC

Whether or not there have been schisms within Christianity is irrelevant to the truth claims made within the Bible, in fact, they just confirm the sinfulness and fallenness of humanity.

No, it’s not irrelevant because you can’t establish what truth is from the Bible.

Christianity has had 2,000 years and still can’t display the perfect unity that Jesus prayed for.

[centauri]

So that's the way it works.

A cult leader isn't a cult leader if he deserves to be the Lord over every aspect of one's life.

You do realize that your rationalization has been used to justify totalitarian dictators right?

 

Correct. Totalitarians who have claimed such worship are ontologically unfit to receive such worship as they are just like us, but with more power. Jesus is ontologically different from us as he is God. Therefore, the comparison of the two is a category mistake.

You’re committing a mistake which is a fallacy of special pleading.

Prove Jesus is fit to be a dictator, while others are not.

[centauri]

Perhaps you would like to show where Judaism(or the New Testament) advocates celebrating Dec 25th as the birthday of an expected king messiah.

Wouldn't this qualify as a fad, being popular and fashionable among Christians.

The great Christian mind, Bill O'Reilly, has been a staunch defender of this fad.

Where is this holiday derived from?

 

The Bible doesn't advocate celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th, I have mentioned that that was a construct of the church in the past. However, nowhere in the Bible does in say that celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th or any other day of the year is wrong or not to be done. Is there a particular reason that you find this problematic? If that is a fad, again, it is a 2,000 year old fad, which I would think technically would disqualify it from being considered a fad. I don't consider Bill O'Reilly a spokesman for Christianity as much as a political commentator who calls himself Christian(ish). I don't consider the celebration of Christ's birth to be a core doctrine of Christianity, it could go away and not affect the core teaching of the Christian faith. Since it has become so commercialized and paganized, I wouldn't mind if it did fade away from popular culture.

Celebrating pagan holidays is condemned by God.

Jer 10:2-5

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

 

God instructs his people not to learn or practice the ways of the nations around them. It's astounding how Christians will ignore what the Bible tells them when it conflicts with what they want to do.

Perhaps you can lead the charge to bring Christians that do this back into line with God's will.

I'll look forward to hearing you on the O'Reilly Factor, informing him that Christmas is not a core tradition that needs to be defended at all costs.

[centauri]

It's a common attribute of cults to be steeped in supernatural beliefs.

What's anti-supernatural bias?

Do you have an anti-supernatural bias if you don't believe in Native American creation stories or in the revelation of Joseph Smith?

Did Paul have an anti-supernatural bias?

What Jewish fables did he regard as unsubstantiated?

Are any of them in the Bible?

Titus 1:14

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

 

OK, so cults are steeped in supernatural beliefs, so what? That doesn't mean that all belief systems that claim a supernatural basis are cults. That is simply a composition error to claim such. Anti-supernatural bias begins by concluding that the supernatural could not or does not exist without justification and then interpreting a text (the Bible) or an event (say, the resurrection) as false simply based upon your unproven bias, not based upon the evidence.

No, it was your error of special pleading to exempt Christianity from being classified as a cult when it has virtually every key attribute of one.

You’ve exhibited your own version of anti-supernatural bias in denying that Jesus could turn wine into blood.

 

Paul did not have an anti-supernatural bias. His reference to Jewish myths was not a statement against the supernatural but rather against false teachers. He uses the term "myth" or as you put it, "fable" in the euphemistic sense to refer to false teachings. Just as we might say of someone spreading lies, "don't listen to their stories." We aren't literally saying that they are telling stories, but are indicating euphemistically that they are spreading lies. That is what Paul is doing here as well as the context indicates.

What Jewish fables are on the list of falsehoods that need to be dismissed?

 

centauri:

It's another attribute that cults can demonstrate.

Christianity demonstrates this rather clearly, where believers insist that their truth is the only truth.

They channel their "truth" through a supernatural god-man, which gives it an extra air of authority.

 

I would say the same for Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Sam Harris and others. They channel their truth through man, the human animal and claim their own air of expert authority. OK, so we all are cult members, now what? You see, when you paint with a broad brush, it covers all of us.

You might advise fellow Christians that they're in no position to complain about cults.

[centauri]

I guess you don't understand the idea of justice in God's economy. God is a God of perfect justice and justice will be applied to every single person's sins. Either the person will take the punishment for their own sins, or they will accept the free gift that God offers to everyone and have Jesus take the punishment for those sins. Every person has the offer of Jesus to take the punishment and should a person refuse that offer, then they have chosen to pay their own way. God cannot be blamed for that and there is no "get out of jail free card," justice is meted out to all, the only question is who will pay the price.

You're promoting yet again, the Christian myth that God offers a "free gift" via Jesus.

The gift isn't free, it requires that several affirmative actions be performed.

If you don't perform the actions, you don't get the gift.

Christian doctrine on salvation only being possible through Jesus also doesn't line up with God's word, which clearly states that each person can save themselves.

They don't need Jesus.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Don’t be silly, of course Christianity comes in flavors.

You haven’t established what “proper” Christianity is.

Once you’ve done that you can proceed to educate everyone about it.

 

 

"Proper" Christianity is whatever flavor of Christianity LNC happens to agree with. If LNC happens to agree with Roman Catholicism, then Catholics are the only true Christians. If he happens to agree with conservative Protestants, then they're magically now the only true Christians. We don't even have to read the bible anymore to know the truth. We can just ask LNC to peer into his crystal ball and tell us what the truth is!

[oddbird1963]

However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

 

But there is a another, highly probable, explanation: Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave with other criminals and buried. Nobody was there to retrieve his body and the Roman soldiers disposed of it in the usual manner. There was no body to produce because it was buried and quickly wasted away. Even if they wanted to produce it before it was too decomposed, how would they find it and be able to distinguish it from other victims of crucifixion? Jesus was apparently beaten beyond recognition prior to being placed on the cross.

 

One of the greatest clues to the inauthentic nature of the crucifixion accounts is the protracted conversations Jesus and the two thieves had in the midst of being crucified. I have days (non-in-the-middle-of-being crucified days) where I don't have as many conversations as they did. Yet the two thieves have a heated conversation about Jesus. Jesus blab-blab-blab-blab-blabs (technical term) throughout the whole experience. All the while they are weakened from severe, flesh mangling beatings and breathing, due to the mechanics of the crucifixion, has become a voluntary bodily function that is accomplished by thrusting oneself up by putting all one's weight on nails that have been driven through the feet or ankles.

 

The context clue of the unlikely activity going on during crucifixion while on the cross throws the entire account of the crucifixion in doubt from a historical perspective. The simplest explanation is that Jesus died, was buried along with other executed criminals and lost to history. The other passages in the bible which describe the events of the crucifixion and post crucifixion activity are for the most part legendary and inaccessible to history.

 

This is by no means the only reason to view the gospel narratives and legendary and midrashic in nature. But it does not take a lot of imagination to understand why nobody would be able to simply "produce the body."

[mwc]

However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

So they put out the body and then the followers of "jesus" say "That's not him. You're lying!" Nothing is solved. Or are we expected to think they'd say "Well, you got us. That's him alright." Or that everyone would whip out their pictures of "jesus" and compare them to the corpse and the mob would know it was really him?

 

Or maybe they put out another body and get people to just say "Yep, that's him." And we'd get the same basic steps laid out above about (dis)proving who this body really was? Seems the mod wouldn't know "jesus" very well after a few days of rotting so just grab one of the guys you stuck him up there with and he'd look familiar enough to pass. Get some people to agree that's him and you're all done.

 

But what's the point? If the story is true to this point then he's dead. Why dig him up? The only ones thinking that he's running around are his idiotic followers and they only become a problem later in history. If they were an immediate problem they'd have been jailed and killed at the same time.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I'm skeptical that any religion is falsifiable, but I've always understood this as LNC's position. He's explained how he sees it as falsifiable, citing, among other things, the verification of multiple witnesses.

Hmm... For it to be falsifiable, it means that we should be able to postulate a condition for a negative position of the witnesses. In other words, we must be able to produce a test, which if it succeed would prove that the witnesses were not the witnesses at all, and if it fails, it would strengthen the support for them being the actual witnesses. What kind of falsifiable test could that be? And these tests must be solid, and not in turn be subject to faulty support, so which one can we find?

 

1) One could be: finding a witness that is a true witness and have a different story than the ones we're testing.

Problem: how would we know if someone is the "true" witness. We can't, so we can't do this test to verify or falsify the "Witnesses".

 

2) Another one could be: find one of the witnesses admitting they were lying.

Problem: this one has the problem that perhaps one did admit they were lying, but there's no record of it, so we can't know or test this one either.

 

3) Third one: find a video of the real events, or make a time machine and go back.

Problem: obvious. So this is not a valid test either.

 

I can't think of any other at the moment, but the problem I see is that we can't find ways of falsifying the "witnesses". That means, the claims and the events are not falsifiable.

 

And it's important not to confuse these two things:

 

1) not being able to create a falsifiable test

2) creating a falsifiable test which leads to a positive or negative result

 

Option 1 means: the claim is not falsifiable and can't be proven with Popper's method. To lack falsifiable tests does not mean it succeeds in a falsifiable test.

Option 2 means: the claim is falsifiable and will be supported or refuted through the results

 

So far Christians' claims mostly fall in option 1, and so does the "witnesses" claim.

[Neon Genesis]

 

You’re committing a mistake which is a fallacy of special pleading.

Prove Jesus is fit to be a dictator, while others are not.

I think it's funny that LNC denies his beliefs are a cult yet I'm looking at Wikipedia's definition of what defines a cult.

 

A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control

LNC definitely has an excessive amount of devotion to his version of Jesus. He's already threatened us with torture and tried to manipulate us by claiming we'll lose our moral values if we stop believing in God, so I think that counts under unethetical manipulative techniques of persuasion and control.

 

(e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management

He's definitely used debilitation by trying to guilt trip us into believing we're evil sinful people that support Hitler unless we turn to Jesus and he's been using information management by claiming any source that has information that contradicts his group is not to be trusted and should not be read. We should only read whatever sources LNC approves of.

 

suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc)

I don't think I have to explain why LNC is suspending individuality or critical judgment. By claiming we won't have any moral values or purpose for living and we'll all go to hell when we die, LNC has been promoting total dependency on his group and has been trying to get us to fear leaving xtianity.

 

designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community

And he's definitely been advancing the goals of his group's leaders. You know what they about something that walks like a duck...

 

This is by no means the only reason to view the gospel narratives and legendary and midrashic in nature. But it does not take a lot of imagination to understand why nobody would be able to simply "produce the body."

Yet LNC will just ignore everything we say and claim that it takes more faith for us to believe your alternative situation than it does to believe Jesus raised from the dead without giving a reason why that takes more faith. LNC loves to accuse us of using buzz words but he uses them more than anyone.

[dagnarus]

How do you know that there wasn't an exodus from Egypt? Did some contemporary historian record that there wasn't? What is your evidence? What "contradictory" events do you believe the NT records? How do you know that they are contradictory? Again, you haven't given any specific examples, just vague generalities. How can I give you an explanation for anything if you aren't specific? Also, just because an explanation may be clever doesn't mean that it is not true. However, whether the explanation is clever or clumsy I don't expect that you would accept them no matter how compelling.

 

How about the fact that the bible dates the exodus back to roughly 1490BC 1 Kings 6:1 which would have the children of escaping Egypt, wandering around the Sinai desert for 40 years and then taking over the land of Canaan all during a period of time when the Egyptian empire extended past Canaan. While I guess that their might not have been Egyptian watch posts in the area of the Sinai the Israelites were wandering in the fact still remains the biblical account has the Israelites invade territory which was controlled by the Egyptian empire up till roughly 1200BC in roughly 1450BC without the Israelites encountering a single Egyptian or mentioning a thing about them. Would this count as evidence contradicting the biblical account?

[Mriana]

However, if they would have had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it. There was enough motivation to stop the Christian movement as it was a thorn in the side of both Jews and Romans.

 

But there is a another, highly probable, explanation: Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave with other criminals and buried. Nobody was there to retrieve his body and the Roman soldiers disposed of it in the usual manner. There was no body to produce because it was buried and quickly wasted away. Even if they wanted to produce it before it was too decomposed, how would they find it and be able to distinguish it from other victims of crucifixion? Jesus was apparently beaten beyond recognition prior to being placed on the cross.

 

One of the greatest clues to the inauthentic nature of the crucifixion accounts is the protracted conversations Jesus and the two thieves had in the midst of being crucified. I have days (non-in-the-middle-of-being crucified days) where I don't have as many conversations as they did. Yet the two thieves have a heated conversation about Jesus. Jesus blab-blab-blab-blab-blabs (technical term) throughout the whole experience. All the while they are weakened from severe, flesh mangling beatings and breathing, due to the mechanics of the crucifixion, has become a voluntary bodily function that is accomplished by thrusting oneself up by putting all one's weight on nails that have been driven through the feet or ankles.

 

The context clue of the unlikely activity going on during crucifixion while on the cross throws the entire account of the crucifixion in doubt from a historical perspective. The simplest explanation is that Jesus died, was buried along with other executed criminals and lost to history. The other passages in the bible which describe the events of the crucifixion and post crucifixion activity are for the most part legendary and inaccessible to history.

 

This is by no means the only reason to view the gospel narratives and legendary and midrashic in nature. But it does not take a lot of imagination to understand why nobody would be able to simply "produce the body."

 

 

Not only that, (mechanics of crucifixion as you said) the position of the arms, as even told to me by a priest, cuts off the ability to breathe properly. Both the weight of the body pulling on the arms and having them out stretched as they were, causes one to basically suffocate. Basically it pinches off the ability to breathe. One can learn a lot from ministers willing to tell a person who wants to know, what others do not know or realize.

[Mriana]

I'm skeptical that any religion is falsifiable, but I've always understood this as LNC's position. He's explained how he sees it as falsifiable, citing, among other things, the verification of multiple witnesses.

Hmm... For it to be falsifiable, it means that we should be able to postulate a condition for a negative position of the witnesses. In other words, we must be able to produce a test, which if it succeed would prove that the witnesses were not the witnesses at all, and if it fails, it would strengthen the support for them being the actual witnesses. What kind of falsifiable test could that be? And these tests must be solid, and not in turn be subject to faulty support, so which one can we find?

 

1) One could be: finding a witness that is a true witness and have a different story than the ones we're testing.

Problem: how would we know if someone is the "true" witness. We can't, so we can't do this test to verify or falsify the "Witnesses".

 

2) Another one could be: find one of the witnesses admitting they were lying.

Problem: this one has the problem that perhaps one did admit they were lying, but there's no record of it, so we can't know or test this one either.

 

So far Christians' claims mostly fall in option 1, and so does the "witnesses" claim.

 

 

Except the gospels were not written by witnesses. They are not eye-witness accounts.

[Ouroboros]

Except the gospels were not written by witnesses. They are not eye-witness accounts.

I know that. But then it wasn't the discussion of my post either, but rather if the claim is falsifiable or not.

 

Perhaps I have to clarify that I'm talking about Popper's idea of how to falsify a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

 

And perhaps I have to explain (so there's no misunderstanding) that to have a claim "not falsifiable" does not mean that the claim is true, but rather that it can't be proven through this kind of method. It doesn't have what it takes to be a scientific proven idea. So it can only be treated on the level of probability or general acceptance. In other words, the resurrection can't be proven, and the eyewitness accounts can't be proven either.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

Not only that, (mechanics of crucifixion as you said) the position of the arms, as even told to me by a priest, cuts off the ability to breathe properly. Both the weight of the body pulling on the arms and having them out stretched as they were, causes one to basically suffocate. Basically it pinches off the ability to breathe. One can learn a lot from ministers willing to tell a person who wants to know, what others do not know or realize.

It's also interesting how in Mark's gospel, which is the earliest of the canon gospels, does not contain the conversation between Jesus and the thieves. Also, in some of the gospels, both thieves condemn Jesus wheres in one of the gospels, one of the thieves defends Jesus. I always wondered how xtians explained why the conversations were different.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

 

Not only that, (mechanics of crucifixion as you said) the position of the arms, as even told to me by a priest, cuts off the ability to breathe properly. Both the weight of the body pulling on the arms and having them out stretched as they were, causes one to basically suffocate. Basically it pinches off the ability to breathe. One can learn a lot from ministers willing to tell a person who wants to know, what others do not know or realize.

It's also interesting how in Mark's gospel, which is the earliest of the canon gospels, does not contain the conversation between Jesus and the thieves. Also, in some of the gospels, both thieves condemn Jesus wheres in one of the gospels, one of the thieves defends Jesus. I always wondered how xtians explained why the conversations were different.

Which is why it is likely that the christian community of the time and location of the gospel writers' respective communities probably "elaborated" on the Markan account, providing whatever material was needed, drawing from the mythos of both the Greek-influenced cultures and the Torah influenced cultures that comprised their community. Each gospel was drafted in such a way that important, unanswered questions were dealt with in a way that pointed to Jesus as the author and the finisher of their faith. The christian message pulled them from Jewish and/or Greek religion into their own unique brand of religion.

 

No witnesses needed. None were available. The resurrection began as a spiritual idea and was later literalized by the early christian church into a bodily resurrection. Ah, but look at me. I've deviated into speculation.

 

Suffice it to say that eye witnesses were not available and we cannot use the gospels as credible eyewitness accounts, because the stories contained in the gospels strain credulity.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

No witnesses needed. None were available. The resurrection began as a spiritual idea and was later literalized by the early christian church into a bodily resurrection. Ah, but look at me. I've deviated into speculation.

 

 

I always thought the early church was divided on the issue of whether or not the resurrection was literal or spiritual. Like Ehrman points out in his books that Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings we have and that Paul argues the resurrection was a literal necessary part of Christianity in 1 Cor 15 but that not all of the early Christians accepted Paul as authoritative. Like the Gnostics rejected the resurrection as heresy and accused the proto-orthodox Christians of being fakes because they believed that Jesus was a fully divine being and a divine being couldn't possibly die, so Jesus' physical body was seen as an illusion.

[oddbird1963]

Neon G:

 

Christianity has always been divided over various issues. I'm aware of the various strains of christianity that competed for followers in the first and second centuries. I plan on doing an in depth study of said divisions when I launch into my Ehrman reading marathon in a few weeks. One of his works I plan to read is "Lost Christianities."

 

I had heard the theories of the various beliefs of the early church as a young fundie seminary student, but never paid them too much attention because I already knew the right answers (oh to be young and arrogant again - - at least young). That's why I need to do a more in-depth study.

 

The latest I've read on that subject in the past few weeks is John Spong's "Resurrection, Myth or Reality?" Spong posits that there are hints in the gospels, especially Mark, that Peter and the disciples high-tailed it back to Galilee after Jesus' death. Months afterwards, around the time of the feast of tabernacles, Peter had a vision or caught on to the notion that Jesus was the Christ - the suffering servant pointed to by the Old Testament scriptures , especially the ones emphasized during the feast of tabernacles.

 

With this epiphany, he and the disciples trekked to Jerusalem and began to tell about Jesus who had risen and was seated at the right-hand of God. This was all a spiritual concept. Only later did the idea of the bodily resurrection enter in as part of the christian message.

 

Anyway, that's a partial snapshot of the theory that Spong espoused in his book. He shares the NT scholarship on the texts of the gospels and goes on to share his speculations about what actuallly happened.

 

If true, then this means that the spiritual resurrection was an Old Testament, Jewish notion of Jesus as a spiritual messiah. Other controversies about Jesus' true nature were based on the Gnostic concepts. I'm sure gnostics latched on to this early, as evidenced in certain of the epistles of the New Testament, but the developed into full blown movements or "heresies" at a much later date than Spong is dealing with.