Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Outrider]

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that that is a irrefutable fact, Gordon.

Some have - not many here - and that sort of certainty is worrying.

What they have argued is that given all the evidence on both sides of the debate, they believe that it is more likely than not.

They have argued that, but not very successfully.

After all, all you and others like you have been able to do is produce 'normal' evidence, and we all know that for normal to be where it is on a spectrum, there have to have been 'extremes' as well.

There do have to be extremes in a spectrum, but you are suggesting something that doesn't lie on the spectrum at all. 'Normal' and 'extreme' are categorised by a methodology which doesn't apply to the claims that are being made - you need a methodology of your own to justify those claims.

O.

[Outrider]

If we use the historical method I.e. The study of history based on account then alternatives to the standard understanding of history... That whatever else the earliest Christians believed the gospel narrative have less evidence.

If we use the historical method the evidence for an origin for the Jesus myth is reasonable, but the chances that the New Testament accounts are accurate is extremely weak.

That twenty centuries on some can,t believe it is not actually a scientific or therefore nota methodological argument.

Indeed, what people do or don't believe is a very poor indicator of the facts. What the evidence supports is a methodological argument, and the methodological argument is that there is no reason to accept claims of magic - Jesus might have existed in some form, but that form was a teacher and preacher, not an avatar of a god.

O.

[Hope]

If we use the historical method the evidence for an origin for the Jesus myth is reasonable, but the chances that the New Testament accounts are accurate is extremely weak.

And what ius the proof that you have for this assertion, O?

Indeed, what people do or don't believe is a very poor indicator of the facts. What the evidence supports is a methodological argument, and the methodological argument is that there is no reason to accept claims of magic - ... O.

What all the evidence I've come across suggests that life is more than merely physical, and that therefore evidence based purely on physical factors is incomplete.  You, and others here disagree with that: that's life.

... Jesus might have existed in some form, but that form was a teacher and preacher, not an avatar of a god.

I think you will find that Christianity doesn't teach that, let alone regard Jesus was an avatar of anything.  It teaches that Jesus was and remains God.

[Outrider]

And what ius the proof that you have for this assertion, O?

The prevailing historical opinion on Jesus, which suggests that the stories are based on a real figure, but in the absence of any contemporary accounts fall short of supporting the specific claims.

What all the evidence I've come across suggests that life is more than merely physical, and that therefore evidence based purely on physical factors is incomplete.

And this is the bit where I point out that you don't have a methodology to validate that 'evidence' and that therefore it's just 'a feeling' which is no more nor less definitive than my 'feeling' that there is nothing beyond the material. You can have any beliefs you want, but unless you have a methodology to justify them they're just your opinion: I respect your right to it, but I don't have to give the content any time whatsoever.

I think you will find that Christianity doesn't teach that, let alone regard Jesus was an avatar of anything.  It teaches that Jesus was and remains God.

Yes. And, if we presume for a moment that was true, how is that not an avatar?

O.

[jeremyp]

I think you will find that Christianity doesn't teach that, let alone regard Jesus was an avatar of anything.  It teaches that Jesus was and remains God.

Avatar definition:

a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

https://www.google.be/search?rls=en&q=avatar+definition

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that nails it (if you believe the Christian account).

[Outrider]

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that nails it (if you believe the Christian account).

Pun intended, presumably

O.

[Hope]

Avatar definition:

https://www.google.be/search?rls=en&q=avatar+definition

a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that nails it (if you believe the Christian account).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/manifestation

The problem with the definitions here is that none of them truly represent what Christ taught about himself and what Christianity teaches about him.  I suppose that a combination of numbers 1 and 1.3 is nearest to what Christianity teaches.

[Outrider]

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that nails it (if you believe the Christian account).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/manifestation

The problem with the definitions here is that none of them truly represent what Christ taught about himself and what Christianity teaches about him.  I suppose that a combination of numbers 1 and 1.3 is nearest to what Christianity teaches.

The problem with that is that there is no clear definition of the qualities of gods, no definitive list of the material properties of avatars, the claims of what Jesus may or may not have said are contentious at best, and translated through at least two languages - on of those translations being as concerned with poetic license as precise meaning - and probably based on at least third hand accounts of any activities that did happen, before you even consider the likelihood that it's all made up in the first place.

Given that, the concept of an avatar is a close enough description of a deity's manifestation in a physical form which is, ultimately, however Christian theology might dress it up in their own unique language, what Jesus' place in the Holy Trinity represents.

O.

[Hope]

The problem with that is that there is no clear definition of the qualities of gods, no definitive list of the material properties of avatars, the claims of what Jesus may or may not have said are contentious at best, and translated through at least two languages - on of those translations being as concerned with poetic license as precise meaning - and probably based on at least third hand accounts of any activities that did happen, before you even consider the likelihood that it's all made up in the first place.

For one thing, O, I'm not aware that there is a huge body of translations that is based on poetic licence.  I realise that the AV/KJV and the more modern New KJV are often deemed by 20th and 21st century linguists to use 'beautiful poetic language', but when the KJV/AV was first produced the language used was the everyday vernacular.  Perhaps you are suggesting tht the English language has become more mundane and bland over the centuries   

Secondly, there is remarkably little evidence to suggest that the material in the Gospels was "probably based on at least third hand accounts of any activities that did happen"; and quite a sizeable body of evidence to suggest that the accounts we know as Mark and Luke were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and therefore may well have had eye-witness input into their writing.  Furthermore, even the most sceptical of scholars seem to believe that there was a pre-Gospels document on which the three Synoptic Gospel writers drew: if there was, and sadly we are not aware of any extant copies, there would have been even more evidence for eye-witness input.

Thirdly, and finally for now, given that the information had been doing the rounds for nigh-on 30 years before the earliest date for the first Gospel's writing, the likelihood "that it's all made up in the first place" is pretty slim, since the authorities would have had plenty of time and means to disprove the claims.

[Gordon]

Thirdly, and finally for now, given that the information had been doing the rounds for nigh-on 30 years before the earliest date for the first Gospel's writing, the likelihood "that it's all made up in the first place" is pretty slim, since the authorities would have had plenty of time and means to disprove the claims.

We've dealt with this presumptive nonsense before: there is no certainty that the authorities at the point Jesus was allegedly killed, and in the following days, didn't see this as being just an execution of an troublesome rabble-rouser.

I don't suppose they'd be worrying that some supporters of the late Jesus would subsequently make ridiculous claims about the dead Jesus (assuming he was dead) not staying dead.

[Hope]

We've dealt with this presumptive nonsense before: there is no certainty that the authorities at the point Jesus was allegedly killed, and in the following days, didn't see this as being just an execution of an troublesome rabble-rouser.

So, are you suggesting that they had him killed sort of for the hell of it?  Under what circumstances would they have had a troublesome rabble-rouser executed, who was clearly not claiming political power from either them or the Roman authorities?  Remember that, if he was executed, this wasn't something that the Jewish authorities could do on their own initiative - they had to have Roman involvement.  If anyone is being presumptive here, it would seem to be you.

I don't suppose they'd be worrying that some supporters of the late Jesus would subsequently make ridiculous claims about the dead Jesus (assuming he was dead) not staying dead.

They were clearly worried enough to have Jesus arrested and charged on a trumped up accusation of blasphemy, and then passed to Pilate for final judgement.  This wasn't just some run-of-the-mill Zealot freedom-fighter.  They probably weren't expecting "that some supporters of the late Jesus would subsequently make ridiculous claims about the dead Jesus (assuming he was dead) not staying dead", but it is clear that later they ran a programme to eradicate those same supporters, hence Paul's involvement and trip to Damascus.

[jeremyp]

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that nails it (if you believe the Christian account).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/manifestation

The problem with the definitions here is that none of them truly represent what Christ taught about himself

No the problem is that you don't want to admit that Christian ideas aren't unique.

[jeremyp]

Secondly, there is remarkably little evidence to suggest that the material in the Gospels was "probably based on at least third hand accounts of any activities that did happen";

I agree. I think the gospels are mostly based on activities that didn't happen and are therefore not "third hand", much less second or first hand.

and quite a sizeable body of evidence to suggest that the accounts we know as Mark and Luke were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and therefore may well have had eye-witness input into their writing. 

I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect. Perhaps you'd like to summarise it. You should probably start by telling us when each of the Apostles died and what evidence leads you to that date.

Furthermore, even the most sceptical of scholars seem to believe that there was a pre-Gospels document on which the three Synoptic Gospel writers drew: if there was, and sadly we are not aware of any extant copies, there would have been even more evidence for eye-witness input.

That's a bit of a stretch from the truth. Most scholars think that the main source for Matthew and Luke was Mark and possibly some other document since lost. There's no evidence of any there written sources.

Thirdly, and finally for now, given that the information had been doing the rounds for nigh-on 30 years before the earliest date for the first Gospel's writing, the likelihood "that it's all made up in the first place" is pretty slim, since the authorities would have had plenty of time and means to disprove the claims.

How do you know they didn't?

[Gordon]

So, are you suggesting that they had him killed sort of for the hell of it?  Under what circumstances would they have had a troublesome rabble-rouser executed, who was clearly not claiming political power from either them or the Roman authorities?  Remember that, if he was executed, this wasn't something that the Jewish authorities could do on their own initiative - they had to have Roman involvement.  If anyone is being presumptive here, it would seem to be you.

I've no idea of the precise details of the case, and more to the point neither do you!

The Romans are reported to have crucified countless numbers of people, so crucifixion was probably routine - doesn't the story go that two other miscreants were crucified alongside Jesus, so that Jesus is alleged to have been crucified really isn't all that remarkable. You are reading more into this, such as the motivations of the 'authorities', than is there, and you are doing so based on records created by the supporters of Jesus - can you see the risks here?

They were clearly worried enough to have Jesus arrested and charged on a trumped up accusation of blasphemy, and then passed to Pilate for final judgement.  This wasn't just some run-of-the-mill Zealot freedom-fighter.  They probably weren't expecting "that some supporters of the late Jesus would subsequently make ridiculous claims about the dead Jesus (assuming he was dead) not staying dead", but it is clear that later they ran a programme to eradicate those same supporters, hence Paul's involvement and trip to Damascus.

Were they worried, or were the just routinely executing a trouble-maker?

Again you are over-egging the pudding by adding your personal tastes into the mix, such as in assuming that Jesus was seen by the authorities as being a significant figure at the point of his alleged execution: there is a risk that this may be propaganda added later by supporters of Jesus to promote his reputation as they wrote the accounts you are basing your argument on.

The point you are labouring here, that the 'authorities' at the time could have any scotched rumours of the resurrection of Jesus by simply producing the body, assumes that; a) the 'authorities' saw Jesus as being a special case, and b) they knew of the rumours of Jesus being resurrected in the days immediately following the alleged execution.

As the Americans say: you are 'reaching'. 
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to me that while antitheists here accept historical works written a few decades after the events they do not extend that to this particular context.

An open and shut case of special pleading and probably historical revisionism and generic fallacy as well.

[jeremyp]

The point you are labouring here, that the 'authorities' at the time could have any scotched rumours of the resurrection of Jesus by simply producing the body, assumes that; a) the 'authorities' saw Jesus as being a special case, and b) they knew of the rumours of Jesus being resurrected in the days immediately following the alleged execution.

My last response on this was a dismissive one liner, so let me expand a bit on the point.

Let us, for the moment, assume that the Christian account of the early church is true. If the authorities were concerned about its rise, why didn't they produce the body? In fact, there seems to be no record at all of them doing anything to counter the rumours of Jesus' resurrection. Christians say that this is because the rumours were true and there was no body. However there is a better explanation.

The obvious answer is that the authorities were not aware of any rumours to counter. Either that,or they didn't see Christianity as a threat. It's not as if it was the only Jewish Messianic splinter sect or the only Greek mystery religion. The Romans were quite tolerant of different religions and there were many different beliefs in the empire.

Another possibility is that the authorities did produce the body but, for some reason, the documentary evidence hasn't reached the present day. For a long period in European history, Christians were the sole custodians of the preservation of written documents. Why would they lose an account of a failed attempt to discredit Christianity. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't, but they would "lose" an account of a successful attempt.

The mythicists also have an answer to the problem. If Jesus was a mythical god-man, only morphing into the current legend at a later date, the evidence would be exactly as it is. The authorities wouldn't have countered Jesus' resurrection because everybody knew - even the proto-Christians of the time - that Jesus wasn't a real human being.

Of all the possible explanation for the silence of the authorities, the Christian one is the least credible.

[Hope]

It seems to me that while antitheists here accept historical works written a few decades after the events they do not extend that to this particular context.

An open and shut case of special pleading and probably historical revisionism and generic fallacy as well.

Vlad, this has been mentioned on a number of occasions and, amazingly, there has never been an honest response.

[jeremyp]

It seems to me that while antitheists here accept historical works written a few decades after the events they do not extend that to this particular context.

The gospels aren't dismissed solely because they were written decades after the alleged events.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that while antitheists here accept historical works written a few decades after the events they do not extend that to this particular context.

1. How about some examples for comparison.

2. Please also ensure that these examples contain supernatural claims.

3. Please then explain why you think the main concern being expressed here is the gap between the events and the account - that may be an issue of course, but in the case of the NT is is less of an issue than what being claimed in the account.

Of course 'historical works' can cover a great deal of ground, and can include fiction!

[Gordon]

Vlad, this has been mentioned on a number of occasions and, amazingly, there has never been an honest response.

Don't be silly - while the gap between the events the NT portrays and the NT being written is an issue, since it gives more time for human fallibility and artifice to have an effect, the main problem with the NT is what its core claims are: Jesus being divine, resurrected after having been dead etc etc.

[jeremyp]

1. How about some examples for comparison.

2. Please also ensure that these examples contain supernatural claims.

2a. That they are anonymous
2b. That their sources are unknown.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My last response on this was a dismissive one liner, so let me expand a bit on the point.

Let us, for the moment, assume that the Christian account of the early church is true. If the authorities were concerned about its rise, why didn't they produce the body? In fact, there seems to be no record at all of them doing anything to counter the rumours of Jesus' resurrection. Christians say that this is because the rumours were true and there was no body. However there is a better explanation.

The obvious answer is that the authorities were not aware of any rumours to counter. Either that,or they didn't see Christianity as a threat. It's not as if it was the only Jewish Messianic splinter sect or the only Greek mystery religion. The Romans were quite tolerant of different religions and there were many different beliefs in the empire.

Another possibility is that the authorities did produce the body but, for some reason, the documentary evidence hasn't reached the present day. For a long period in European history, Christians were the sole custodians of the preservation of written documents. Why would they lose an account of a failed attempt to discredit Christianity. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't, but they would "lose" an account of a successful attempt.

The mythicists also have an answer to the problem. If Jesus was a mythical god-man, only morphing into the current legend at a later date, the evidence would be exactly as it is. The authorities wouldn't have countered Jesus' resurrection because everybody knew - even the proto-Christians of the time - that Jesus wasn't a real human being.

Of all the possible explanation for the silence of the authorities, the Christian one is the least credible.

The trouble with the mythicists is that there isn't much evidence that Jesus morphed into God man at a later date since the evidence is of communities believing in the Gospel accounts and christology within two decades in the epistles.

There is no evidence of anyone thinking that Jesus wasn't a real person until a decades AND decades later.  If you are prepared to accept that and yet quibble over the first couple of decades after then you are a bigger purveyor of Humbug than even I took you for.

[jeremyp]

The trouble with the mythicists is that there isn't much evidence that Jesus morphed into God man at a later date since the evidence is of communities believing in the Gospel accounts and christology within two decades in the epistles.

That is the later date to which I refer. The earliest gospel was written in the late 60's or early 70's. It is clear that, by that time, at least some Christians believed the current version of Christianity.

There is no evidence of anyone thinking that Jesus wasn't a real person until a decades AND decades later. 

There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person until the 50's, twenty years after his alleged death.

[Hope]

The obvious answer is that the authorities were not aware of any rumours to counter. Either that,or they didn't see Christianity as a threat. It's not as if it was the only Jewish Messianic splinter sect or the only Greek mystery religion. The Romans were quite tolerant of different religions and there were many different beliefs in the empire.

Some fairly simple responses to this set of suggestions, jeremy.  Whilst it is true that Jesus and his group weren't the only Jewish Messianic splinter group, all the others were politico-military in nature and seem to have been generally dealt with by the Roman authorities as opposed to the Jewish authorities.  The fact that it was the Jewish authorities who took the initiative in Jesus' case, seems to suggest that they knew that this was more than just a bog standard politico-military splinter group.  Clearly, they assumed that Jesus was simply a human being, otherwise, why arrange for him to be executed.  However, we also know that the disciples began their public preaching within a month or so of the resurrection - in the centre of Jerusalem and at the height of a Jewish religious festival, with a reported 3000 conversions on that first day of preaching.  This wasn't some minor sect which the authorities ignored, because we are also told that they started to persecute the groups thgat were orming - hence Saul's trip to Damascus, during which he was converted.

Another possibility is that the authorities did produce the body but, for some reason, the documentary evidence hasn't reached the present day. For a long period in European history, Christians were the sole custodians of the preservation of written documents. Why would they lose an account of a failed attempt to discredit Christianity. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't, but they would "lose" an account of a successful attempt

Yet, if it was the Jews who produced the body, it would have been the Jews who preserved the information, as they have doe with huge amounts of other documentation.  Furthermore, whilst "For a long period in European history, Christians were the sole custodians of the preservation of written documents" this didn't even begin to be the case until the 5th or 6th century AD, if not later; where is the reference in the older documentation that exists, to the effect that the Jews had produced this evidence - or are you saying that the later Christians had gone though every document and scrubbed this reference?  If so, do you have any evidence to this effect?

The mythicists also have an answer to the problem. If Jesus was a mythical god-man, only morphing into the current legend at a later date, the evidence would be exactly as it is. The authorities wouldn't have countered Jesus' resurrection because everybody knew - even the proto-Christians of the time - that Jesus wasn't a real human being.

The proiblem with this argument is that this is exactly what the Jewish authorities would have been trying to combat.  They wouldn't have wanted a story that the God that they worshipped had come to earth in the form of a human being - as had been forecast many centuries earlier - and that they had not simply ignord him, but had him executed.

Of all the possible explanation for the silence of the authorities, the Christian one is the least credible.

Well, none of your three explanations are any more credible, for the reasons I just given.

[Outrider]

It seems to me that while antitheists here accept historical works written a few decades after the events they do not extend that to this particular context.

And you've no doubt got a list of examples rather than just this vague assertion, right?

An open and shut case of special pleading and probably historical revisionism and generic fallacy as well.

I'm glad to see you grasp the concept of special pleading now - does that mean we're not going to have to suffer another rendition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in bollocks minor next year?

O.