Science and spirituality

[Maeght]

No reason to ignore them.
There are no records whatsoever of them dying for any reason but but I don't see you asking for evidence for that.
It looks like bias on your part.

It is a reason not to consider them as reliable evidence for what happened to the apostles. Not sure what your point about them dying is supposed to be, I haven't commented on their deaths. You seem willing to accept church traditions as reliable evidence, I'm not convinced they are.

Your favourite New Testament scholar, Bart Erhman says

'For none of the apostles do we have reliable historical records?  For most of them, we don’t even have legends. For those for whom we do have legends (Peter, Paul, John, and a couple of others) the legends are not historically trustworthy.

The best-attested case is the apostle Peter. I think he probably was indeed martyred. But I don’t think we have the details. What we have is a couple of early allusions to his death and an amazing legend, from about a hundred years after he died.'

Even a website like compellingtruth.com says 'While many accounts are uncertain traditions' https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a reason not to consider them as reliable evidence for what happened to the apostles. Not sure what your point about them dying is supposed to be, I haven't commented on their deaths. You seem willing to accept church traditions as reliable evidence, I'm not convinced they are.

Your favourite New Testament scholar, Bart Erhman says

'For none of the apostles do we have reliable historical records?  For most of them, we don’t even have legends. For those for whom we do have legends (Peter, Paul, John, and a couple of others) the legends are not historically trustworthy.

The best-attested case is the apostle Peter. I think he probably was indeed martyred. But I don’t think we have the details. What we have is a couple of early allusions to his death and an amazing legend, from about a hundred years after he died.'

Even a website like compellingtruth.com says 'While many accounts are uncertain traditions' https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html

It seems to me that you are demonstrating deliberate bias apart from that not considering later reports probably disqualifies much of history.
I'm not sure professional historians would buy your line.

[Alan Burns]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.  What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.  Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?  If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?

[torridon]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.  What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.  Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?  If not, what could possibly have brought about such profound world changing scenario?

This is a rosy view that overlooks the twists and turns of the power structures over history.  Christianity piggy backed on the might of the Roman Empire and was subsequently spread worldwide thanks to European imperialism.  Had Emperor Constantine gone with Mithraism, churches over the world would be dedicated to Mithras now and the Jewish heretical sect of first century Judea would be a curious footnote for historians.

[Maeght]

It seems to me that you are demonstrating deliberate bias apart from that not considering later reports probably disqualifies much of history.
I'm not sure professional historians would buy your line.

Historians consider what is most likely t have happened based on their analysis of the evidence, how reliable they think it is, how many different sources are there, are the sources biased, are they independent. They don't just accept tradition but question it then give their opinion on what most probably happened. Regarding the martyrdom of the apostles it may have happened, but the evidence is small and comes form sources which are biased (looking to present a particular history for example). Am I saying it definitely didn't happen? No. Am I saying it might have happened? Yes. Am I saying it probably happened or probably didn't happen? No - because I haven't studied in enough depth to reach an informed conclusion. What I am saying however is that legends and stories are not good evidence for the claim that the resurrection actually happened - which is a claim Alan, and others, have made.

If you take the story of George Washington and the cherry tree as an example. A story was made up intended to show Washington in a positive light but 'The cherry tree myth is the most well-known and longest enduring legend about George Washington.'

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth

[Maeght]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.  What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.  Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?  If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?

Christianity becoming adopted as the official religion of Rome is a big factor of course. But as has been said, belief in something doesn't mean it actually happened, even if that belief spreads around the world.

[ProfessorDavey]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy ...

Actually it didn't. The life and death of Jesus created hardly a ripple in the religious hierarchy at the time and place in which it happened. Before Jesus, most people in Palestine were Jewish, with some minor sects and of course different religion of the Roman occupiers. After Jesus life and death the status quo was pretty well entirely retained - the only difference being a minor and non-influential community of early christian who never gained any kind of traction amongst those local communities, you know the ones who would have been witnesses to Jesus life. And those early christians had so little impact that largely they became scattered and had to move to other places to gain any kind of traction as communities.

And also don't forget that as far as we are aware those early christians thought that the end of the world was coming within years and had no interest in creating some kind of world religion, as there was no point - they were preparing for the imminent second coming etc. It is only much later that christianity as we might understand it become established and this was very different from its initial form and, of course, didn't involve anyone who was around at the time of Jesus' life and death.

, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.

Ah - now you are beginning to understand it - the event that was instrumental in creating a new religious hierarchy with world reach wasn't the purported resurrection but the fact that centuries later christians were able to persuade the leader of a world empire to adopt their belief. Clearly great PR and marketing, as as if often the case there is a heavy dollop of being around at the right time and place. But this is now all about belief not about what actually may have happened as we are talking about 300 years after the purported events. 

What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.

Yup - because the leader of the most powerful empire in Europe decided that christianity was going to be promoted across his empire.

[Outrider]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy

And again around 600AD

... and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.

All sorts of afterlife myths were around before this, and after this.

What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.

Trump's election-denial has reverberated through Brazil, and been utilised by the Russian disinformation machine. Holocaust deniers keep on crawling out of the woodwork and energising far-right campaigns all over the place. Something doesn't have to be true to be effective or believed.

Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?

It wasn't. It was brought about by educated people with an agenda talking about Jewish tradesmen.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

And again around 600AD

But that one did gain traction amongst the people who would have known Mohammed and heard him. Unlike christianity which was pretty well ignored by the people around at the time and place.

[Gordon]

The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.  What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.  Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?  If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?

Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE: but the right type of Christianity of course, and even after Constantine there were differences and disputes in the Roman hierarchy. The upshot was that Christianity became a key element in political power in Europe, and it was also the cause of much friction too.

In some places though, where Christianity had retained political power and influence for centuries, that influence is now waning - the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the UK is a good example of positive social change happening despite the objections of established Christianity. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE:

Correct - the christianity that eventually gained global success was hugely different to the christianity of the earliest adherents. Literally beyond belief as those early christian communities firmly believed that the end of times would have happened centuries before Constantine was even born.

[jeremyp]

Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE: but the right type of Christianity of course, and even after Constantine there were differences and disputes in the Roman hierarchy. The upshot was that Christianity became a key element in political power in Europe, and it was also the cause of much friction too.

In some places though, where Christianity had retained political power and influence for centuries, that influence is now waning - the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the UK is a good example of positive social change happening despite the objections of established Christianity.

I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.

[Gordon]

I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.

As I recall the history, part of Constantine's aim was to sort out splits among Christians, and especially Arianism, and impose some sort of discipline/orthodoxy - hence the Council of Nicea. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.

Not sure that's what he said. I think he implied, correctly, that christianity was inconsequential as a religion in the early period after Jesus - so probably through to 150CE.

By 300CE it had become an established, but minor religion - Constantine chose to make it meanstream. I've read suggestions that by around 300CE perhaps 10% of the population may have been christian. A pretty small minority but still one that would be noticed. What propelled christianity from minority to established was Constantine. Without him would christianity have continued to grow - who knows. Perhaps - maybe it would have grumbled along at about 10% or maybe drifted away.

Another interesting question is what would have happened had Mohammed have been born 300 years earlier. Islam was massively more successful at establishing itself compared to christianity. Had Constantine been offered islam rather than christianity in 300-ish, which way would he have jumped.

[jeremyp]

As I recall the history, part of Constantine's aim was to sort out splits among Christians, and especially Arianism, and impose some sort of discipline/orthodoxy - hence the Council of Nicea.

Yes, but that was after he "adopted" it. The battle of Milvian bridge happened 13 years before the Council of Nicaea.

Side note: Apple thinks Milvian should be autocorrected to Melvin.

[jeremyp]

Not sure that's what he said. I think he implied, correctly, that christianity was inconsequential as a religion in the early period after Jesus - so probably through to 150CE.

By 300CE it had become an established, but minor religion - Constantine chose to make it meanstream. I've read suggestions that by around 300CE perhaps 10% of the population may have been christian. A pretty small minority but still one that would be noticed. What propelled christianity from minority to established was Constantine. Without him would christianity have continued to grow - who knows. Perhaps - maybe it would have grumbled along at about 10% or maybe drifted away.

I don't think that a religion having 10% of the population of the Roman Empire should be considered a minor religion. It was likely amongst the larger religions of the empire and it would have to be if Constantine was going to use it as a means to exert political power.

Another interesting question is what would have happened had Mohammed have been born 300 years earlier. Islam was massively more successful at establishing itself compared to christianity. Had Constantine been offered islam rather than christianity in 300-ish, which way would he have jumped.

Islam spread through conquest. It's unlikely that Constantine would have viewed it as a suitable for his purpose, more as a threat to the empire. However, if it had been available to him and he had chosen it, Christianity would probably now be viewed as a pagan cult that died in the fourth century, if we knew anything about it at all, that is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct - the christianity that eventually gained global success was hugely different to the christianity of the earliest adherents. Literally beyond belief as those early christian communities firmly believed that the end of times would have happened centuries before Constantine was even born.

I wonder then why you have inflicted your theory about how the later Christian church gains and retains members on the early church.
Certainly and eventually nominal, socially incentivised Christianity became more of a thing where as in the growth period repentance and personal encounter would have driven the faith.

You say Christianity failed to grab the locals.So what? Judaism was very much the religion for locals and had, I would imagine already embraced nominality and birth qualifications for membership in the way Christianity never did.

On another matter the religious magisterium of the Roman Empire was never as big as the post Constantine Catholic magisterium and as such I think Christianity was a bigger deal than you make out.

What I find fascinating is Atheist detractors of today seem to think the church was influential enough to derail and sap the muscularity and pud out of the Roman Empire , which presumably would have experienced some kind of enlightenment through culture and reason on it’s own and on the other hand influential enough to have changed the policy on slavery which seems to go against your small, fairly invisible sect Hypothesis.

I still get the whiff of argumentum ad populum from your efforts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that a religion having 10% of the population of the Roman Empire should be considered a minor religion. It was likely amongst the larger religions of the empire and it would have to be if Constantine was going to use it as a means to exert political power.

Islam spread through conquest. It's unlikely that Constantine would have viewed it as a suitable for his purpose, more as a threat to the empire. However, if it had been available to him and he had chosen it, Christianity would probably now be viewed as a pagan cult that died in the fourth century, if we knew anything about it at all, that is.

Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.

[Gordon]

Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.

How have you excluded the possibility of it being a hoax?

Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.

Since you mention it, what other possible long-term hoaxes are you thinking of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How have you excluded the possibility of it being a hoax?

Since you mention it, what other possible long-term hoaxes are you thinking of?

I have quoted one or two papers concerning hoaxes and their longevity and how I take my cue from those regarding Christianity being a hoax rather than the “guid auld  common sense” schtick.

[Gordon]

I have quoted one or two papers concerning hoaxes and their longevity and how I take my cue from those regarding Christianity being a hoax rather than the “guid auld  common sense” schtick.

Evasive drivel, as usual: please cite these papers since I have no idea what you are on about.

Love your attempt at Scottish vernacular - why it's almost as if we Scots constantly speak with reference to the Harry Lauder songbook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evasive drivel, as usual: please cite these papers since I have no idea what you are on about.

Love your attempt at Scottish vernacular - why it's almost as if we Scots constantly speak with reference to the Harry Lauder songbook.

Arse clenching codswallop.

I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.

[Gordon]

Arse clenching codswallop.

I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.

Sources?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.

Just to correct you: whether the resurrection story is a hoax, a mistake, a deliberate manipulation of the facts, a case of survivorship bias or anything else naturalistic is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether or not the Christian version of the story satisfies the basic tests of historicity which, for reasons that have been set out exhaustively on the this mb, it does not. That’s why it has no place in academic history.   

No amount of your “look over there” distractions about other possible explanations changes that – even if you conclude that every known possible naturalistic explanation fails the tests of historicity too, that does not have any effect on the validity of the supernatural version.

Short version: the burden of proof is still with you to demonstrate your claim, not with others to demonstrate alternatives.

You’re welcome.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sources?

That it is a hoax? No historical sources