What Is God Made From?

[BeRational]

I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it

Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".

Or have I misunderstood him?

Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.

Do you accept the same when people write about miracles performed by sai baba?

If not, why not?

[Alien]

I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it

Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".

Or have I misunderstood him?

Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.

Do you accept the same when people write about miracles performed by sai baba?

If not, why not?

I accept that there are some people who honestly believe that they have seen him do miracles and who have written to that effect. Why do you ask?

[BeRational]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

[Alien]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

No, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

Reasons would include:
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.

There may be others, but that should get you started.

[BeRational]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

No, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

Reasons would include:
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.

There may be others, but that should get you started.

So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!

If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?

How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?

This is clearly just confirmation bias

[Alien]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

No, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

Reasons would include:
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.

There may be others, but that should get you started.

So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!

Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.

If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?

No, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?

How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?

Tricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I have asked you in the past if you would show us how it was done. I have offered to supply the nails, the cross and the spear, but you have declined. Do you yet have a trick which would show us how it may have been done?

Faulty reporting? How faulty?

This is clearly just confirmation bias

That claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.

[BeRational]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

No, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

Reasons would include:
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.

There may be others, but that should get you started.

So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!

Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.

If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?

No, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?

How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?

Tricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I have asked you in the past if you would show us how it was done. I have offered to supply the nails, the cross and the spear, but you have declined. Do you yet have a trick which would show us how it may have been done?

Faulty reporting? How faulty?

This is clearly just confirmation bias

That claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.

How do you know any of it actually happened? Its just words in a book, and you quickly discount writings about sai baba.

Why did you mention n that early Christians died because of their beliefs? So what?
As you accept just because they are prepared to die for a belief, it says nothing about the truth of f it.

You seem to give the accounts of Jesus an easy ride as far as skeptism thus demonstrating confirmation bias

[Gordon]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT, but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?     

[Nearly Sane]

And off Alien goes again treating claims as facts

[Alien]

Alien

Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?

No, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.

If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?

Reasons would include:
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.

There may be others, but that should get you started.

So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!

Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.

If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?

No, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?

How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?

Tricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I have asked you in the past if you would show us how it was done. I have offered to supply the nails, the cross and the spear, but you have declined. Do you yet have a trick which would show us how it may have been done?

So which trick then? You suggested it may have been a trick? Which trick? Come one, BeRational. Which one? How could he have done it?

Faulty reporting? How faulty?

This is clearly just confirmation bias

That claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.

How do you know any of it actually happened? Its just words in a book, and you quickly discount writings about sai baba.

Er, you didn't mention the writings of Sai Baba. As I said above, I would discount him for any miracles or any lessons in morality as he has been shown to be a trickster. Are you suggesting that we should do otherwise?

Why did you mention n that early Christians died because of their beliefs? So what?

Because it shows it was not a trick or deliberate deception by them.

As you accept just because they are prepared to die for a belief, it says nothing about the truth of f it.

Don't you read? I've already said that it does not show their belief to be true.

You seem to give the accounts of Jesus an easy ride as far as skeptism thus demonstrating confirmation bias

And you don't listen to what people say. Will you be asking me the same questions again and ignoring my answers again.

[Alien]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

[Gordon]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

Your first point in the above post still seems like special pleading to me: that the NT should be treated differently to other anecdotal accounts and that what is claimed (empty tomb etc) should be treated as historical facts because they feature in the Bible.

Secondly, how does propaganda not fit with this scenario? It seems like a potentially perfect fit in that you have promotional claims about Jesus being made by his supporters and/or those who wished to maintain the promotion of the Jesus myth even decades after the event, and also in the subsequent organisation of the Jesus myth - those I've seen referred to as 'church fathers' - which raises the risks of accepting arguments from authority and tradition.

Finally, that some believed this to the extent that they were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause. It seems that a young man from Dewsbury did this just the other day - is this evidence of the truth of his cause?

   

[Alien]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

Your first point in the above post still seems like special pleading to me: that the NT should be treated differently to other anecdotal accounts and that what is claimed (empty tomb etc) should be treated as historical facts because they feature in the Bible.

No, I am not claiming that it should be treated any differently. Treat it like any other document.

Secondly, how does propaganda not fit with this scenario? It seems like a potentially perfect fit in that you have promotional claims about Jesus being made by his supporters and/or those who wished to maintain the promotion of the Jesus myth even decades after the event, and also in the subsequent organisation of the Jesus myth - those I've seen referred to as 'church fathers' - which raises the risks of accepting arguments from authority and tradition.

Why would they want to promote "the Jesus myth"? So they could get killed? So that they could endure prison, beatings, shipwrecks, hatred from others? Please answer me.

Finally, that some believed this to the extent that they were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I keep saying this. Let me say it yet again. That someone is prepared to die for a belief does not thereby make that belief correct. I have not claimed that it does. I have never claimed that it does. Why keep bringing this up?

It seems that a young man from Dewsbury did this just the other day - is this evidence of the truth of his cause?

No, it is not. I have never claimed that it is.

I've started marking this out in red bold type in the hope that people will read what I have written.

[Gordon]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

Your first point in the above post still seems like special pleading to me: that the NT should be treated differently to other anecdotal accounts and that what is claimed (empty tomb etc) should be treated as historical facts because they feature in the Bible.

No, I am not claiming that it should be treated any differently. Treat it like any other document.

Secondly, how does propaganda not fit with this scenario? It seems like a potentially perfect fit in that you have promotional claims about Jesus being made by his supporters and/or those who wished to maintain the promotion of the Jesus myth even decades after the event, and also in the subsequent organisation of the Jesus myth - those I've seen referred to as 'church fathers' - which raises the risks of accepting arguments from authority and tradition.

Why would they want to promote "the Jesus myth"? So they could get killed? So that they could endure prison, beatings, shipwrecks, hatred from others? Please answer me.

Finally, that some believed this to the extent that they were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I keep saying this. Let me say it yet again. That someone is prepared to die for a belief does not thereby make that belief correct. I have not claimed that it does. I have never claimed that it does. Why keep bringing this up?

It seems that a young man from Dewsbury did this just the other day - is this evidence of the truth of his cause?

No, it is not. I have never claimed that it is.

I've started marking this out in red bold type in the hope that people will read what I have written.

So, Alan, some things we can accept are.

1. The details of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the NT are anecdotal claims and not historical facts: do we agree?

2. Bearing in mind that you have regularly noted that it seems relevant to you that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs it seems you are now agreeing that they did is no more relevant to the truth of their Christian beliefs than are the deaths of non-Christian suicide bombers to their beliefs today: do we agree?

3. That people get attracted to all sorts of beliefs and are prepared to suffer for them or live their lives in particular ways isn't unique to Christians, and obvious comparison are those whose cause was/is primarily political, so that 'persecution' or specific lifestyle choices/compromises of any form isn't indicative of the truth of whatever the cause is: do we agree?   

[jjohnjil]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.

 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.

[Alien]

...

So, Alan, some things we can accept are.

1. The details of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the NT are anecdotal claims and not historical facts: do we agree?

No. Firstly, please define "anecdotal" and secondly, you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.

2. Bearing in mind that you have regularly noted that it seems relevant to you that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs it seems you are now agreeing that they did is no more relevant to the truth of their Christian beliefs than are the deaths of non-Christian suicide bombers to their beliefs today: do we agree?

No, I don't. As I have said several times recently on this thread someone dying for a belief does not thereby show their belief to be true. To know whether it is true we need more information. However, their dying for a belief does indicate that they did not make it up. We need to ask why they were so sure it was true. Why do you think they were so sure?

3. That people get attracted to all sorts of beliefs and are prepared to suffer for them or live their lives in particular ways isn't unique to Christians, and obvious comparison are those whose cause was/is primarily political, so that 'persecution' or specific lifestyle choices/compromises of any form isn't indicative of the truth of whatever the cause is: do we agree?

Yes, at least on their own. Again we need to ask ourselves why they are prepared to do that. Are they correct in their belief, are they genuinely mistake for some reason or whatever?

[Alien]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.

 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.

Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.

I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?

[Gordon]

...

So, Alan, some things we can accept are.

1. The details of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the NT are anecdotal claims and not historical facts: do we agree?

No. Firstly, please define "anecdotal" and secondly, you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.

2. Bearing in mind that you have regularly noted that it seems relevant to you that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs it seems you are now agreeing that they did is no more relevant to the truth of their Christian beliefs than are the deaths of non-Christian suicide bombers to their beliefs today: do we agree?

No, I don't. As I have said several times recently on this thread someone dying for a belief does not thereby show their belief to be true. To know whether it is true we need more information. However, their dying for a belief does indicate that they did not make it up. We need to ask why they were so sure it was true. Why do you think they were so sure?

3. That people get attracted to all sorts of beliefs and are prepared to suffer for them or live their lives in particular ways isn't unique to Christians, and obvious comparison are those whose cause was/is primarily political, so that 'persecution' or specific lifestyle choices/compromises of any form isn't indicative of the truth of whatever the cause is: do we agree?

Yes, at least on their own. Again we need to ask ourselves why they are prepared to do that. Are they correct in their belief, are they genuinely mistake for some reason or whatever?

1. Anecdotal, in this case as being told by interested parties and recorded by unknown third parties: in both cases involving the risk of bias and propaganda, and of particular concern in this case is that these anecdotes involve supernatural claims that are indistinguishable from fiction as things stand.

2. I agree that someone being prepared to die for a belief does not mean that they, personally, were responsible for the belief - they may well have genuinely believed, which is surely the intention behind propaganda in the first place. However, that they were prepared to die does not confirm the truth of their belief in that they could have been mistaken, were deliberately misinformed and/or they were possibly more gullible than was good for them.

3. They may well have been genuine in their belief but the issue here is whether they had sufficient grounds for their belief - which is where the risks of mistake or propaganda arise, or by presuming that anecdotal claims involving the supernatural equate to historical facts because of where they are recorded. These are all highly relevant issues, as is the method by which these risks and concerns can be reconciled to the extent that what is claimed can reasonably be considered to be, as you say, 'correct'.

The problem is that there seems to be no method to overcome the very real risks of mistake or propaganda.     

[jjohnjil]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.

 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.

Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.

I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?

I think you should read what you've written, Alan, you're dismissing propaganda as a reason, because some of these people were prepared to die for what they said and wrote.  Why dismiss it for that reason if you think dying for your beliefs is ... in your words ...  so what?

[Alien]

Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?

I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).

My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,

No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.

but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.

Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.

These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.

 

It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?   

So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?

You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.

Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.

I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?

I think you should read what you've written, Alan, you're dismissing propaganda as a reason, because some of these people were prepared to die for what they said and wrote.  Why dismiss it for that reason if you think dying for your beliefs is ... in your words ...  so what?

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

[Leonard James]

People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

But who were these people who were killed for their belief? If there is authentic evidence that they were executed for believing, they obviously didn't think it was a lie.

[Gordon]

you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.

I fully realise that you believe this, Alan, but I dispute that you have any good grounds to do so given the risks that I've suggested that haven't been satisfactorily addressed.

History no doubt does involve human affairs and past events, and the history of human affairs is littered with mistakes and lies so I can't see that you can assume the supernatural as being a factual event in history based on human anecdote alone. If this is your position then, again, how do you exclude mistakes and lies?

In addition, and without you resorting to special pleading, how have you: a) identified the supernatural elements involved separately from any human anecdotal claims, and b) on what basis are the Christian supernatural claims surrounding the resurrection of Jesus historical facts when, I presume, you'd reject the Mormon claims about an encounter with an angel called Moroni as being a historical fact? 

[Gordon]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

[Jack Knave]

I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it

Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".

Or have I misunderstood him?

I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.

No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).

Which is basically what I said!!!

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

[Jack Knave]

I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true. And that in trying to explain things otherwise gets the thinker into implausible situations. From that everything else they say and claim has to be considered as being accurate in what he would see as a provable plausible position.

Well, as long as he's happy!

Disappointed you did not notice JK's error there, Leonard. After all we've only been discussing this stuff, what, 10 years.

Go on then where's my error?