Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

No you haven't. You claim to have "assessed" it, but absent a method of any kind to distinguish your whateverpopsintomyhead-ism from just guessing about stuff your have no means of assessing anything, and thus no rationale for your "dismissal". 

No, as ever you have this wrong. What's actually being said is that you have no means to distinguish the stories you think to be true from fiction - a very different matter. And given the supernatural nature of those stories (and by the way your dismissal of different supernatural stories from other faiths entirely) then you have a huge burden of proof to establish even a method to determine their truth value.

Oh, and yes survivor bias is a real thing. You're doing it a lot here by implying that in some unexplained way the success of your particular faith must in some way be connected with its supposed truthfulness (would you say the same about the more successful faith of Islam?). You seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that the same could be said of the Aztec faith, the Sumerian faith, the Norse faith etc by their proponents when they happened to prevalent.

A famous example of survivor bias was the case of the USAF bombers. They were coming back from raids in WWII badly shot up and the officers concerned decided to add more armour where they could, but not so much as to make them too sluggish in the air. As the engines had hardy any bullet marks but the fuselage had lots, they decided that the extra armour should be added to the fuselage.

Big mistake. Turns out that the engines were the most vulnerable places to be shot, so very few that had their engines shot up made it back to base. The sample they had in front of them then actually showed that being hit in the fuselage did hardly any damage and so the armour should in fact be added to the places that showed least damage - ie, the engines.

The same mistake is essentially what you're doing here.   

 

No I have assessed the available evidence  evidence that there was an extensive community which believed the gospel assertions at a time when it would have been possible to check the stories and accounts. This should have collapsed more rapidly than the messianisms which eventually and invariably did.

Now, on what basis does Gordon dispute that. What evidence or grounds does he base his likelihood of fictional propaganda?

So what evidence is Gordon working on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunster,

No I have assessed the available evidence  evidence that there was an extensive community which believed the gospel assertions at a time when it would have been possible to check the stories and accounts. This should have collapsed more rapidly than the messianisms which eventually and invariably did.

Utterly wrong.

First, how exactly would you suggest that anyone would "check the stories and accounts" when they happened decades earlier and no-one thought them important enough to write down?

Second, on what basis would you dismiss the countless other communities that believed in different supernatural claims entirely and became just as established as the one you selected?

Third, why would you think survivorship has anything to do with truthfulness given the countless examples of chance and happenstance in other areas that can also lead to survival?

Fourth, if you really want to commit the fallacy why then would you dismiss, say, Islam when it satisfies the same criterion?

Fifth, what makes you think that time and place in which you happen to exist so special that the prevalent religion must be the true one, whereas the Aztec, Norse, Sumerians etc would have been wrong for doing just the same thing?

Now, on what basis does Gordon dispute that. What evidence or grounds does he base his likelihood of fictional propaganda?

So what evidence is Gordon working on?

Again, the evidence is probability-based - all claims of the supernatural we know of are more probably explained by causes other than their truthfulness - ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Jack Frost, whatever. You know this to be the case because you also do just the same thing in respect of the supernatural claims in which you happen not to believe. That you apply special pleading to exempt the suite of claims in which you do happen to believe for reasons known only to yourself is just another of the many fallacies on which you rely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunster,

Utterly wrong.

First, how exactly would you suggest that anyone would "check the stories and accounts" when they happened decades earlier and no-one thought them important enough to write down?

Second, on what basis would you dismiss the countless other communities that believed in different supernatural claims entirely and became just as established as the one you selected?

Third, why would you think survivorship has anything to do with truthfulness given the countless examples of chance and happenstance in other areas that can also lead to survival?

Fourth, if you really want to commit the fallacy why then would you dismiss, say, Islam when it satisfies the same criterion?

Fifth, what makes you think that time and place in which you happen to exist so special that the prevalent religion must be the true one, whereas the Aztec, Norse, Sumerians etc would have been wrong for doing just the same thing?

Again, the evidence is probability-based - all claims of the supernatural we know of are more probably explained by causes other than their truthfulness - ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Jack Frost, whatever. You know this to be the case because you do just the same thing in respect of the supernatural claims in which you happen not to believe. That you apply special pleading to exempt the suite of claims in which you do happen to believe for reasons known only to yourself is just another of the many fallacies on which you rely.

The epistles show that communities were established within two decades. Many of the personnel would still be available for consultation.

Other communities with supernatural stories are I move less concerned with time and place. I have never said I discount those stories.

Evidence shows that believing communities existed there interpretation may be wrong but I do not think that is likely because of the paucity of alternative explanations.

I have said that the survivability of Christianity is not dependent totally on what happened historically. Even the impact of a resurrection would have faded. What keeps Christianity going is the encounter possible with Christ here and now. I'm not sure that survival bias is apt. In any case Christianity has a philosophical dimension as if there is a time limit on ideas.

which is why of the minor religions based on Christianity they are versions of unorthodox ideas extant since the time of Christ.

Your biggest misrepresentation is that you are championing old religions and I totally dismiss them. Wrong on both counts I'm afraid. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

The epistles show that communities were established within two decades. Many of the personnel would still be available for consultation.

That's some supposition given that the transmission of the stories would have been likely to have passed through many hands over a period of decades but, even if Fred in the commune who was a hundred degrees of separation from the originator of the story somehow had access to that originator nonetheless, that would say nothing whatever to whether that originator had correctly attributed a cause for the event they thought they saw.

Other communities with supernatural stories are I move less concerned with time and place. I have never said I discount those stories.

First, you have no idea whether other communities were less concerned with time and place.

Second, you're trying to make an argument for the supposed truthfulness of a story based on a believing community decades later. Apart from the fallacies and bad reasoning that entails, if you don't discount different communities with different beliefs then presumably you must apply the same reasoning to think their stories to be true too?

Or are we back to special pleading just for your story again?

Evidence shows that believing communities existed there interpretation may be wrong but I do not think that is likely because of the paucity of alternative explanations.

What "paucity"? There are many other (but less thrilling) explanations - that you dismiss then out of hand says nothing to their probable truthfulness.   

I have said that the survivability of Christianity is not dependent totally on what happened historically. Even the impact of a resurrection would have faded. What keeps Christianity going is the encounter possible with Christ here and now. I'm not sure that survival bias is apt. In any case Christianity has a philosophical dimension as if there is a time limit on ideas.

First, it's only a belief in a "possible encounter" - a belief that might help sustain the faith because of its appealing nature - but only a belief nonetheless.

Second, of course survivor bias is relevant and you've blundered into it several times now. If you want to make a claim for truthfulness that doesn't rely on it - a supposed "philosophical dimension" for example - then by all means attempt it, but you need to to jettison the survivor bias fallacy in any case. 

...which is why of the minor religions based on Christianity they are versions of unorthodox ideas extant since the time of Christ.

You'll need to put that into comprehensible English if you want me to reply, but insofar as I can unscramble it the same could have been said of splinter faiths from that of the Aztec gods.

So what?

Your biggest misrepresentation is that you are championing old religions and I totally dismiss them. Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.

You of all people are accusing someone else of "misrepresenting"? Wow.

Anyways, I do no such thing - I merely point out that, if you want to use bad arguments for your faith, then you have no choice but to accept the same bad arguments for other faiths entirely when the same criteria apply.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

That's some supposition given that the transmission of the stories would have been likely to have passed through many hands over a period of decades but, even if Fred in the commune who was a hundred degrees of separation from the originator of the story somehow had access to that originator nonetheless, that would say nothing whatever to whether that originator had correctly attributed a cause for the event they thought they saw.

First, you have no idea whether other communities were less concerned with time and place.

Second, you're trying to make an argument for the supposed truthfulness of a story based on a believing community decades later. Apart from the fallacies and bad reasoning that entails, if you don't discount different communities with different beliefs then presumably you must apply the same reasoning to think their stories to be true too?

Or are we back to special pleading just for your story again?

What "paucity"? There are many other (but less thrilling) explanations - that you dismiss then out of hand says nothing to their probable truthfulness.   

First, it's only a belief in a "possible encounter" - a belief that might help sustain the faith because of its appealing nature - but only a belief nonetheless.

Second, of course survivor bias is relevant and you've blundered into it several times now. If you want to make a claim for truthfulness that doesn't rely on it - a supposed "philosophical dimension" for example - then by all means attempt it, but you need to to jettison the survivor bias fallacy in any case. 

You'll need to put that into comprehensible English if you want me to reply, but insofar as I can unscramble it the same could have been said of splint faiths from that of the Aztec gods.

So what?

You of all people are accusing someone else of "misrepresenting"? Wow.

Anyways, I do no such thing - I merely point out that, if you want to use bad arguments for your faith, then you have no choice but to accept the same bad arguments for other faiths entirely when the same criteria apply.

I think you start with a fixed idea that the communities were more than two decades away from the events and that the people are 100 degrees of separation.

Of course the full gospel is that Jesus is risen. Paul of course is the well known model for this, the encounter with the risen christ and his accounts are those which tell us about the established communities within two decades....(think 1995) of course the communities are established which suggests that people were meeting the personnel much earlier than two decades.

You also seem to say that Christianity is believing somebody else's story and experience. This is not the Christianity of the epistles which talk about appropriating a living risen Christ for one's self with that in place resurrection is the logical explanation.

Survivor bias is no good for establishing Christianity in a person. It's not appropriate to bring it up.

[Gordon]

No I have assessed the available evidence  evidence that there was an extensive community which believed the gospel assertions at a time when it would have been possible to check the stories and accounts. This should have collapsed more rapidly than the messianisms which eventually and invariably did.

Now, on what basis does Gordon dispute that. What evidence or grounds does he base his likelihood of fictional propaganda?

So what evidence is Gordon working on?

I'm not working on evidence at all really: I'm simply observing that people are potentially fallible and that mistakes and lies are always a risk when dealing with accounts of anything, and especially so when they come from supporters (or detractors) of a cause or movement. I've simply asked you how you have assessed these risks in relation to the NT content.

Your answer seems to be that there were communities in the 1st century, messianic or otherwise, that believed what the NT says - but this doesn't address the risks since they may, and possibly in good faith, have believed what may well have included mistakes or lies given the supernatural aspects: that they did believe doesn't confirm that what they believed was true though, hence the need to assess the risks.

You can of course choose to believe the NT is correct just on the basis of personal faith and in spite of the risks of mistakes or lies, which seems to be your position - but the risks are still there all the same.

[jeremyp]

I have assessed the available evidence  evidence that there was an extensive community which believed the gospel assertions at a time when it would have been possible to check the stories and accounts.

What evidence is that? There's no historical evidence of early Christian communities (let alone extensive ones) that believed what is in the gospels. The only evidence we have is Paul's letters and they imply that, at least in some cases, the "extensive community" didn't necessarily believe the gospel. Why else did he spent all that time arguing with the Corinthians about whether Christ was raised from the dead?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence is that? There's no historical evidence of early Christian communities (let alone extensive ones) that believed what is in the gospels. The only evidence we have is Paul's letters and they imply that, at least in some cases, the "extensive community" didn't necessarily believe the gospel. Why else did he spent all that time arguing with the Corinthians about whether Christ was raised from the dead?

So there is no historical evidence you say.

There are Paul's letters you say.

Elements of the early community, which you suggest did not exist, didn't necessarily believe in the Gospel according to you. Nice trick if you don't exist.

The evidence for the above, according to you, is that Paul argued with these elements.

I agree there were unorthodox ideas about Christ. That only adds to the authenticity, I'm afraid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chuns,

I think you start with a fixed idea that the communities were more than two decades away from the events and that the people are 100 degrees of separation.

Of course the full gospel is that Jesus is risen. Paul of course is the well known model for this, the encounter with the risen christ and his accounts are those which tell us about the established communities within two decades....(think 1995) of course the communities are established which suggests that people were meeting the personnel much earlier than two decades.

You miss the point entirely. Even allowing for the passage of time and for the changes stories undergo in multiple re-tellings, that still says nothing to how accurate or otherwise the account would have been of the first person on the spot. There are many possible but material explanations for a miracle story, and even if Person A genuinely thought he had seen a genuine miracle that says nothing whatever to whether he actually did see a genuine miracle. How then, many re-tellings down the line, would anyone else be able to verify the genuineness of the miracle explanation rather than just re-report that Fred thought he'd seen a miracle?

You also seem to say that Christianity is believing somebody else's story and experience. This is not the Christianity of the epistles which talk about appropriating a living risen Christ for one's self with that in place resurrection is the logical explanation.

Sort of. Religious faiths are "believing somebody else's story and experience" - do you seriously suggest that if you'd been abandoned as a child on a desert island you'd have come up with the stories in which you happen to believe all on your own? You might think that you've "appropriated a living Christ" but the more prosaic explanation is that instead you've had some experiences you find to be profound, and the religious stories with which you happen to be most familiar offer a convenient causal explanation.

Do you seriously think that, if you'd been born in a different time and at a different place, you wouldn't just as readily be saying something like, "that'll be the Nigerian Ant God then" for your causal explanation?

Seriously?

Oh, and whatever else you may think you have please don't ever suggest that it's a "logical" explanation given the absence of any method of any kind to distinguish your claims from wishful thinking and just guessing.     

Survivor bias is no good for establishing Christianity in a person. It's not appropriate to bring it up.

It's precisely "appropriate" because it's what you did with your implied, "how come Christianity flourished and other faiths fell away if not for Christianity being true" mistake. I set out the bad thinking this entials in several points that you just ignored, so here they are again:

First, how exactly would you suggest that anyone would "check the stories and accounts" when they happened decades earlier and no-one thought them important enough to write down?

Second, on what basis would you dismiss the countless other communities that believed in different supernatural claims entirely and became just as established as the one you selected?

Third, why would you think survivorship has anything to do with truthfulness given the countless examples of chance and happenstance in other areas that can also lead to survival?

Fourth, if you really want to commit the fallacy why then would you dismiss, say, Islam when it satisfies the same criterion?

Fifth, what makes you think that time and place in which you happen to exist so special that the prevalent religion must be the true one, whereas the Aztec, Norse, Sumerians etc would have been wrong for doing just the same thing?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chuns,

You miss the point entirely. Even allowing for the passage of time and for the changes stories undergo in multiple re-tellings, that still says nothing to how accurate or otherwise the account would have been of the first person on the spot. There are many possible but material explanations for a miracle story, and even if Person A genuinely thought he had seen a genuine miracle that says nothing whatever to whether he actually did see a genuine miracle. How then, many re-tellings down the line, would anyone else be able to verify the genuineness of the miracle explanation rather than just re-report that Fred thought he'd seen a miracle?

Sort of. Religious faiths are "believing somebody else's story and experience" - do you seriously suggest that if you'd been abandoned as a child on a desert island you'd have come up with the stories in which you happen to believe all on your own? You might think that you've "appropriated a living Christ" but the more prosaic explanation is that instead you've had some experiences you find to be profound, and the religious stories with which you happen to be most familiar offer a convenient causal explanation.

Do you seriously think that, if you'd been born in a different time and at a different place, you wouldn't just as readily be saying something like, "that'll be the Nigerian Ant God then" for your causal explanation?

Seriously?

Oh, and whatever else you may think you have please don't ever suggest that it's a "logical" explanation given the absence of any method of any kind to distinguish your claims from wishful thinking and just guessing.     

It's precisely "appropriate" because it's what you did with your implied, "how come Christianity flourished and other faiths fell away if not for Christianity being true" mistake. I set out the bad thinking this entials in several points that you just ignored, so here they are again:

First, how exactly would you suggest that anyone would "check the stories and accounts" when they happened decades earlier and no-one thought them important enough to write down?

Second, on what basis would you dismiss the countless other communities that believed in different supernatural claims entirely and became just as established as the one you selected?

Third, why would you think survivorship has anything to do with truthfulness given the countless examples of chance and happenstance in other areas that can also lead to survival?

Fourth, if you really want to commit the fallacy why then would you dismiss, say, Islam when it satisfies the same criterion?

Fifth, what makes you think that time and place in which you happen to exist so special that the prevalent religion must be the true one, whereas the Aztec, Norse, Sumerians etc would have been wrong for doing just the same thing?

You are still spinning the evidence for the earliest Christian community in order to turn your several decades between the start of  the Christian community and the events into a self hypnotising mantra.
Historical study suggests however communities wit an orthodox doctrine at two decades.
There is evidence of the development of non orthodox beliefs about Jesus pointing to the establishment of these communities even earlier than the twenty years.

Hopefully that will put you straight on the historical aspects although going by your post which ignores my previous statements ............I doubt anything can put you straight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sort of. Religious faiths are "believing somebody else's story and experience" - do you seriously suggest that if you'd been abandoned as a child on a desert island you'd have come up with the stories in which you happen to believe all on your own?

But it's more than just the stories isn't it?.....It's inclinations and philosophy, hopes and fears of all the years met him in tonight and all that sort of thing

Do you seriously think that, if you'd been born in a different time and at a different place, you wouldn't just as readily be saying something like, "that'll be the Nigerian Ant God then" for your causal explanation?

Seriously?

Well you are trying to peddle the predominant religion aspect here......supporting survival bias in the process I might add......however you yourself and those like you are proof against the very point you are making. Plus the fact your argument suffers from your weak grasp of what religions actually believe

[jeremyp]

I agree there were unorthodox ideas about Christ. That only adds to the authenticity, I'm afraid.

We have evidence of the unorthodox (to modern Christian) views but we have no evidence of early Christians with orthodox (to modern Christian) views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have evidence of the unorthodox (to modern Christian) views but we have no evidence of early Christians with orthodox (to modern Christian) views.

That almost doesn't matter even if it wasn't crap.

What there is absolutely no sign of though is Jesus Mythers which only come to pass after several decades and I'm not just talking about 2 or 3 i.e. centuries.

[jeremyp]

That almost doesn't matter even if it wasn't crap.

Well we don't. Paul bangs on about the Corinthians not accepting the resurrection, but he doesn't say anything about communities and the empty tomb or the virgin birth.

What there is absolutely no sign of though is Jesus Mythers which only come to pass after several decades and I'm not just talking about 2 or 3 i.e. centuries.

Could you reassemble that sentence in English please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we don't. Paul bangs on about the Corinthians not accepting the resurrection, but he doesn't say anything about communities and the empty tomb or the virgin birth.
Could you reassemble that sentence in English please.

Don't spin things as unorthodox then Jezzer.
You will know that the unorthodox includes Ebionites to those who thought he was some kind of holy hologram. But there were no reports of Jesus Mythers.

[jeremyp]

Don't spin things as unorthodox then Jazzer.

Nobody knows what orthodox and unorthodox was in those days.

But there were no reports of Jesus Mythers.

You mean there are no such reports that still exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean there are no such reports that still exist.

Oh yes , play that card when it suits you. I think you've just blown a big section of your argument.

[jeremyp]

Oh yes , play that card when it suits you. I think you've just blown a big section of your argument.

No, it's all part of the general thrust which is that you re asserting gospel believing Christian communities in the mid first century without a shred of evidence.

[Outrider]

The epistles show that communities were established within two decades. Many of the personnel would still be available for consultation.

No, the epistles CLAIM that communities were established within two decades. Even if it is the case, that 'community' could be two guys in a hut for all we know.

Other communities with supernatural stories are I move less concerned with time and place. I have never said I discount those stories.

Why do you 'move that'? How, given the fact that the epistles were subject to editing and amendment after the fact, do you determine that the specificity around dates was not added later? How do you balance the specificity around dates - uncommon amongst accounts, as you suggested - against the documented finding that when people are creating lies they tend to add in spurious levels of detail?

Evidence shows that believing communities existed there interpretation may be wrong but I do not think that is likely because of the paucity of alternative explanations.

What, like the entire edifice is a creation?

I have said that the survivability of Christianity is not dependent totally on what happened historically. Even the impact of a resurrection would have faded. What keeps Christianity going is the encounter possible with Christ here and now.

That would be an encounter that you cannot substantiate in any way, right?

I'm not sure that survival bias is apt. In any case Christianity has a philosophical dimension as if there is a time limit on ideas.

All religions have a 'philosophical dimension'. Naturalism, as your Tourette's-like recurrent ejaculation of 'philosophical materialism' has a philosophical dimension.

Your biggest misrepresentation is that you are championing old religions and I totally dismiss them.

We're not 'championing' old religions (or different new ones to yours, either) but rather pointing out that yours isn't really anything qualitatively different.

O.

[jeremyp]

No, the epistles CLAIM that communities were established within two decades. Even if it is the case, that 'community' could be two guys in a hut for all we know.

Could be. Also don't forget that a member of the church in Corinth almost certainly never met any of the members of the church in Jerusalem given the difficulty of travel in those days. Even the only person from the early church that we have any real evidence of (Paul) only visited Jerusalem a couple of times.

given the fact that the epistles were subject to editing and amendment after the fact, do you determine that the specificity around dates was not added later?

You don't need to speculate editing here. The epistles of Paul aren't specific about time or place. Vlad is pretending there is more evidence there than actually exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

You are still spinning the evidence for the earliest Christian community in order to turn your several decades between the start of  the Christian community and the events into a self hypnotising mantra.

Again, no I’m not. Notoriously time and the re-telling of stories almost invariably corrupt them, often beyond recognition from the original version. Even if by some remarkable co-incidence that did not happen in this case though, that still leaves you with the “Fred says he saw a miracle” problem.

How would you suggest that folks decades after the event and who probably never knew Fred would retrospectively test Fred’s methods for eliminating the various alternative – but less thrilling no doubt – explanations for what he actually saw?

Historical study suggests however communities wit an orthodox doctrine at two decades.

There is evidence of the development of non orthodox beliefs about Jesus pointing to the establishment of these communities even earlier than the twenty years.

No, there are some accounts to that effect as there are for many other communities believing in many other supposed gods. The David Koresh/Jim Jones communities were established quickly too. So what? 

Hopefully that will put you straight on the historical aspects although going by your post which ignores my previous statements ............I doubt anything can put you straight.

Hopefully you will now finally grasp the absence of any meaningful  “historical aspects” for miracle stories, and will instead begin to realise the hopelessness of your position.
 

But it's more than just the stories isn't it?.....

No.

It's inclinations…

Otherwise known as personal preferences and wishful thinking…

… and philosophy

None of which withstands scrutiny…

…hopes and fears…

“Hopes and fears” cannot establish objective facts for other people, however strongly they are held.

…of all the years met him in tonight and all that sort of thing

In English please.

Well you are trying to peddle the predominant religion aspect here......supporting survival bias in the process I might add......however you yourself and those like you are proof against the very point you are making.

No, you are. You attempted to argue that the survival of your particular faith must in some way have something to do with its truthfulness. That’s called survivor bias.

I merely pointed out in reply that many peoples in many places at many times could have employed the same bad reasoning that you attempt to justify their own predominant faiths.

Plus the fact your argument suffers from your weak grasp of what religions actually believe

That may or may not be the case. Your problem though is that you attempted an argument that was wrong. If now you want to withdraw it and attempt a different argument to do with “what religions actually believe” then by all means give it a go, and we can at least remove the arrow of survivor bias from the quiver-full of logical fallacies you so gleefully tote around.

[Hope]

Again, no I’m not. Notoriously time and the re-telling of stories almost invariably corrupt them, often beyond recognition from the original version. Even if by some remarkable co-incidence that did not happen in this case though, that still leaves you with the “Fred says he saw a miracle” problem.

bh, as usual you refer to the situation of oral re-telling from within the context of a high-literacy context.  As I have pointed out before, that is far too simplistic an approach to the situation that would have existed in 1st century Palestine.

How would you suggest that folks decades after the event and who probably never knew Fred would retrospectively test Fred’s methods for eliminating the various alternative – but less thrilling no doubt – explanations for what he actually saw?

The problem here is that documentary material began to appear fall sooner than 'decades' after the events involved.  We know that Paul's first epistle - to the Galatians - dates from as early as 45AD, and even the most sceptical of Biblical scholars seem to posit the existence of a written record that was independent of Paul, and which the Gospel writers drew upon.  Furthermore, since the events of Easter and Pentecost occurred only weeks apart, it is likely that any Jews from the diaspora woud have stayed for both events, thus acting - unwittingly perhaps - as eye-witnesses in addition to the 11 disciples and the other 60-odd followers of Jesus.

Hopefully you will now finally grasp the absence of any meaningful  “historical aspects” for miracle stories, and will instead begin to realise the hopelessness of your position.

Before one can "begin to realise the hopelessness of one's position" one has to be presented with viable altewrnatives that don't rely on misrepresentation of a number of scientifically-proven and -provable aspectsd of the situation.
 

Otherwise known as personal preferences and wishful thinking…

Things that can equally be applied to your position, by the way.

None of which withstands scrutiny…

Again, a criticism that can be equally be applied to the many alternative scenarios that have been posited by a variety of posters and debaters over the years/decades.

[Outrider]

bh, as usual you refer to the situation of oral re-telling from within the context of a high-literacy context.  As I have pointed out before, that is far too simplistic an approach to the situation that would have existed in 1st century Palestine.

And, again, this myth of mystical recall abilities amongst pre-literate cultures is not supported by the evidence. Review of tales from extant pre-literate cultures shows that themes carry on, with some gradual drift, but precise details are lost relatively quickly.

The problem here is that documentary material began to appear fall sooner than 'decades' after the events involved.  We know that Paul's first epistle - to the Galatians - dates from as early as 45AD, and even the most sceptical of Biblical scholars seem to posit the existence of a written record that was independent of Paul, and which the Gospel writers drew upon.

But it's questionable whether the Paul of the epistles is the Paul mentioned in the Gospels, and it's entirely possible that the Paul that created the Epistles equally created the document that the Gospels are based upon. The Gospels themselves don't turn up until well after the expected lifespan of anyone who might have been alive at the time of the alleged events, and there are no records from anyone else at the time to validate the claims.

Furthermore, since the events of Easter and Pentecost occurred only weeks apart, it is likely that any Jews from the diaspora woud have stayed for both events, thus acting - unwittingly perhaps - as eye-witnesses in addition to the 11 disciples and the other 60-odd followers of Jesus.

And yet none of them mentioned anything to anyone literate in the area, none of the local authorities saw fit to record anything about it despite their usual efficiency at doing so.

Before one can "begin to realise the hopelessness of one's position" one has to be presented with viable altewrnatives that don't rely on misrepresentation of a number of scientifically-proven and -provable aspectsd of the situation.

You likely don't accept that Islam is based upon Muhammed's actual encounter with angels and eventual departure on a winged horse of some sort - you think this is a creation. Likewise Joseph Smith's accounts. Why, then, does this New Testament account seem viable to you? The 'viable alternative' explanation is that it's as much a creation as those purported sequels are.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the epistles CLAIM that communities were established within two decades. Even if it is the case, that 'community' could be two guys in a hut for all we know.

Why do you 'move that'? How, given the fact that the epistles were subject to editing and amendment after the fact, do you determine that the specificity around dates was not added later? How do you balance the specificity around dates - uncommon amongst accounts, as you suggested - against the documented finding that when people are creating lies they tend to add in spurious levels of detail?

What, like the entire edifice is a creation?

That would be an encounter that you cannot substantiate in any way, right?

All religions have a 'philosophical dimension'. Naturalism, as your Tourette's-like recurrent ejaculation of 'philosophical materialism' has a philosophical dimension.

We're not 'championing' old religions (or different new ones to yours, either) but rather pointing out that yours isn't really anything qualitatively different.

O.

This looks like straw clutching Rider.  You have to look at the little details in the documents....And of course follow the BARTehrMAN!


I respect philosophy full stop. Doesn't mean I agree with all of it though.

Rider said: Even if it is the case, that 'community' could be two guys in a hut for all we know.......Argumentum ad populem

[Gordon]

Rider said: Even if it is the case, that 'community' could be two guys in a hut for all we know.......Argumentum ad populem

Then that would be argumentum ad hardly-anyone, Vlad.

So, as regards these messianic communities you set such great store by - what details do you have about them?