My Kingdom is Not of This World

[Shaker]

Not too long ago - a few weeks at most, I think - there was a thread (can't remember which one) where this very point cropped up yet again. What I distinctly remember was the point-blank refusal of certain religionists even to consider the possibility that Gospel accounts (rather: those who wrote them) could be wrong, either through deliberate mendacity (i.e. lying), perfectly sincere error, misapprehension, poor memory etc. etc. All of these things - perfectly well known to any and every copper since the year dot - were waved aside and denied out of court despite the preponderance of evidence that eyewitness testimony is notoriously sketchy (the death of many a criminal case), that people propagandise and so forth.

If someone can recall which thread it was, it would be useful to identify it and see the same points put forward and blithely ignored. Might save us all some time.

[Robbie]

Yes Shaker I think this has come up recently. A past Bishop of Durham (Jenkins) caused great controversy about twenty five years ago when he wrote that Christianity is more than a conjuring trick with bones.  I agree, also that it is more than about whether or not Jesus Christ is God.

Theologians from the early Christian councils spent goodness knows how long debating these, and other, facts.  It seems we haven't moved on much since then.

[Shaker]

Yes Shaker I think this has come up recently. A past Bishop of Durham (Jenkins) caused great controversy about twenty five years ago when he wrote that Christianity is more than a conjuring trick with bones.

Almost to this day still misquoted as his saying: "The Resurrection was a conjuring trick with bones"

[Robbie]

I read the book.
Can't say I liked his prose style but I got the points he was making.

[jeremyp]

Not too long ago - a few weeks at most, I think - there was a thread (can't remember which one) where this very point cropped up yet again. What I distinctly remember was the point-blank refusal of certain religionists even to consider the possibility that Gospel accounts (rather: those who wrote them) could be wrong, either through deliberate mendacity (i.e. lying), perfectly sincere error, misapprehension, poor memory etc. etc.

The gospels themselves provide plenty of evidence that some or all of those things happened.

eyewitness testimony is notoriously sketchy

The question of whether eye witness testimony is reliable (it definitely isn't) should not concern us when critiquing the gospels. There is no eye witness testimony in them.

[Shaker]

The question of whether eye witness testimony is reliable (it definitely isn't) should not concern us when critiquing the gospels. There is no eye witness testimony in them.

No, but the claim (from people like Spud) is that there is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't need to: the burden is theirs.

In the absence of any good reasons to think they may be correct, taking into account the nature of the claim and also considering that they seem to have done no due dligence in respect of the risks of mistakes or lies, then we can dismiss the resurrection of Jesus claim as being unfounded - since there are no good reasons to think it a serious proposition.

Antitheists idea of the burden of proof.
1: Get the combination of the secure nuclear proof bunker antitheist is sitting in.
2: Open the twenty ton reinforced door
3: Traverse the passage way ducking the lasers and circular saws
4: Incapacitate the ninja guards
5: Gaffer tape to stop the la la la ing
6: Force fingers out of ears
7: Make point
8:Traverse the passageway ducking etc.
9: Step out of ninja suit revealing black bowtie and tuxedo, step into car driven by soviet agent Voluptanya Voluptiouova
10 Disappear down road. Camera pans back to antitheist base and the sound of an echoey La La La.

[Gordon]

Antitheists idea of the burden of proof.
1: Get the combination of the secure nuclear proof bunker antitheist is sitting in.
2: Open the twenty ton reinforced door
3: Traverse the passage way ducking the lasers and circular saws
4: Incapacitate the ninja guards
5: Gaffer tape to stop the la la la ing
6: Force fingers out of ears
7: Make point
8:Traverse the passageway ducking etc.
9: Step out of ninja suit revealing black bowtie and tuxedo, step into car driven by soviet agent Voluptanya Voluptiouova
10 Disappear down road. Camera pans back to antitheist base and the sound of an echoey La La La.

I take it you're bored, Vlad?

Perhaps, since you've clearly got time on your hands, you can explain how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT: or are you going to continue avoiding this inconvenient problem?

After all the burden of proof here is with those supporting Christian claims about Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it you're bored, Vlad?

Perhaps, since you've clearly got time on your hands, you can explain how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT: or are you going to continue avoiding this inconvenient problem?

We've been through this. For My thoughts on your attitude on my reply to your risk assessment, the allegory I've posted should suffice.

[Gordon]

We've been through this. For My thoughts on your attitude on my reply to your risk assessment, the allegory I've posted should suffice.

It certainly suffices in one sense: as a glaring example of evasion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It certainly suffices in one sense: as a glaring example of evasion.

The Christian case is out there Gordon. It is what it is you can adopt a 'we can't tell that no lying has occurred therefore we must assume it has'' policy reinforced with cherry picked examples of lying. If you want to.

The evidence from the epistles is that there was a community which believed in claims later collated in the Gospels and acts. Anything else is fringe.

Now I grant you that a resurrection is hard to swallow but so God avoidy are some that we now have claims of denial that Jesus ever had anything like the three year ministry the NT states, that he was like Brian in the life of Brian and had a religion projected onto him and that's fine as a theory but it comes with a burden of intellectual justification.

Have a nice day.

[floo]

Antitheists idea of the burden of proof.
1: Get the combination of the secure nuclear proof bunker antitheist is sitting in.
2: Open the twenty ton reinforced door
3: Traverse the passage way ducking the lasers and circular saws
4: Incapacitate the ninja guards
5: Gaffer tape to stop the la la la ing
6: Force fingers out of ears
7: Make point
8:Traverse the passageway ducking etc.
9: Step out of ninja suit revealing black bowtie and tuxedo, step into car driven by soviet agent Voluptanya Voluptiouova
10 Disappear down road. Camera pans back to antitheist base and the sound of an echoey La La La.

You have had a liquid breakfast by the looks of it!

[Gordon]

The Christian case is out there Gordon. It is what it is you can adopt a 'we can't tell that no lying has occurred therefore we must assume it has'' policy reinforced with cherry picked examples of lying. If you want to.

I'm not assuming lying, Vlad, just asking how you've excluded the risk: seems you haven't.

The evidence from the epistles is that there was a community which believed in claims later collated in the Gospels and acts.

No doubt: doesn't mean they were correct though.

Now I grant you that a resurrection is hard to swallow but so God avoidy are some that we now have claims of denial that Jesus ever had anything like the three year ministry the NT states, that he was like Brian in the life of Brian and had a religion projected onto him and that's fine as a theory but it comes with a burden of intellectual justification.

Nope, I'm not theorising at all: I'm just asking how you guys have excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT.

Have a nice day.

It's going well so far.

[Shaker]

I'm not assuming lying, Vlad, just asking how you've excluded the risk: seems you haven't.

And won't.

[Spud]

I dunno. Do you?

The original question was what was Paul's motivation for lying. The people at Fatima didn't really have any way to explain the so-called miracle (except maybe that it was something to do with world war I) which was probably an illusion, or else it would have surely been seen at other locations. Paul however had scriptures to explain Jesus' death and resurrection.

[Gordon]

Paul however had scriptures to explain Jesus' death and resurrection.

So what - that you apply the epithet 'scripture' doesn't somehow automatically remove any risks from these sources.

[floo]

The original question was what was Paul's motivation for lying. The people at Fatima didn't really have any way to explain the so-called miracle (except maybe that it was something to do with world war I) which was probably an illusion, or else it would have surely been seen at other locations. Paul however had scriptures to explain Jesus' death and resurrection.

Which doesn't explain anything.

[Shaker]

The original question was what was Paul's motivation for lying.

Propagandising for his belief system springs to mind.

The people at Fatima didn't really have any way to explain the so-called miracle (except maybe that it was something to do with world war I) which was probably an illusion, or else it would have surely been seen at other locations. Paul however had scriptures to explain Jesus' death and resurrection.

There we go with the question-begging yet again

[Spud]

So what - that you apply the epithet 'scripture' doesn't somehow automatically remove any risks from these sources.

I think it does. If an event is predicted to happen for a logical reason (in this case the triumph of good over evil) then to lie about it happening would itself be evil; it would quickly be refuted because people will not accept lies. I believe there could be no church if it had not indeed happened.

[Gordon]

I think it does. If an event is predicted to happen for a logical reason (in this case the triumph of good over evil) then to lie about it happening would itself be evil; it would quickly be refuted because people will not accept lies. I believe there could be no church if it had not indeed happened.

Since when is 'the triumph of good over evil' a logical statement? Moreover people will indeed accept lies if the lies are couched in terms that appeal to their credulity: are there no 'con men'?

The risk you are running by seeing the 'church' - presumably you mean the version you support and not, say, the Mormon version - as vindication is that it may well have been established on the basis of mistakes or lies in antiquity and yet it seems you guys are reluctant to consider this possibility.

[jeremyp]

people will not accept lies.

So a billion Muslims can't be wrong then.

Of course people will accept lies. You know this, but you choose to ignore it when talking about Christianity.

[Spud]

Since when is 'the triumph of good over evil' a logical statement? Moreover people will indeed accept lies if the lies are couched in terms that appeal to their credulity: are there no 'con men'?

The risk you are running by seeing the 'church' - presumably you mean the version you support and not, say, the Mormon version - as vindication is that it may well have been established on the basis of mistakes or lies in antiquity and yet it seems you guys are reluctant to consider this possibility.

I witness many selfish acts every day, including my own. People pushing in front of each other is the most frequent type, and it convinces me that there is such a thing as objective morality, where the only way to overcome evil is by humility and self sacrifice. Do people trying desperately to get ahead of each other look as if they are in fellowship with each other? Can we call that good? Such evil can only be prevented if there is submission on an individual basis to a higher authority, one whom we must believe in if we are to live in peace.

One thing the Gospel achieves is it proves this authority is a reality. It's not just the hope of life after death, but a way to achieve peace on earth and goodwill.

I used the word 'could' because Jesus' body was being guarded by Roman soldiers, and there is no way they would have let it be removed from the tomb.  The church could not have survived if it was rooted in a lie.

[Spud]

So a billion Muslims can't be wrong then.

Of course people will accept lies. You know this, but you choose to ignore it when talking about Christianity.

Islam in its original form is unacceptable to the rest of the world because it glorifies violence. So no, ultimately the world will not accept a lie.

[jeremyp]

Islam in its original form is unacceptable to the rest of the world because it glorifies violence. So no, ultimately the world will not accept a lie.

What are you blathering on about? We are talking about your magical assertion the Christians will not accept a lie.

[floo]

Islam in its original form is unacceptable to the rest of the world because it glorifies violence. So no, ultimately the world will not accept a lie.

That is a 'larf' the Christian god is a very violent so and so if the deeds attributed to it were true.