(August 12, 2013 at 5:56 am)Vicki Q Wrote: I'm at all sure I've understood your argument. However, my reply to what I think it is would be that the disciples made clear claims that they witnessed the events, and observation, rather than any invention, is much the best explanation for the emergent beliefs in the form that they are. Or to put it another way, if they were going to create stuff about Jesus, it would be very unlikely to look like material that is coherent with C1 Judaism, yet is shockingly different.

Why is this? Would they not have access to the earlier texts? And which is it: is the fact that it's similar proof that it's real, or is that the fact that it's different? You can't claim that two contradictory propositions are proof for the same claim.

Quote:For example, if you believed in resurrection at all in C1 Israel, you thought it would happen to everyone at the instigation of the Kingdom of God. The idea that one person should be resurrected in advance of that universal resurrection would be thought...bizarre in the extreme. It's all much more likely to have come from something they saw.

Bizarre, huh? Is that so? This claim of singular resurrection isn't as original as you'd like to think: religions and myths both before and after christianity have employed it so often it's its own category.

Or are you claiming that all of these distinct individual resurrections occurred, just because the idea of it is weird?

(August 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The other major flaw is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory religions scattered across the world, and under the bounds of Vicki's argument each of them either a: witnessed miraculous events from their own gods, thus making christianity alone an unjustified religious stance, or b: believed it without seeing anything at all.

All this does is show the weird christian tendency to ignore the fact that other religions exist when constructing their arguments.

I'm well aware of the claims of other religions, and have spent a fair amount of time looking at them. When I see a new one, I'll check it out, case by case.

With Mormon for example, the tendency of the witnesses to do a theological hokey-cokey, together with the changes in belief providing no evidential weight, suggest to me that the historical data is better explained in ways other than those claimed by the religion. And the tea thing. I like tea.

Case by case. When all is said and done, I think Xianity offers a better worldview explanation for the data than alternate options. (Are you making assumptions about me believing in “Christianity alone”? Just a thought.)

One other thing I don't understand about Christians is how they manage to conclude that Jesus is the Messiah that was predicted in the OT, given that he doesn't meet the criteria. He wasn't even descended from King David, ffs.

(August 12, 2013 at 5:56 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(August 11, 2013 at 12:03 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: @Vicki, the fact that you believe despite not having seen it with your own eyes is proof that people would believe if they're told something happened. And there goes your argument.

I'm at all sure I've understood your argument. However, my reply to what I think it is would be that the disciples made clear claims that they witnessed the events, and observation, rather than any invention, is much the best explanation for the emergent beliefs in the form that they are. Or to put it another way, if they were going to create stuff about Jesus, it would be very unlikely to look like material that is coherent with C1 Judaism, yet is shockingly different.

1. They made claims. You haven't verified that the claims are real.

2. They cannot possibly have been mistaken? This is a false dichotomy you have here, it's not either they really saw it or they made it up. Eye witnesses are very often mistaken, or misunderstood when they give their accounts.

Your entire point is based upon they couldn't have made it up. But your only supporting argument is that you don't see why they would, well, reality isn't confined to your imagination.

And to add on to Esquilax's point: what about the claims of other religions? Is Islam true as well because why would mohammed make all these things up? What about those elaborate polytheism? There are literally hundreds of deities and why would anyone make them up?

Quote:For example, if you believed in resurrection at all in C1 Israel, you thought it would happen to everyone at the instigation of the Kingdom of God. The idea that one person should be resurrected in advance of that universal resurrection would be thought...bizarre in the extreme. It's all much more likely to have come from something they saw.

The entire thing is bizarre. That's why I don't believe it.

(August 12, 2013 at 6:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why is this? Would they not have access to the earlier texts? And which is it: is the fact that it's similar proof that it's real, or is that the fact that it's different? You can't claim that two contradictory propositions are proof for the same claim.


Bizarre, huh? Is that so? This claim of singular resurrection isn't as original as you'd like to think: religions and myths both before and after christianity have employed it so often it's its own category.

Or are you claiming that all of these distinct individual resurrections occurred, just because the idea of it is weird?

They had excellent access to OT texts...not sure I see the point here...

Material that is coherent yet dissimilar is a standard analytical tool in biblical historical criticism. (Note that I am not trying to use those criteria to establish the veracity of the resurrection here, just sayin' this gets done a lot.)

The resurrection of Jesus is coherent with the spectrum of C1 Judaism, but differs crucially as described earlier.



The comparative religion approach to explanation has a number of fatal flaws. One of these is that it is one thing to follow a religion suggesting that a divinity you never knew came back in some unknowable sense; it's quite another to claim that your mate, who you saw dead, was eating someone else's fish and chips in a new sort of body, right under your nose. The idea of a human coming back from the dead was pretty much unknown before Jesus. In the form of the account, of a new, physical, permanent resurrected body, completely unknown.

Crucially, none of this would account for the whole “Kingdom of God has arrived” thing. The complete change of belief about how Judaism should function. Those bold characters on my first post were intentional...

(August 12, 2013 at 7:05 am)Vicki Q Wrote: The comparative religion approach to explanation has a number of fatal flaws. One of these is that it is one thing to follow a religion suggesting that a divinity you never knew came back in some unknowable sense; it's quite another to claim that your mate, who you saw dead, was eating someone else's fish and chips in a new sort of body, right under your nose. The idea of a human coming back from the dead was pretty much unknown before Jesus. In the form of the account, of a new, physical, permanent resurrected body, completely unknown.

Unknown to you, maybe: The greeks had Asclepius, Achilles, Memnon, Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, Melicertes and Aristeas, to name a few, all of which died human and came back immortal. The last of these even has published eyewitness accounts!

Hell, there's three examples of this happening in the Tanakh, so to say it was unthinkable before Jesus is simply ignoring the times that it happened in Judaic lore. You're just wrong, on this point.

Quote:Crucially, none of this would account for the whole “Kingdom of God has arrived” thing. The complete change of belief about how Judaism should function. Those bold characters on my first post were intentional...

Except Judaism still exists. What you have is a splinter group of followers; not all that uncommon, for a religion.

(August 12, 2013 at 6:40 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: He wasn't even descended from King David,

As far as I understand it he was. Dodgy interpretation might lead you to believe otherwise. I go with the commonly accepted and accurate version.

(August 12, 2013 at 7:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 6:40 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: He wasn't even descended from King David,

As far as I understand it he was. Dodgy interpretation might lead you to believe otherwise. I go with the commonly accepted and accurate version.

Which is.....?

That he was

Really? They seem to have left that out of the Bible...