@Vicki, are you really saying that Christianity is true because no one can think up a religion like that?

Do you mind replying my previous post and address all the other religions in this world and why it's easier to create them than Christianity?

(August 13, 2013 at 6:31 am)Vicki Q Wrote: Oranges and hand grenades...please be aware you're trying to answer a rather different argument here.

Firstly, what the Wikipedia entry doesn't detail is that nearly all of these were given divinised status in the stars, or similar. Not came back and ate fish with their friends.

The point is that the idea of resurrection isn't quite as uncommon as you'd think; that there are different variations just goes to show the creativity that people have. You're saying it's unlikely that people could make up such a story.

I'm saying you should give writers more credit.

Quote:The Aristeas one, and the three in the article from Judaism, are more interesting, and more helpful. They illustrate the broader point I've been trying to make (again, in bold in my original post), which is mentioned further down the Wiki article. None of these were single examples of the general resurrection. None of these imply that the Kingdom of God has arrived. None of these would create a radical revision of belief such as the redundancy of central parts of the Torah. Aristeas is vaguely the nearest equivalent event, and to go from an obscure Greek legend to mandating a complete overhaul of Jewish core beliefs is stretching things so far beyond breaking point that not even unbreakable duct tape will prevent it.

Why would the story need to be identical? If enough of the beats correspond to other proposed events in history, doesn't that by definition lessen the staggering act of creativity that you're implying would need to take place if the Jesus resurrection was man made?

Quote:Furthermore, there is no evidence at all of the disciples borrowing ideas from Greek literature to alter Jewish doctrine. They certainly weren't borrowing from Greek beliefs (Acts 17:22-34), which is further supported by what we know about anti-Gentile attitudes in C1 Israel (“Romanes eunt domus”, as the slogan goes).

Which just goes to show that such stories are common imaginative fodder, and not so rare as you'd think. Fact is, resurrection stories occur in many cultures; death is a universal fact of life, after all. The desire to transcend it similarly so. Your contention is that this particular story is so weird it must be true, based solely on the fact that the guy walked around some after resurrecting and there were some new religious claims tacked on. Extrapolations on a common cultural touchstone aren't real just because they're uncommon; you'll need to provide more evidence than the fact you think this story is rare.

Quote:Yes, but why did this splinter group appear with those beliefs?

I don't know. Does uncommon equal true?

(August 13, 2013 at 3:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Meh. I think(without confirmation) a matrilineal lineage makes zero sense...other than as apologetic tripe. I thought common practice was to follow the father's line.

Then you deny the fact that this is what Jews believe. Don't take my word for it, go look it up.

Min is correct. The genealogies don't appear to be accurate. There are many attempts at explaining that. You might notice that I never said anything to contradict that.

The facts remain : what we do know, that the blood line is female, and the title passes through the male line.

Firstly...what I have called matrilineal descent is actually patrilineal descent on the mother's side, yes? I.e. a daughter with a list of forefathers. Are lists of this kind a common occurance in BCE Israel? (Honestly asking.) I am under the impression 'no'. I don't deny patrilineal lineages were used, only that they seem, to my recollection, to be utilized by male heirs. For a female to have hers conveniently available to be accounted in a gospel seems a stretch. Especially so if one is determined to discount Joseph's line. (The paternity tests were lost....an apparent 'act of god'.) A double downed lineage tree may be a slam dunk for the faithful, but it seems a bit planted to the skeptic.

Secondly...what do the Jews believe, and I deny? A matrilineal line? If I follow you, yes, rabbinical Jews use maternity as proof of a child's ethnicity. But this is, I believe, a more recent development. Furthermore, a history of maternal 'jewishness' doesn't really advance an argument for patrilineal lineages. A true matrilineal lineage I believe would read 'child 'Z', begat by mother 'Y', whose mother was 'X', whose mother was...' ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Frodo, your statement quoted above makes sense only if Jews routinely used a mother's list of forefathers for whatever sundry purpose. Otherwise, you've lost me. (It happens...a lot!)

Facts on a female blood line and a title handed down to a step child seem shaky, doncha think?

(August 13, 2013 at 3:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The names are male, but the line is female. Patriarchy it's a wonderful thing.

Please give evidence for this! You keep saying the same thing but not backing it up. The one source you gave us committed the same sin too.

This idea that naming the males of the mother's line and then ending it with husband of mother and making no mention mother herself at all was a practice is probably a desperate ad hoc solution to this bible contradiction.

Can you find a source that gives solid evidence that this was practice? I doubt you can. All you'll probably find are apologists assuming this was practice in order to get out of a bible contradiction. "The Bible is perfect so we can't possibly have a contradiction, therefore, Luke must be talking about Mary's line but couldn't say Mary and had to make it look like it was Joseph's because of the patriarchal system back then. Yeah, that's it!"

Hi both. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to searching out a good source for you. (a bee stung my wife in the eye and we're waiting in A&E)

I don't remember if we conferred the immediate parents, but Joseph adopted Jesus, but Jesus still inherited his father's title. There was a curse on that lineage so Jesus being adopted solved that. Luke lists Heli as Jesus father, but Heli was in fact Mary's father.

I may have been off with the female thing, but it was definitely a blood thing.
The title/ the fact of royal descent came through Joseph to his adopted son. The genetic link to David came through Mary.

(August 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hi both. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to searching out a good source for you. (a bee stung my wife in the eye and we're waiting in A&E)

I don't remember if we conferred the immediate parents, but Joseph adopted Jesus, but Jesus still inherited his father's title. There was a curse on that lineage so Jesus being adopted solved that. Luke lists Heli as Jesus father, but Heli was in fact Mary's father.

I may have been off with the female thing, but it was definitely a blood thing.
The title/ the fact of royal descent came through Joseph to his adopted son. The genetic link to David came through Mary.

Egads! Yeah, wife first. I hope she doesn't have lasting damage. I know first hand that eye injuries suck!

The rest of your post I'll ignore in light of pressing concerns.

Take care.

I gave you kudos for your wife. Hopefully she's alright. Ouch, in the eye!

Oh, and also for your quick apologetics to align yourself with what we could already observe about the two accounts.

(August 13, 2013 at 7:54 am)Esquilax Wrote: The point is that the idea of resurrection isn't quite as uncommon as you'd think; that there are different variations just goes to show the creativity that people have. You're saying it's unlikely that people could make up such a story.

<snip>

I don't know. Does uncommon equal true?

It's a little bit more than “variations”. Castor being allowed to share eternity with his brother in the form of twin stars has no connection at all with the C1 Jewish concept of the general resurrection. Again, it's oranges and hand grenades.


Let me recap the issue:

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that vital, central elements of the Torah could now be ignored?” .Your answer was that they were employing a rebirth myth from Egypt. It's a non-sequitur.

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Kingdom of God had arrived?”. Your answer was that they had used the story of Achilles. It's a non-sequitur.

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Jewish meta-narrative about God's people was redefined around the person of Jesus?” Your answer was that they had used an obscure centuries old resurrection legend from Greek literature. It's a non-sequitur.

I think what's happening is that you're continuing to run with a favourite explanation against the more common Xian argument that 'The resurrection is forensically watertight', without realising that I'm making a different kind of argument. Now I would like to spend time contesting your claims about drawing from other religions, but since it's unconnected to my argument, it'll have to wait for another day.

---

(August 13, 2013 at 7:27 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Do you mind replying my previous post and address all the other religions in this world and why it's easier to create them than Christianity?

Please accept my apologies. Experience has shown that it is not sensible for me to try to engage more than one person at once.

Quote: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?

I'd rather not get into more than one heavy line in the same thread. I did already say that I look at the claims of each religion on a case by case basis, and have yet to find one that has the explanatory strength of Xianity.

Quote:@Vicki, are you really saying that Christianity is true because no one can think up a religion like that?

I wouldn't summarise my argument in that way, and as I said, summary is hard to do (it would be helpful for you to look at my other posts). I am asking the question of why a Jewish group made dramatic changes to their beliefs. These involve massive, core issues about national identity, central religious praxis and the splitting of the general resurrection into two parts, with it moving to the centre of belief from the fringes. Not to mention key ideas about God.

It seems clear that these are driven by events. The types of changes are those made by people reacting to what has been put in front of them.

Now you earlier raised the important question “If you accept these changes came from perceived experience, why could that not have been a mistake?”

What sort of mistake? If they had wanted to use the language of dreams and visions, they had plenty of available ways of doing it. But, be in no doubt, the claim is of a physical, hands on, fish munching, bread breaking set of experiences, not some dream or vision.

My mother died last month. If she turned up at the door and ate dinner tonight, it would dramatically change my understanding of a whole lot of things. That's what the disciples said happened. And it kept happening. I'm not sure where a mistake would have arisen.

(August 14, 2013 at 8:14 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 7:27 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Do you mind replying my previous post and address all the other religions in this world and why it's easier to create them than Christianity?

Please accept my apologies. Experience has shown that it is not sensible for me to try to engage more than one person at once.

Quote: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?

I'd rather not get into more than one heavy line in the same thread. I did already say that I look at the claims of each religion on a case by case basis, and have yet to find one that has the explanatory strength of Xianity (1).

It's ok if you choose not to reply, but you'll understand that I can't let this stand because that would look like I accept this as a valid argument, I do not.

(1) This is a different point. How explanatory a religion is has nothing to do with how true it is. A true religion HAS to be explanatory. A religion that has explanatory strength isn't necessarily true. If we're comparing what explains the most, science wins every time.

Quote:

Quote:@Vicki, are you really saying that Christianity is true because no one can think up a religion like that?

I wouldn't summarise my argument in that way, and as I said, summary is hard to do (it would be helpful for you to look at my other posts). (2) I am asking the question of why a Jewish group made dramatic changes to their beliefs. These involve massive, core issues about national identity, central religious praxis and the splitting of the general resurrection into two parts, with it moving to the centre of belief from the fringes. Not to mention key ideas about God. (3)

(2) I have.

(3) You may have noticed that I'm not nitpicking with you about what you said regarding what is the jewish expectation and how drastically different jesus is. That's because I know next to nothing about the history of Christianity and I've forgotten most of what I once knew about the bible. What I'm saying is: the argument you're making right now, can be applied to a lot, if not all, religions. I'm no impressed with how incredulous the Jesus story would have been when it first started out, it's equally incredulous now and people still buy it. Every outrageous belief starts somewhere. Otherwise there'd be no wrong beliefs in this world.

Quote:It seems clear that these are driven by events. The types of changes are those made by people reacting to what has been put in front of them.

No, it's not all that clear. It could've been driven by faith, motive, profit, may even have been rewritten (someone else probably knows if it's actually been).

You do know that there are several living humans claiming to be messiahs right now and they all have a following?

Quote:Now you earlier raised the important question “If you accept these changes came from perceived experience, why could that not have been a mistake?”

What sort of mistake? If they had wanted to use the language of dreams and visions, they had plenty of available ways of doing it. But, be in no doubt, the claim is of a physical, hands on, fish munching, bread breaking set of experiences, not some dream or vision.

Well, I think it's pretty easy to be mistaken in a time where no one takes photographs. And jesus was supposedly tortured really badly before he was crucified (I'm going with the bible's accounts of events here, which are likely baseless), since he probably had a lot of facial hair coupled with their desire to see him resurrected, if someone claims they're jesus resurrected, it's likely some would be convinced. And then the rest feel like they're not convinced because they lack faith, so they pretend. I don't know, Vicki, I wasn't there, a million things could've happened.

Quote:My mother died last month. If she turned up at the door and ate dinner tonight, it would dramatically change my understanding of a whole lot of things. That's what the disciples said happened. And it kept happening. I'm not sure where a mistake would have arisen.

I'm sorry about your mother.

They were living in a time where news spread by word of mouth. And even if they wrote things down, most were illiterate to read and reproduction of what they wrote would be difficult and likely inaccurate. Maybe someone heard something wrong, and then this belief started, and then the disciples thought it'd be a good idea to keep it going.

You see what I'm trying to say? That anything could've happened. I'm not claiming that my speculations happened, but they very well could have, they're within the constraints of physical laws, while your version of events are not. That's why I said your argument can be applied to every religion there is.

Ask a muslim about mohammed, they'll say why would he make all these things up? Where would he get it from? Gabriel must've told him.

(August 14, 2013 at 8:14 am)Vicki Q Wrote: It's a little bit more than “variations”. Castor being allowed to share eternity with his brother in the form of twin stars has no connection at all with the C1 Jewish concept of the general resurrection. Again, it's oranges and hand grenades.

I think I know what the issue is here...

Quote:Let me recap the issue:

I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that vital, central elements of the Torah could now be ignored?” .Your answer was that they were employing a rebirth myth from Egypt. It's a non-sequitur.

Yeah, I've got it: you've completely misunderstood me. I'm not implying that the two stories are connected in any literal sense, but rather in a broader, human sense; these stories repeat, over and over throughout history, with variations according to culture and narrative context certainly, but the basics repeat. Your initial claim was that the idea of singular, personal resurrection would be so outlandish to the ancient Jewish people, as compared to their original resurrection claims, that it would never occur to them. I'm not saying they cribbed from other cultures, I'm saying that singular resurrection stories are endemic, a part of the human mindset. Death is the one universal, after all.

As to the question you've asked here... could be many reasons. Perhaps the old elements were no longer convenient politically or sociologically? Perhaps the weavers of the narrative were simply inconsistent in their doings; there are plenty of outright contradictions in the bible to attest to that. It could be any number of things, and to conclude that the only way this turn of events could have panned out is for the stories to be literally true is ludicrous.

Quote:I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Kingdom of God had arrived?”. Your answer was that they had used the story of Achilles. It's a non-sequitur.

Again, not my answer. My specific answer to that question would be, who knows? We're talking about superstitious desert people from the bad old days. Nothing in this question points at the truth of the resurrection either.

Quote:I am asking the question “Why did the disciples conclude that the Jewish meta-narrative about God's people was redefined around the person of Jesus?” Your answer was that they had used an obscure centuries old resurrection legend from Greek literature. It's a non-sequitur.

Well, given that we can't even confirm that Jesus existed outside of inherently biased biblical accounts, I'm going to go ahead and say that on balance, the answer to that question probably isn't "Because Jesus really existed and everything he was purported to have done literally happened."

Quote:I think what's happening is that you're continuing to run with a favourite explanation against the more common Xian argument that 'The resurrection is forensically watertight', without realising that I'm making a different kind of argument. Now I would like to spend time contesting your claims about drawing from other religions, but since it's unconnected to my argument, it'll have to wait for another day.

Seriously, none of those were my contentions.