Proof of Christianity

[Vicki Q]

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.

---

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.

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.

@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.