Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It also seems to me that some Christians today indulge in default special pleading on behalf of 1st and 2nd century Christians: that unlike the risks associated with people in general, from whatever time or place, these early Christians were somehow immune from making mistakes or telling lies for a cause.

[Outrider]

Mohammed had to deny the crucifixion and resurrection in order to elevate himself above Jesus.

But lots of people believed it quickly, so therefore it's true, that's the standard that you set.

And the rapid expansion of Islam was brought about by violence whereas the rapid expansion of Christianity could only be attributed to the resurrection.

Or the politically motivated assumption of the religion by civic leaders looking to refresh their image during contentious times... you know, history before magic.

O.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know they faced persecution and death?

It is why Jesus was put to death.
And is well documented in Acts.

[Nearly Sane]

It is why Jesus was put to death.
And is well documented in Acts.

Taking all of what's in the Bible for the sake of argument, aside from the miracles  as correct, I'd argue that's not a realistic interpretation. Jesus was crucified because he was a bit of annoyance, and Romans didn't like that. They didn't have any interest in the message or what it meant at that stage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Don't think events 280 years after the supposed resurrection can be considered rapid. As already covered, it's a vague claim but in the absence of any details, it's only reasonable to apply normal usage.

We seem to be at cross purposes. AB claims “rapid expansion” (and then falls into a basic error in reasoning in ascribing a cause for it). He doesn’t tell us what he means by “rapid”, and nor which period of expansion he’s thinking of but to my knowledge early Christianity didn’t expand especially rapidly compared with the early growth of other faiths, but it did post Constantine. How it gained a foothold and survived its first 300 years or so might be interesting for historians of such matters, but the point remains that AB’s causal argument (ie, assertion) of “the resurrection was real, therefore it expanded rapidly” doesn’t withstand scrutiny.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It also seems to me that some Christians today indulge in default special pleading on behalf of 1st and 2nd century Christians: that unlike the risks associated with people in general, from whatever time or place, these early Christians were somehow immune from making mistakes or telling lies for a cause.

It used to be widely understood that the correct way historically, to debunk the resurrection was to either find the body or produce a record of having found the body.

Now all we seem to get is some kind of scientism about probabilities and a poorly connected statement about history being a form of science

[ProfessorDavey]

NS,

We seem to be at cross purposes. AB claims “rapid expansion” (and then falls into a basic error in reasoning in ascribing a cause for it). He doesn’t tell us what he means by “rapid”, and nor which period of expansion he’s thinking of but to my knowledge early Christianity didn’t expand especially rapidly compared with the early growth of other faiths, but it did post Constantine. How it gained a foothold and survived its first 300 years or so might be interesting for historians of such matters, but the point remains that AB’s causal argument (ie, assertion) of “the resurrection was real, therefore it expanded rapidly” doesn’t withstand scrutiny.     

AB is fundamentally wrong about a 'rapid expansion'. Christianity seems to me to be pretty unique in terms of major religions in failing to gain any significant foothold in the place and amongst the people where is arose. Effectively it bumped along for the first couple of centuries with no-where becoming a predominantly christian area (and certainly not in Palestine). Realistically the game changer was Constantine at which point christianity did gain a dominant foothold in significant areas. But that wasn't until nigh on 300 years after Jesus.

That's hardly a rapid expansion. If you want to see a rapid expansion - look at islam.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It used to be widely understood that the correct way historically, to debunk the resurrection was to either find the body or produce a record of having found the body.

No it didn’t. It used to be thought and is still thought that the correct way to accept or not to accept the resurrection story as historically true was and is to apply basic tests of historicity.   

Now all we seem to get is some kind of scientism about probabilities and a poorly connected statement about history being a form of science

None that that is true. What you actually get is the failure of the resurrection story to satisfy the tests that academic historians apply to any such claim of historical actuality. 

[Outrider]

It used to be widely understood that the correct way historically, to debunk the resurrection was to either find the body or produce a record of having found the body.

Because the onus was on the non-religious to prove that the unverifiable claim wasn't true... I don't need to disprove a resurrection, I can dismiss it on the basis that we don't accept 'magic' as an explanation.

Now all we seem to get is some kind of scientism about probabilities and a poorly connected statement about history being a form of science

Quick, throw in an assertion of 'scientism', make it sound like all opinions without absolute validation are equally illegitimate, then everyone else is in the same non-existent philosophical boat as you...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the onus was on the non-religious to prove that the unverifiable claim wasn't true... I don't need to disprove a resurrection, I can dismiss it on the basis that we don't accept 'magic' as an explanation.

Quick, throw in an assertion of 'scientism', make it sound like all opinions without absolute validation are equally illegitimate, then everyone else is in the same non-existent philosophical boat as you...

O.

We're there such a thing as a "default history" I might agree that you have no burden to prove it didn't happen. But unfortunately there is no such thing as a "default history".

Lots of historical suggestions have left zero evidence. Just because an event can be categorised as "naturalistic" does not guarantee it's having happened.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We're there such a thing as a "default history" I might agree that you have no burden to prove it didn't happen. But unfortunately there is no such thing as a "default history".

Two mistakes there. First, there is such a thing as “default history” inasmuch as to be accepted as history rather than myth there are various, fairly standardised tests that are applied – and the resurrection story fails them. Second, there is no burden of proof to show that something didn’t happen – the burden of proof is always with the person claiming that something did happen. 

Lots of historical suggestions have left zero evidence. Just because an event can be categorised as "naturalistic" does not guarantee it's having happened.

No-one says otherwise. You're very confused.

[Gordon]

Lots of historical suggestions have left zero evidence. Just because an event can be categorised as "naturalistic" does not guarantee it's having happened.

So you would agree that when the NT mentions what Jesus allegedly said - 'Blessed are the....' etc - what the NT says is no guarantee that it actually happened that way, or happened at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Two mistakes there. First, there is such a thing as “default history” inasmuch as to be accepted as history rather than myth there are various, fairly standardised tests that are applied – and the resurrection story fails them. Second, there is no burden of proof to show that something didn’t happen – the burden of proof is always with the person claiming that something did happen. 

No-one says otherwise. You're very confused.

If there is a default history you will be able to describe what it is from the year zero.
We will of course never see that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you would agree that when the NT mentions what Jesus allegedly said - 'Blessed are the....' etc - what the NT says is no guarantee that it actually happened that way, or happened at all.

Unfortunately empirical evidence for most of ancient history is no more.
However, As I have said, in the light of that, a body or report of a body would debunk resurrection and experience and the manifest psychological avoidance of the experience of the risen christ is what gives credence to the resurrection.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If there is a default history you will be able to describe what it is from the year zero.
We will of course never see that.

What on earth are you even trying to say here? Academic history is a field of study that’s developed rules over time for it to function, just like any other field of academic study has developed rules too. 

The Christian resurrection story fails the rules of historicity, so it’s not treated as an historical event.

Do you understand this now? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately empirical evidence for most of ancient history is no more.

So how do you know that it is history then rather than myth?

However, As I have said, in the light of that, a body or report of a body would debunk resurrection and experience...

This burden of proof thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.

...and the manifest psychological avoidance of the experience of the risen christ is what gives credence to the resurrection.

Like your "manifest psychological avoidance of the experience of" leprechauns gives credence to stories of leprechauns you mean? You've collapsed into gibberish again here. 

[Gordon]

Unfortunately empirical evidence for most of ancient history is no more.
However, As I have said, in the light of that, a body or report of a body would debunk resurrection and experience and the manifest psychological avoidance of the experience of the risen christ is what gives credence to the resurrection.

Sounds like you want to set conditions regarding an alleged event in antiquity - and you're a bit late for that.

Let me try a very simple question: do you think it is at least possible that the resurrection claim could contain mistakes or lies?

[Outrider]

We're there such a thing as a "default history" I might agree that you have no burden to prove it didn't happen.

Arguably, there is a 'default' history - it's history. We just lack certainty about significant elements of it, and we alleviate that uncertainty in various ways, to various extents. We can't alleviate the uncertainty around the claims of the resurrection to any great extent, and so it remains an unsubstantiated claim.

But unfortunately there is no such thing as a "default history".

In terms of an 'default' status for the academic study of history, there is. Nothing happened is the default. Then there's a claim - say, "my hippy friend came back from the dead". Then there's a search for validation of that claim - "I have a really crap bedtime story that mentions it". That's a poor source, but we've worked with worse. Does the event in question require something more significant than that - it's a claim of magic, it requires a lot more than that to be accepted. Therefore, it's not accepted as part of the validated historical claims.

Lots of historical suggestions have left zero evidence.

If they've left no evidence there wouldn't be a claim at all. No-one is making claims about a King Kevin of Rickmansworth on the basis of no evidence, but they are (for instance) making claims of King Arthur based on old stories. Those old stories are retellings of earlier works, and on investigation it seems whilst there might be one or two early tribal leaders or warlords whose antics contributed to the collection, there is no 'King Arthur' to put into the record. Similarly, whilst it seems like there was arguably some sort of agitator/teacher on whom the Jesus myth is based, all of the magical bits are put down to mythologising after the fact.

Just because an event can be categorised as "naturalistic" does not guarantee it's having happened.

But classifying it as 'supernatural' gives good reason to think it sits somewhere between fairy-tale and outright bullshit.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble with putting forward  a default history is firstly
It is encumbant on you to say what it is and secondly to show that it happened....you all, then, know what you have to do.

[Outrider]

The trouble with putting forward  a default history is firstly it is encumbant on you to say what it is and secondly to show that it happened....you all, then, know what you have to do.

No, as I explained the default is that nothing happened, and that only gets altered when enough evidence is presented that it seems likely a given event occurred. Your resurrection story currently lacks sufficient evidence, hence it's not considered part of history. Just like the great flood myth, and the Jewish exodus in Egypt, and the fall of the walls of Jericho (but not the existence of Jericho). And unlike, say, the fall of Troy (but like the story of the Trojan Horse).

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The trouble with putting forward  a default history is firstly
It is encumbant on you to say what it is…

“What it is” is the standard methodologies of academic history. You can read them for yourself if you can be bothered to look.

…and secondly to show that it happened....

To show that what happened?

…you all, then, know what you have to do.

Yes - persuade you to stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“What it is” is the standard methodologies of academic history. You can read them for yourself if you can be bothered to look.

To show that what happened?

Yes - persuade you to stop lying.

Straight confusion of the historical method with the actual history. Not the first time this has happened.

 On the positive side that makes you Turdpolishing champion for 16 years running. Well done.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Straight confusion of the historical method with the actual history. Not the first time this has happened.

No it isn't, and any confusion there my be stems from trying to untangle the appallingly inarticulate attempts you make at making a point. Again, if you think there's "actual history" but also there's no evidence for it, how do you know it's actual history at all and not myth?

On the positive side that makes you Turdpolishing champion for 16 years running. Well done.

Lying again isn't helping you here.

[Gordon]

Straight confusion of the historical method with the actual history. Not the first time this has happened.

 On the positive side that makes you Turdpolishing champion for 16 years running. Well done.

Even for you, Vlad, this is especially dim - would you not say that 'actual history' is that which is confirmed by application of the 'historical method' - and that all else is just speculation (informed or otherwise)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Even for you, Vlad, this is especially dim - would you not say that 'actual history' is that which is confirmed by application of the 'historical method' - and that all else is just speculation (informed or otherwise)?

Apparently he thinks a "psychological experience" attributed to a claim of historicity is a method of some sort too, though one that only seems to occur when the subject has been told about the "fact" beforehand. It's desperate stuff, but it's all he has.