Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Davey, the whole of history is very much a power battle and in any case how do you know about the power battle?

Yup that's true which is why we always need to take the account of the 'victors' with a pinch of salt, particularly if we don't have similar accounts from the 'losers' of the power battle. And yes we do know there were all sorts of power battles going on about theological doctrine - hence the description of some groups on a particular side of that battle as heretics.

Again power battle effects could effect any history or account or are you conveniently forgetting politics?

That's right, and it applies to much of history. Which is why the claims of the victors in christianity (in the gospels) have to be treated with extreme caution unless there is other evidence to support their veracity - either archeological or from other independent sources. But of course there is no evidence of that type, not one iota, nada.

[Gordon]

No I was talking about how the events in the bible were believed by Christians, gave rise to a mass movement and that is why it is historically relevant. That could be taught as history.

You can certainly explore the history of Christianity over the centuries, such as its role in politics and conflict since there are facts to be had about this - and you can do that without referring to core Christian beliefs such as the claimed resurrection of Jesus. However you can't state that the claimed resurrection of Jesus is a historical event solely on the basis that some people have believed the claim.

You seem befuddled and aggressive.

Oh the irony.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can certainly explore the history of Christianity over the centuries, such as its role in politics and conflict since there are facts to be had about this - and you can do that without referring to core Christian beliefs such as the claimed resurrection of Jesus. However you can't state that the claimed resurrection of Jesus is a historical event solely on the basis that some people have believed the claim.

I think you can say that communities of Christians, 20 years after Jesus death believed that it had occurred and that the community contained those who claimed to have witnessed it and it was this which gave the movement impetus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yup that's true which is why we always need to take the account of the 'victors' with a pinch of salt, particularly if we don't have similar accounts from the 'losers' of the power battle. And yes we do know there were all sorts of power battles going on about theological doctrine - hence the description of some groups on a particular side of that battle as heretics.

But then they wouldn't think of themselves as heretics would they?

That's right, and it applies to much of history. Which is why the claims of the victors in christianity (in the gospels) have to be treated with extreme caution unless there is other evidence to support their veracity - either archeological or from other independent sources. But of course there is no evidence of that type, not one iota, nada.

Again you say we don't know that there were christians who believed the mainstream christian view and yet somehow we know they were beastly towards heretics. Do you see the problems here?

[Gordon]

I think you can say that communities of Christians, 20 years after Jesus death believed that it had occurred and that the community contained those who claimed to have witnessed it and it was this which gave the movement impetus.

Possibly - but how can you be sure they weren't mistaken, were gullible or were lying for the cause? That they believed it as a group doesn't make it so: if you are to claim that Jesus was dead and then not then you really do need more than anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that claim something so remarkable.

I'd have thought that the current stramash over attendance at non-parties just a year was a good example of the need to not believe everything people say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possibly - but how can you be sure they weren't mistaken, were gullible or were lying for the cause? That they believed it as a group doesn't make it so: if you are to claim that Jesus was dead and then not then you really do need more than anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that claim something so remarkable.

That is irrelevant. I might think that atheists are incorrect, gullible liars and yet think that that great shining moment of new atheism 2001- c 2018 was worthy of historical study.

I'd have thought that the current stramash over attendance at non-parties just a year was a good example of the need to not believe everything people say.

Or anything anybody says.

[Gordon]

That is irrelevant. I might think that atheists are incorrect, gullible liars and yet think that that great shining moment of new atheism 2001- c 2018 was worthy of historical study. Or anything anybody says.

But atheists tend not to make specific claims that they could be lying about: you should know this by now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But atheists tend not to make specific claims that they could be lying about: you should know this by now.

You mean like ''The God Delusion'' ''God is not great''?

[ProfessorDavey]

But then they wouldn't think of themselves as heretics would they?

They probably didn't think of themselves as heretics - presumably they firmly believed their theological position and considered their view to be correct. Hence the power battle. But history is written by the victors. So the 'winners' in the power battle labelled those that disagreed as heretical, and presumably also made sure that the documents that were preserved, reproduced, promulgated contained their theological position.

And we have some pretty cut and dried examples of the changes applied - perhaps the most obvious being the doctoring of the end of Mark (generally considered to be the first gospel) where the original contains no description of a resurrection whatsoever, but was added later. We only know this by the good chance to have before/after copies. How many other changes were made to documents in the 100 years from when they were claimed to have been originally written and the first tiny fragments we have. The answer is that we have no idea, but we do know that during that time there clearly disagreements over who Jesus was. Not just the so-called heretics, but also within the Jewish communities that Jesus lived in - most of those people did not accept Jesus was god and presumably didn't accept that he was resurrected. Had they done so, surely they'd have become early christians, rather than remaining within the existing jewish faith, at best considering Jesus to be just another prophet.

It is very telling that, pretty well exclusively amongst major religions, christianity failed to gain foothold amongst the very people who were in the same place and living at the same time as Jesus.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you say we don't know that there were christians who believed the mainstream christian view and yet somehow we know they were beastly towards heretics. Do you see the problems here?

I never said that we don't know there were early christians - of course we do, as there is evidence of their existence not just from their own records but from Jewish and Roman records from the end of the 1stC. And presumably some believed in the emerging orthodox position, while clearly others didn't - hence the power battle.

That's not what I said - when I was talking about was evidence to support the claims in the gospels, e.g. the resurrection claim. Beyond the NT (which is a partial document, carefully curated by the early church) do we have any contemporaneous, objective and independent evidence in support of that claim, either archeological or from other independent sources. But of course there is no evidence of that type, not one iota, nada.

We have independent evidence that some people believed those claims, but equally we have evidence that other people did not believe the claims. But knowing that some people believe something and other people don't believe something provides zero evidence as to whether the claim is actually true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They probably didn't think of themselves as heretics - presumably they firmly believed their theological position. Hence the power battle. But history is written by the victors. So the 'winners' in the power battle labelled those that disagreed as heretical, and presumably also made sure that the documents that were preserved, reproduced, promulgated contained their theological position.

And we have some pretty cut and dried examples of the changes applied - perhaps the most obvious being the doctoring of the end of Mark (generally considered to be the first gospel) where the original contains no description of a resurrection whatsoever, but was added later. We only know this by the good chance to have before/after copies. How many other changes were made to documents in the 100 years from when they were claimed to have been originally written and the first tiny fragments we have. The answer is that we have no idea, but we do know that during that time there clearly disagreements over who Jesus was. Not just the so-called heretics, but also within the Jewish communities that Jesus lived in - most of those people did not accept Jesus was god and presumably didn't accept that he was resurrected. Had they done so, surely they'd have become early christians, rather than remaining within the existing jewish faith, at best considering Jesus to be just another prophet.

It is very telling that, pretty well exclusively amongst major religions, christianity failed to gain foothold amongst the very people who were in the same place and living at the same time as Jesus.

Again you seem to be picking and choosing the parts of the history you want and discarding the rest. Do you agree that there was an orthodox early christianity and that it was pitted against heterodox movements since you are leading people to believe that the very early existence of christianity must be denied because of your newly revealed approach to what is history and what isn't.

That most did not believe Christ was resurrected or was God is a kind of argumentum ad populum isn't it. There were the Ebionites who believe he was resurrected but didn't believe he was God. What there isn't a lot of was that he didn't exist. That comes a lot later.

The question is then ''who am I going to believe and why?''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that we don't know there were early christians - of course we do, as there is evidence of their existence not just from their own records but from Jewish and Roman records from the end of the 1stC. And presumably some believed in the emerging orthodox position, while clearly others didn't - hence the power battle.

That's not what I said - when I was talking about was evidence to support the claims in the gospels, e.g. the resurrection claim. Beyond the NT (which is a partial document, carefully curated by the early church) do we have any contemporaneous, objective and independent evidence in support of that claim, either archeological or from other independent sources. But of course there is no evidence of that type, not one iota, nada.

We have independent evidence that some people believed those claims, but equally we have evidence that other people did not believe the claims. But knowing that some people believe something and other people don't believe something provides zero evidence as to whether the claim is actually true.

The problem with not accepting multiple testimonies because they are the same or have come to the same conclusion is that that looks indistinguishable from the Genetic fallacy. Here that would be all Christians are liars, gullible and fools, birds of a feather etc. so we can discard with impunity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yup that's true which is why we always need to take the account of the 'victors' with a pinch of salt, particularly if we don't have similar accounts from the 'losers' of the power battle.

Again this is misleading. Orthodox Christianity had no means of enforcement or suppression except for persuasion at this time. You seem to have given Christianity a top hat, cape , cane, and a dark twirly moustache to turn it into a melodramatic villain. There is evidence of ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Arianism even became the official view for a time.....a short time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you agree that there was an orthodox early christianity and that it was pitted against heterodox movements ...

You are looking at this entirely through the prism of knowing what happened next, rather than trying to understand what the situation was in, say AD80, or AD130.

Sure the winners claimed their view as orthodox, and dismissed the views of the losers as heretical. But had the 'other side' won then the reverse would have been the case.

And by restricting yourself to the early christian church you are also dismissing the views of the majority of the people who were there at the time and in the same places as Jesus.

So was there an 'orthodox' view about Jesus from the people around at the same time and place as Jesus that arose in the few decades after his death - say AD30-AD50. Well yes there was - and that view was clearly not that Jesus was son of god (and presumably wasn't that he was resurrected) - why do we know that. Well we know that because most of the people around at the time didn't choose to follow Jesus - they remained steadfastly Jewish.

And even within the minority who were following Jesus, the established view is that they were an apocalyptic cult - believing that the end of the world was coming in the next few years. What we now considered as 'orthodox christianity' wasn't settled in any meaningful manner until probably the early 4thC.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again this is misleading. Orthodox Christianity had no means of enforcement or suppression except for persuasion at this time. You seem to have given Christianity a top hat, cape , cane, and a dark twirly moustache to turn it into a melodramatic villain. There is evidence of ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Arianism even became the official view for a time.....a short time.

Which rather destroys your view that there was an orthodox view at the time. Surely if an alternative view became 'official' then it would have the best claim to orthodoxy at that time.

The reality is that there wasn't really an orthodoxy until that power struggle was settled - around the early 4thC. And until that point it could easily have been another view that had taken hold, become orthodox and then ensured that its views were promulgated and other view suppressed.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem with not accepting multiple testimonies because they are the same or have come to the same conclusion is that that looks indistinguishable from the Genetic fallacy. Here that would be all Christians are liars, gullible and fools, birds of a feather etc. so we can discard with impunity.

The problem with believing testimonies written from a single faith position and all arising from the same source, without any independent corroboratory evidence is that you will believe any old shit, simply because someone, somewhere says it is true.

No serious historian would do so, and that is why serious historians don't address the faith claims of christianity as history, simply because there is no evidence that stands up to the basic tests for historicity. So we find these academic studies within Theology departments, or Divinity departments not in History departments. And for good reason.

[Gordon]

You mean like ''The God Delusion'' ''God is not great''?

No - both of these are primarily critiques of theistic claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem with not accepting multiple testimonies ...

But there aren't really multiple testimonies are there Vlad.

One of the most ludicrous claims in the NT is that the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people at one time in one place. Well were are the testimonies of those 500, surely they'd have told others of this amazing thing that had just happened. Where are their testimonies - perhaps the 1000 that had heard it from the 500, or the 2000 who heard is third hand. Nothing, nada, not a thing. And this was within a society that had embedded two fastidious record keeping groups - the Romans and the Jews. Yet we have nothing whatsoever.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again this is misleading. Orthodox Christianity had no means of enforcement or suppression except for persuasion at this time.

Really - and there was me thinking that by the early 4thC heretical views had been criminalised and those promulgating those view were persecuted and in many cases executed. Hmm, that sounds like a pretty draconian means of enforcement and suppression of these alternative views. Now of course christianity isn't alone in following the tried and tested approach of the 'winners' - effectively to ruthlessly promulgate their own views and ruthlessly suppress alternative views, including murdering those who held those views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which rather destroys your view that there was an orthodox view at the time. Surely if an alternative view became 'official' then it would have the best claim to orthodoxy at that time.

You are doing it again, painting a struggle between an orthodox christianity and the heterodox christianities and then deny there was an orthodox christianity. What was doing the struggling then? Perhaps the use of word orthodox isn't helpful because you can word diddle with it. Let's use Pauline christianity instead

The reality is that there wasn't really an orthodoxy until that power struggle was settled

Heterodox christian ideas persist though as did pagan Gods - around the early 4thC. And until that point it could easily have been another view that had taken hold, become orthodox

But that would not have meant the end of Pauline christianity as Arianism has undergone several revival revivals, as has Jesus as mere prophet or moral teacher and then ensured that its views were promulgated and other view suppressed.

I'm not sure ideas can be suppressed. At that time and all through time the facility of schism has been there, certainly we know today what those views are. I said Arianism was the ''official'' religion not the orthodox, Pauline religion. The story of how that came to be is down to politics and was soon overturned. Was that the end of arianism, not really.

Really, since you have used the word orthodox fast and lose here with disregard of biblical scholars I will cease using it. Bart Ehrman talks about the belief that jesus was ONE person but both fully man and Fully God as Proto orthodox Christianity. There is no survivorship bias here because all ideas involved still exist and many have quite glorious revivals

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there aren't really multiple testimonies are there Vlad.

One of the most ludicrous claims in the NT is that the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people at one time in one place. Well were are the testimonies of those 500, surely they'd have told others of this amazing thing that had just happened. Where are their testimonies - perhaps the 1000 that had heard it from the 500, or the 2000 who heard is third hand. Nothing, nada, not a thing. And this was within a society that had embedded two fastidious record keeping groups - the Romans and the Jews. Yet we have nothing whatsoever.

why would they survive when the writings and recollections of millions of people from the past are no longer extant. The epistle was not primarily written for posterity. It was answering an immediate question. Paul's reputation and his preaching would at been seriously jeapordised had his challenge been bollocks and there weren't the number of witnesses. Fastidious records you say and yet christianity has, apparently more of it's records extant at an earlier time than many a classic author and the documents and their extancy of Rabbinical Judaism, a contemporary of Christianity are open to study.

By multiple testimony I mean the Gospel authors and the authors of the epistles.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are doing it again, painting a struggle between an orthodox christianity and the heterodox christianities and then deny there was an orthodox christianity. What was doing the struggling then? Perhaps the use of word orthodox isn't helpful because you can word diddle with it. Let's use Pauline christianity instead

Darned right - you shouldn't be using the term orthodox/heterodox when describing the theological debates in, say the 2ndC. Do do so is retrofitting the language of the eventual outcome of that debate to an earlier time. Had non Pauline views risen to the top permanently we (or rather you) would be describing them as orthodox, and Pauline views as heretical.

The point is that the orthodox view, as we now see it, wasn't settled until about the early 4thC and from AD30 to that point there was a theological battle raging between many views of who Jesus was and what he represented. And presumably all those view were based on their own testimonies, texts etc that were distinct one to another. Now, for various reasons we can't really see much detail of what was going on, particularly up until about 200AD because we simply don't have an extant texts. However we do know that once that orthodoxy had been established there was a processing of interpolation of key texts to fit that orthodoxy and clear suppression of alternative views.

[ProfessorDavey]

By multiple testimony I mean the Gospel authors and the authors of the epistles.

With the established historical view being that none of those authors were there at the time. Perhaps they each got their views from a different 'eye witness', but that appears unlikely as textual analysis suggests that certainly three of the gospels have the same source material. So at best you are now down to three testimonies recounted at least second hand (perhaps third or more hand), and perhaps just one second (or more) hand testimony.

Weak, weak, weak.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - and there was me thinking that by the early 4thC heretical views had been criminalised and those promulgating those view were persecuted and in many cases executed. Hmm, that sounds like a pretty draconian means of enforcement and suppression of these alternative views. Now of course christianity isn't alone in following the tried and tested approach of the 'winners' - effectively to ruthlessly promulgate their own views and ruthlessly suppress alternative views, including murdering those who held those views.

They may well have been criminalised but you cannot lock ideas up or police what people think in their heads can you?  Now when I became a Christian there was great interest in getting back to the days of the apostles as the model of how to conduct collective Christianity so I know that the hang 'em high state sponsored religion is not necessary to Christianity. The obvious thing of course is that a forced conversion..... isn't a conversion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Paul's reputation and his preaching would at been seriously jeapordised had his challenge been bollocks and there weren't the number of witnesses.

Sure - if Paul was preaching to the people who were there at the time. But he wasn't was he - he was addressing people living far away from the actual events, who themselves would have no knowledge first hand. So to them, Paul would have seemed closer to the events. To people living in Palestine in AD30, he would have seemed much further away. Why didn't he write to them Vlad (and don't mention Hebrews as it wasn't written by Paul) - perhaps because he knew that the people there at the time and at the place would have called him out as talking bollox. They certainly seemed to think so as they didn't by and large choose to follow Jesus, did they, they stayed resolutely orthodox jewish.