Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 certain 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.

.
And writers of history are frequently not there at the time. We have Paul's epistles and he confirms the existence of the apostles and disciples plus his own encounter. This ''second and third hand'' business looks like an example of special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 chose to follow Jesus, did they, they stayed resolutely orthodox jewish.

The earliest known mention of the term Orthodox Jews was made in the Berlinische Monatsschrift in 1795

source. Wikipedia

Paul ministered to the gentiles.

[ProfessorDavey]

The earliest known mention of the term Orthodox Jews was made in the Berlinische Monatsschrift in 1795

source. Wikipedia

Which is why I used the word orthodox, not the word Orthodox. In other words they continued to follow the established jewish beliefs, they didn't follow Jesus. I am using the work orthodox in the same manner as you keep doing for christianity, except it is relevant for the jewish beliefs in AD40-ish as there were established orthodox beliefs. It is not relevant for christianity in AD40, or at any point for perhaps 200 years after that as an orthodox and established set of christian beliefs had not yet been settled.

[Alan Burns]

the resurrection is not known to be true, nor is it assumed as fact, nor are the claims based on reasoning or calculation.

There are no data in the gospel claims of resurrection.

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself.  Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?  Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie? The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found, or if there was any evidence discovered for the abduction of the body, but the faith survived and prospered despite the powerful efforts of those who were determined to quell it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bonkers, the only one mentioning those is you.

Yes, because you’re still trying to claim that Bible stories were “data” for the (supposed) accuracy of their claims. When TV fuzz was just TV fuzz it wasn’t data for anything. Only afterwards was it found to be data for something.   

I really don’t know how to make this any plainer for you.

Will you have the honesty now to admit that you were wrong about the Data we have from TV static is more than ''this is TVstatic''? and apologise in public here and in Saffron Walden Town Square?

Just bizarre. It’s you who’s wrong – and are still wrong – about this. Of course TV fuzz was eventually shown to be data for something, but that’s not the analog. Noise is just noise until and unless someone makes a bridge from noise to signal. What you’re trying here is to claim that the noise is signal with no bridge to get you there – and for as long as you keep doing that you cannot claim that Bible stories are "data" for their accuracy..

Speaking of apologies though, how about you apologising for the various lies you’ve told about me in the last few posts alone (“But of course, your mission is to erase religion”, “you undercut the very foundations of historical study by removing the validity of all ancient documents as sources of History” etc), and perhaps too for the thousands of lies you’ve told here in the past too?
     

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.

No you weren’t. You were claiming that the fact of stories being in the Bible was “data” for their (supposed) accuracy/truthfulness. Giving “rise to a mass movement” is “historically relevant” and is taught as history therefore but that’s just you shifting ground again. Your claim wasn’t about the historicity of the popular appeal of the stories – it was linking their popularity to their (supposed) accuracy/truthfulness. That was your argumentum ad populum error.     

You seem befuddled and aggressive.

I’m neither, though I can be exasperated by your pathological dishonesty.

[Gordon]

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself.

Nope - that is just evidence that people believed the resurrection story.

Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?

Yes - all that was required was that people believed the story - the story didn't have to be true for them to have believed it.

Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie?

No doubt their beliefs may well have sincere, and that their commitment to their beliefs, given the time and place, would place them at odds with authorities - that may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of what they believed.

The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found, or if there was any evidence discovered for the abduction of the body, but the faith survived and prospered despite the powerful efforts of those who were determined to quell it.

You're begging the question here is assuming that a) there was a body to be found, and b) the authorities at the time of the alleged death of Jesus saw any need to be concerned - possibly he (if he existed) was just another troublemaker they were glad to be rid of.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself.

No it isn’t. That’s just evidence that lots of people believed the resurrection story.

Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?

Provided enough people believed the story, yes of course it could. You know this already though (or you should to do at least) because of the many other religions that have arisen on the basis of miracle stories you think to be ridiculous.   

Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie?

If they didn’t know it was a lie (or just a mistakes) then yes.

The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found, or if there was any evidence discovered for the abduction of the body, but the faith survived and prospered despite the powerful efforts of those who were determined to quell it.

What point do you think you’re making here? 

[ProfessorDavey]

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself.

The most compelling evidence that the earth is flat are flat earthers - see the problem AB. That people believe something provides no evidence that what they believe is true, merely that they believe it to be so.

Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?

Well actually the growth in the early christian church wasn't phenomenal at all - actually it was pretty lacklustre and faltering, until the Romans were persuaded to adopt Christianity, but that was about 300 years after Jesus' death.

Compare that with the growth in Islam, where the whole of the Arabian peninsula had adopted islam by the time of Mohammed's death. That's phenomenal growth. And also note that for islam the people who heard Mohammed and his teachings (the people of early 7thC Arabia) by and large followed his religion. By contrast the people who heard Jesus and his teachings (the people of early 1stC Palestine) by and large rejected christianity.

Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie?

Believers in all sorts of things have been prepared to suffer dreadful persecution for their beliefs. That doesn't mean their beliefs are true, just that they believe them very fervently.

The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found, or if there was any evidence discovered for the abduction of the body, but the faith survived and prospered despite the powerful efforts of those who were determined to quell it.

But actually christianity was pretty well stopped in its tracks in the place where is arose (1stC Palestine) - see above. What proportion of the people who actually were around in 1stC Palestine believed sufficiently to follow Jesus - very few. Early christianity only gained traction amongst people who wouldn't have had first hand experience of Jesus and his teachings. Again compare with Islam which was overwhelmingly adopted by the people of 7thC Arabia during Mohammed's lifetime.

[Outrider]

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself.

Which would presumably mean that the longevity and breadth of Islam is strong evidence for the truth of Mohammed's claims and similarly for Hinduism and any number of others?

Christianity is a social phenomenon, and its success is evidence that it fits well in society, not necessarily that there is any validity to any of its claims. After all, the wealth of anti-vaccine nonsense floating around these days should show you that the popularity of an idea can be entirely divorced from any measure of how it reflects reality.

Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?

Yes. After all, even if you consider the story to be true, vanishingly few people actually had any direct experience; for everyone else who took up the mantle, they did so on the strength of the stories they were told which are the same stories regardless of whether they're true or not.

Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie?

Yes. People do odd things for any number of outlandish reasons - mental illness, desperate grasps for attention, actually believing what they'd been told...

The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found, or if there was any evidence discovered for the abduction of the body, but the faith survived and prospered despite the powerful efforts of those who were determined to quell it.

If there ever was a body. If anyone had the capacity to discern the evidence in that era. If it's so easy, how come no-one's shown that Mohammed didn't ascend on a winged unicorn, where's his body?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The obvious thing of course is that a forced conversion..... isn't a conversion.

True - but nor is a belief inculcated by indoctrination from an early age a truly and freely chosen belief.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it isn’t. That’s just evidence that lots of people believed the resurrection story.

The people who spread this to the people were not just believers.
They were eye witnesses to the reappearance of Jesus after the resurrection - most of whom subsequently died a martyrs death for proclaiming their witness.  Were they deliberately witnessing to a lie?

[ProfessorDavey]

They were eye witnesses to the reappearance of Jesus after the resurrection

Sorry AB - that is merely an assertion. You have no evidence for that whatsoever. Just because someone makes a claim that another person had an experience doesn't make it true.

[Gordon]

The people who spread this to the people were not just believers.
They were eye witnesses to the reappearance of Jesus after the resurrection - most of whom subsequently died a martyrs death for proclaiming their witness.  Were they deliberately witnessing to a lie?

You're still begging the question in assuming that this 'resurrection' happened - before you get to that point you need to have a basis to exclude the possibility that the resurrection claim could be propaganda. If so, then people may have died for believing the propaganda. 

You're conflating what they believed was true with what they believed being factually true independently of their belief. History shows that people are prepared to die for a cause they subscribe to - unfortunately, in more recent times, this includes killing others as well as themselves, such as flying aircraft into skyscrapers.

[ProfessorDavey]

They were eye witnesses to the reappearance of Jesus after the resurrection - most of whom subsequently died a martyrs death for proclaiming their witness.  Were they deliberately witnessing to a lie?

So let's take perhaps the most prominent example - Peter.

So there are plenty of claims by others that Peter encountered the resurrected Jesus. But Peter actually lived for another 30 odd years after the event and was a highly prominent early church leader. So surely in that position he would have clearly stated that he, himself had seen the resurrected Jesus - yet as far as I'm aware there is no evidence he ever did. He claimed that Jesus was resurrected, but not that he, himself was a witness. That is bizarre - surely if you were actually a witness you'd say so.

And then there is Mark - it is generally accepted that Mark's gospel is the closest to the position of Peter - yet in its original version not only does it make no claim that Peter encountered the resurrected Jesus, there are no post-resurrection accounts whatsoever.

So it seems likely that Peter believed that Jesus was resurrected, but if he was an actual witness why does he seem to shy at stating it.

[jeremyp]

The most compelling evidence for the resurrection is Christianity itself. Could the phenomenal growth of the early Christian church have taken place without the resurrection?

What about the phenomenal growth of Islam - or Mormonism?

Would the early disciples have risked dreadful persecution and death from both the Jewish hierarchy and Rome if their faith was based on a lie?

There are several possible explanations for that.

- the disciples didn't know it was a lie
- the disciples weren't persecuted
- the disciples were persecuted but not for their faith

The Christian faith could have been stopped in its tracks if the body was found

Could it? I think you underestimate the power ofd the human mind to ignore evidence it doesn't like.

[jeremyp]

So let's take perhaps the most prominent example - Peter.

So there are plenty of claims by others that Peter encountered the resurrected Jesus. But Peter actually lived for another 30 odd years after the event and was a highly prominent early church leader. So surely in that position he would have clearly stated that he, himself had seen the resurrected Jesus - yet as far as I'm aware there is no evidence he ever did.

He probably did claim that but, if he did, he never wrote it down. Even if you assume that he wrote the two letters attributed to him (which he probably didn't), he never claimed to have seen the risen Jesus in writing.

He claimed that Jesus was resurrected, but not that he, himself was a witness. That is bizarre - surely if you were actually a witness you'd say so.

And then there is Mark - it is generally accepted that Mark's gospel is the closest to the position of Peter - yet in its original version not only does it make no claim that Peter encountered the resurrected Jesus, there are no post-resurrection accounts whatsoever.

Tradition claims that Mark is the closest to Peter's position, mainly because tradition claims that Mark's source was Peter. But there's no real reason to believe any of that is true. It's generally accepted today that Mark has nothing to do with Peter.

So it seems likely that Peter believed that Jesus was resurrected, but if he was an actual witness why does he seem to shy at stating it.

The biggest problem with Peter is that tradition claims he was killed in Rome by Nero, but Nero killed the Christians as scapegoats for the Great Fire. They weren't killed for their beliefs but because they were a convenient and unpopular group to persecute. Recanting wouldn't save Peter because that wasn't the point of executing him.

[ProfessorDavey]

He probably did claim that but, if he did, he never wrote it down. Even if you assume that he wrote the two letters attributed to him (which he probably didn't), he never claimed to have seen the risen Jesus in writing.

It does seem odd that if Peter was writing something himself, or even someone else writing as if Peter that they don't mention this. I would have thought that this actual experience of the resurrected Jesus would be the very first thing he would say to anyone. Surely this would be his most convincing, killer argument as persuasion.

And actually as far as I'm aware there is no first person account of the physical resurrection (Paul's can be ignored as clearly a different thing, even if you accept he wasn't just going 'me too, me too, look at me, look at me'). It is always someone else who witnessed it. Strange indeed. Almost as if no one actually witnessed it but everyone bought into the group think that someone else did.

All very 'I knew a man, whose brother said he met a man who knew the Irish Girl'. Oyster Band reference in case you asked.

[Alan Burns]

It does seem odd that if Peter was writing something himself, or even someone else writing as if Peter that they don't mention this. I would have thought that this actual experience of the resurrected Jesus would be the very first thing he would say to anyone. Surely this would be his most convincing, killer argument as persuasion.

And actually as far as I'm aware there is no first person account of the physical resurrection (Paul's can be ignored as clearly a different thing, even if you accept he wasn't just going 'me too, me too, look at me, look at me'). It is always someone else who witnessed it. Strange indeed. Almost as if no one actually witnessed it but everyone bought into the group think that someone else did.

All very 'I knew a man, whose brother said he met a man who knew the Irish Girl'. Oyster Band reference in case you asked.

There were no eye witness accounts of the actual resurrection, but there are written accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus after the resurrection - including Peter.  These are the people who were willing to surrender their own lives to witness to their profound experience.

[Gordon]

There were no eye witness accounts of the actual resurrection, but there are written accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus after the resurrection - including Peter.

Do you think that is is possible that these accounts aren't factually correct?

These are the people who were willing to surrender their own lives to witness to their profound experience.

True - some are maybe sincere and/or altruistic, though possibly naive, and these days we refer to some others of this ilk as 'terrorists'.

I'd love to know why you guys get such a buzz out of using the term 'witness', as you do with implied profundity, since in that context it is literally meaningless since we all 'witness' everything that impacts on our lives, others we engage with and events in general - simply by being awake and paying sufficient attention. I've just 'witnessed' Mrs G make herself a cup of tea, which doesn't seem unduly profound but, nevertheless, I did 'witness' it.

[Alan Burns]

I'd love to know why you guys get such a buzz out of using the term 'witness', as you do with implied profundity

To refute what is being witnessed to, you would have to proclaim the person to be a liar, or produce evidence to show they were somehow deceived.  In addition to the recorded witnesses in the gospels, I have encountered many people who have witnessed to their experience of God working in their lives, and there are thousands of similar written accounts throughout the history of the Christian church including the lives of the saints.  It is highly unlikely that such witnesses to the faith were making deliberate lies, so were they all being deceived?

[torridon]

To refute what is being witnessed to, you would have to proclaim the person to be a liar, or produce evidence to show they were somehow deceived.  In addition to the recorded witnesses in the gospels, I have encountered many people who have witnessed to their experience of God working in their lives, and there are thousands of similar written accounts throughout the history of the Christian church including the lives of the saints.  It is highly unlikely that such witnesses to the faith were making deliberate lies, so were they all being deceived?

OK, but that is to ignore the people who don't have such experience.  Cherry picking leads to a distorted view, missing the bigger picture that takes into account the fuller breadth and diversity of human experience.

[Stranger]

In addition to the recorded witnesses in the gospels, I have encountered many people who have witnessed to their experience of God working in their lives, and there are thousands of similar written accounts throughout the history of the Christian church including the lives of the saints.  It is highly unlikely that such witnesses to the faith were making deliberate lies, so were they all being deceived?

Self-deception is very common, as your own posts here demonstrate. You have obviously convinced yourself, and have often claimed, that you have logic behind your claims about free will, and yet have repeatedly shown that you haven't and are totally unable to avoid obvious fallacies.

That aside, there are endless 'witness' claims about all sorts of faiths (which can't possibly all be true), not to mention other superstitions, fantastical stories, and pseudoscience (like homoeopathy, for example).

[Gordon]

To refute what is being witnessed to, you would have to proclaim the person to be a liar, or produce evidence to show they were somehow deceived.

Nope - all one need do is either ask them for hard evidence of a resurrection, and if that isn't available ask them to explain how they addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in any accounts - the burden of proof is theirs (and yours).

I have encountered many people who have witnessed to their experience of God working in their lives, and there are thousands of similar written accounts throughout the history of the Christian church including the lives of the saints.

Same problem - can they demonstrate the 'God' element independently of their personal biases and show how these accounts have been assessed as being free of the risks of mistake or lies. That some people have the conviction that 'God' is working in their lives is evidence only of their personal convictions without some external verification to confirm some form of divine intervention.

Then you have the problem of, say, where one person survives a disaster and attributes their survival to the Christian 'God', and no doubt Christians such as yourself would see this as 'God working', but what about all those in the same disaster who were killed? Why wasn't 'God' working in their lives too?   
 

It is highly unlikely that such witnesses to the faith were making deliberate lies, so were they all being deceived?

On what basis is it unlikely? You can't say unless you have a basis to assess whether or not deception was a risk, and without such a basis you can't exclude the risk of deception. That someone doesn't feel they are being deceived doesn't mean that haven't been, especially if their gullibility and biases leave them open to effective propaganda.

It's almost as if you think that Christians would neither deceive or could be deceived, especially by themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you think that is is possible that these accounts aren't factually correct?

True - some are maybe sincere and/or altruistic, though possibly naive, and these days we refer to some others of this ilk as 'terrorists'.

I'd love to know why you guys get such a buzz out of using the term 'witness', as you do with implied profundity, since in that context it is literally meaningless since we all 'witness' everything that impacts on our lives, others we engage with and events in general - simply by being awake and paying sufficient attention. I've just 'witnessed' Mrs G make herself a cup of tea, which doesn't seem unduly profound but, nevertheless, I did 'witness' it.

I was writing elsewhere this week about my dislike of the term 'lived experience' in part because it's a tautology, but also because it seeks to add some undeserved profundity to the ecperiences being talked about by linguistic legerdemain. 'Witness' being used in this contect seems to be similar.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To refute…

“Refute” means “disprove”. I don’t need to disprove claims and assertions about supposed gods – I just have to find no good reasons to take them seriously.   

…what is being witnessed to,…

“Witness” is a word religious people use falsely because it reifies its object. What you should have said there was, “what is being asserted without qualification” or similar.     

…you would have to proclaim the person to be a liar, or produce evidence to show they were somehow deceived.

No you wouldn’t. All you’d have to do would be to ask them to justify their claims, and when those justifications are found to be false their assertions can safely be ignored.

In addition to the recorded witnesses in the gospels,…

Which accounts fall well below even basic tests of historicity, for reasons that have been explained to you many times.

…I have encountered many people who have witnessed to their experience of God working in their lives,…

No, you have encountered many people who have made unqualified assertions about that (see above). People from other faiths have also encountered many people who have made their own unqualified assertions about their various gods, djinns, spooks and ghoulies too.   

…and there are thousands of similar written accounts throughout the history of the Christian church including the lives of the saints.

Yes, as there are in the accounts of the Norse, of the Sumerians, of the ancient Greeks, of the…

Pretty much all pre-Enlightenment societies made up stories like this to explain their satisfaction the phenomena they observed around them. Oddly (to my mind) some such remain despite the ludicrousness of their claims. 

It is highly unlikely that such witnesses to the faith were making deliberate lies, so were they all being deceived?

Possibly, but the more likely explanation is that they lived in a culture in which supernatural explanations of many sorts were commonplace (some of which, like the resurrection story, had been plagiarised from previous traditions – a process called “syncretism”) and they lacked the tools and reasoning to dismiss them.