Announcement

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 19:17

Originally posted by Aeson
He was once the spirit child of another God, and eventually attained perfection. Anyone who attains this perfection becomes a God.

The odd thing is that when I make this statement a Mormon will usualy pop up to deny it. Usually one that was NOT participating previously.

It's easy to say a group is wrong because they believe differently. It's hard to apply the same reasoning to your own beliefs from another's standpoint.

I have notice that. People have basic thinking paterns often based on religious beliefs that are so strongly engrained in them that they don't even notice that its based on an assumption.

The same could be said about most religions/sects (any that you don't particularly agree with). Mormons haven't had a spotless record (far from it), but so far they haven't accounted for any large scale losses of life at least, and seem to be over that stage of developement completely.

I only know of the one instance myself. Mentioning it when a guy said they had never done that sort of thing is what got me screamed at.

In case you are interested their was a long thread on Mormons on the Maximum PC forum last year. Some good stuff and some hate and some strange stuff. Like a guy that said he had a near death experience in plane crash that the US government covered up. He made some interesting posts but I really have no idea how much was the product of a fevered imagination.

Link if your interested.

http://forums.prospero.com/maxcommport/messages?msg=26587.1

You can enter as a guest. The first post is a buy a guy that uses the handle Frankenchrist. He is actually a nice guy. Just likes to stir things up.

Ixalmida is a Mormon and he is good at discusion.

DDUMA was street preacher I think. He goes off the handle occasionaly and think any English Bible besides the KJV is Satanic.

Detrament is the strange guy. It comes out slowly a bit at time. Its a long thread.

ETHLRED and Ethelred(hardrede) are me.

The shots against Mormons are just easier because their 'divine' inspirations are contemperary, not clouded by centuries or millenia. The inconsistancies are easier to show proof of, as alternative contemperary sources are much more prevalent.

Well its also because there is only one source of the BOM. The Bible had many authors and there are bits and pieces of early copies around. For the Mormons there is only Smith and he is a very dubious source. He was once prosecuted for a scam. For real as original court document have been found in the last few years. Something about crystal gazing.

I forget the names of all the tribes. I would agree that they have different takes on several Biblical issues. Until the lost tribes are found though...

Aren't ALL the Amerinds supposed to be descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel? I haven't quite gotten this one straight yet.

You are using scientific claims to disprove a religious text, sound familiar? The Book of Mormon does give explainations as to why evidence of these people are not found, and how they got there. Not very likely explainations IMO, but if taken as fact they would account for why there isn't any physical evidence.

The BOM has things in the New World that were never here or at least not at that time. Horses and chariots are the two that come to mind at the moment. I get told it might not have been a real horse but the Hebrew word was used anyway. Of course there is nothing in the Americas that can pass for an animal that can pull a chariot and look much like a horse. Especially in Central America where this was supposed to have happened. I had a guy claim it might have been a capabara. Talk about reaching.

Isn't there a quote in the Bible where Jesus talks about other flocks he has to attend to? I can't remember the passage, but Mormons use this to corroborate the BoM's story that Jesus appeared on the American continent.

The Brits like it too.

Oh did those feet in ancient times
walk upon Englands green and pleasant land

Strange song. To me anyways.

The second part is pretty damning, but can be attributed to the 'evil' nature of man. Always an easy scapegoat; God is perfect, religion isn't because men screw it up. I don't think that all of them recanted either, there were 2 groups of witnesses.

None was what I heard. Even those that had quite the Mormon religion. Which makes me suspect the claim that none recanted. Why quit? I suspect that some people saw some plates with what might have been a script on it. They couldn't read it. Heck Smith couldn't read Hebrew either, at least when he wrote the BOM. Brass plates would not have been hard to make and brass is easily electroplated as well. A few plates would be enough.

They can't be dated either. Not even now.

I'm not sure what you mean by amazing levels of revision, but I've seen BoM's from as early as 1850 which are just about word for word with the current edition.

I think CK has heard an exageration on that. I know there has been some changes but I don't what they were. Not extensive one in anycase.

The idea that the BoM was a perfect translation is false of course. Akin to fundamentalist claims that the Bible is literal truth.

Mormons have a magic phrase. One that they often use even before saying they are Mormon. I have discovered a number that way.

"The Bible is perfect as far as it has been translated correctly. "

They say the same for the BOM. If you see someone saying that specific phrase they are almost always Mormon. They don't have much of an answer when I point out that the original language is available.

They've outgrown that. I can't think of any racist institution left within the LDS church.

A leader decided that he had a prophetic revelation about that stuff. Funny how prophecy can be encouraged by government and social pressure. Same thing happened with polygamy.

I found it interesting that you seem to apply some of the same refutation techniques (judging a spiritual text about the supernatural by scientific methods) towards the BoM and Mormons as Ethelred does towards the Bible and Christians.

I noticed that also. His answer seems based on self-interest to some extent. However he does have some point about the culture things. The Bible definitly fits a lot of archeology and the BOM has nothing supporting and lots against it.

If your curious I have not read the BOM. I did read two pages of it. Don't know which. It felt like it written by a person of limited writing skill (not illiterate just inexperienced in writing stories). It was obviously copying the style of the King James Bible. The Bible is better written and I do not think of it as great literature.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 19:22

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Aeson

It's comforting to know that while not necessarily wrong, I'm going to hell.

I think he was clear that you were definitly wrong.

Troll is without a clue. He thinks threats based on fantasy have meaning. Those only work on the believers. He seems to be religious because he is too chicken to take the chance that a preposterous claim might be false.

He is going to freeze his rear end off in Niffleheim for this. The dwarves will eat his liver and he will not go to Valhalla where we True Believers will eat the big meal and fight the big fight every day for all eternity untill Ragnarok.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 19:24

Originally posted by ckweb
Wasn't today the day you were going to answer the long posts we've been throwing back and forth?

No. Not at all.

Well maybe some.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 19:35

Originally posted by ckweb
Local churches and their larger denominations are open with their finances. In fact, if and when I join another local church, I will be able to vote on the budget to decide how and where my tithes are spent.

Obviously you are not Catholic.

I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, an essentially secular professional society that puts the Bible under close and rigourous academic scrutiny. The Society of Biblical Literature is an international organization that brings together all scholars in the field of biblical studies.

No wonder you don't get along with the Fundamentalists.

As a result, I feel confident in declaring that my religious tradition is infinitely more plausible than Mormonism.

Well a little anyway. Not infinitly except that any number divided by zero is results in infinity. I would not put the Mormons at zero but only because Scientology allready holds that position.

Please do keep in mind that Jesus and L. Ron both came back from the dead. I don't think Jesus died to evade a Congresional supoena though. The government managed to get a hold him so that couldn't be it.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 19:53

I'm still not sure if you've read the BoM or not, or various other LDS 'inspired' literature. If you are relying on ex-mormon accounts of LDS doctrine it would necessarily be anti-Mormon. Not the most objective sources are we. I am an ex-Mormon, I have read the BoM several times and tested the main precept in Moroni 10:3 each time. From a personal standpoint, this is the means of proving or disproving the text. It's the only way the LDS church advocates.

Hardly surprising that the LDS should want a personal un-verifiable proof as the BOM cannot stand up to a comparison with the evidence and lack thereof in the New World. People can convince of themselves of pretty ridiculous. Alien body cavity probes anyone?

**Aeson** · June 20, 2002, 20:28

Originally posted by Ethelred
The odd thing is that when I make this statement a Mormon will usualy pop up to deny it. Usually one that was NOT participating previously.

It's a bit unnerving about how differently some get taught in Mormon churches. I don't see any real problems (talking danger, not truth) with the modern doctrine being taught, other than I don't agree with it. It all stems from the fact that in LDS church, Mormon teachers are just regular members who have received no special education regarding what they are teaching.

I only know of the one instance myself. Mentioning it when a guy said they had never done that sort of thing is what got me screamed at.

When refering to large scale losses of life, I meant on a scale of the Crusades, Jihad, and the like. There were a few instances of violent clashes between Mormons and others, one even with the US military IIRC. Having taken history classes both in and outside Utah, it's interesting how these instances are depicted differently even in public schools.

A person only exposed to the Utah/Mormon account is going to have a much different view on them than most anyone else.

Aren't ALL the Amerinds supposed to be descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel? I haven't quite gotten this one straight yet.

I can't recall any official LDS doctrine on where the lost tribes ended up. Lots of speculation though. The Amerinds are at least partly comprised of decendants of the Lamanites. The BoM says the skin of decendants of Laman and Lemual (Nephi's brothers) were turned dark. I doubt the story of Cain and Able had any influence on that.

Most of the stories in the BoM have similarities to stories in the Bible. They aren't attributed to the Lost Tribes in any case, as Nephi and his family were all from the tribe of Judah. Or whichever the Israelites decended from. I'm not too sure on the name.

Mormons have a magic phrase. One that they often use even before saying they are Mormon. I have discovered a number that way.

"The Bible is perfect as far as it has been translated correctly. "

I think this is another of those 'misunderstood' points on doctrine. Joseph Smith's inspired translation isn't meant to be a translation of Hebrew, but of intent on God's part. The claim being that the original authors of the Biblical stories made some mistakes, or just missed the point. On this point I'm not really sure what doctrine is though, so the misunderstood part could be my own.

They say the same for the BOM. If you see someone saying that specific phrase they are almost always Mormon. They don't have much of an answer when I point out that the original language is available.

Yes, it's something every kid in LDS primary and seminary hears over and over again.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 20:32

Originally posted by ckweb
Christianity really only requires one faith conviction, namely that the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God and more specifically, validates the message Jesus came to bring. The resurrection itself, as I've said, has sufficient proof to meet a legal standard (not a scientific one, of course, because the physical evidence of the resurrected body is not available to test).

You have said it allright but that doesn't make it true. It does not in any way meet a legal standard. We only have only one book that mentions it and a few other equally religious writing that the early christians found wanting and did not use when the Bible was assembled. Nothing from any contemeprary sources. There are other things that do make the claim but ALL of them are based on what the Christians said and that includes the Jewish writing on it. Nothing comes from the time itself.

Even the four gospels did not include an eyewitness acount of the crucifiction. Even they have NO ONE seeing the resurection. Non-visable guards do not count as witnesses. No one found them and asked them. Most likely they had left on their own assuming they had ever been there. Even the Gospel of Mary that was not used in the Bible apparently has no mention of these things. I haven't read it myself but allegedly it does not add anything to our knowledge of Jesus. It can be found online if you want.

I said before that there is only one single sentence supporting the existence of Jesus outside the Bible and of course those other gospels that the assemblers of the Bible found lacking in credibility themselves. Just one line in Josephus and he wasn't contemporary anyway. You sneered. And that is ALL you did. Not one bit of evidence to support that sneer has been forthcoming.

I reiterate there is no reason to think that Jesus actually died on the cross and was resurected from the dead. Same for the Mt. Sinai incedent. You are assuming your faith and using that for proof. Its circular thinking.

A few hours on the cross while hard on a person is not fatal. It took days. I do suspect that Jesus existed. I suspect he was crucified. I also suspect he didn't die. No vast conspiricy is needed for this if you are thinking that book the Jesus Conspiracy or whatever it was. Just a near death.

Yet, I also stated that a legal standard is often not sufficient to convince people of the resurrection because the event is too manifestly unique. Moreover, even if they did accept the resurrection, they might still not possess the faith required to accept it means anything.

Oh it means something if it occured as stated. It doesn't have to meen Jesus was god however. Many early christians did not think he was. The JW's are hardly the first to think that and even they do not go as far as some early christians did.

Islam requires faith in the testimony of Mohammed that he was indeed visited by the angel Gabriel and given a message. There are no witnesses to support this claim. Your faith rests only on the claim of one man.

That is not much more to ask then with the Bible since none of the authors witnessed the Crucifiction or the Resurrection.

Mormonism requires much more faith on the part of its adherents.

I think it requires a large degree of gullibility. Especially when it was starting out. The bandwagon effect and being raised in a Morman environment reduce the level of gullibilty needed later.

Seems like a circular argument of the worst kind.

Would you care to listen to one of the more mainstream christian claims a bit more. The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible and the Reverend says it is. What do you mean that is circular. The Bible can't be wrong, God woudn't allow it.

Yes that women is a virgin. She told me is a virgin and virgins don't lie.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 21:58

Originally posted by Lincoln
So we are left with a problem in exploring the Bible from a purely scientific standpoint because it inherently claims (tacitly at least) to defy the laws of nature upon which science is largely based. What would a scientist, who was not present shortly after Lazarus was raised from the dead say after he examined the now resurrected man?

This is fine for the Lazurus story. It does not hold true for all the supernatural events. You seem to believe in some that do not fit this type.

Likewise, the flood story, the story of the tower of Babel and the creation account does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny because they are all claimed to be the result of supernatural, spiritual intervention.

This is the other type. It is why I asked you if you believed in them. Particularly the Flood. You refused to answer and I think its because you do believe it an don't want to deal with the problems.

Examining these events now using the laws of physics that presently rule our natural world is foolish.

Nonsense. Its very reasonable especialy since while the events may be supernatural it would take MORE supernatural miracles to make it look like they did not happen. Its that part the science is usefull for. The evidence of the event. Lazurus would leave no outside evidence for us unless some non-christian had reported the event and had made sure the man was not one merely dead but really and sincerely dead before he got up off the slab.

One is only left with opinions. Those who have strong opinions can ridicule their opponents if they choose but the fact remains that no one really knows the exact truth of what happened during an event that supposedly involved supernatural intervention.

Exact isn't needed.

In the days of Peleg according the Bible “the earth was divided”. Who, or what divided it? Was this a miraculous event, a huge earthquake or just some type of migration among inhabitants? Who decides now what it was – the scientist or the theologian?

That one is kind of vague. Its divided today as well anyway.

If the Bible had claimed that the flood was the result of the natural order of events (such as ‘el nino’) then the evidence could be examined now. If the creation account was simply an account of molecules following the laws of physics and natural selection then it could likewise be tested.

The evidence can be examined anyway. A Flood no matter how it was caused is still a flood. They leave evidence. I am not talking about where the water came from that is something the ICR does(ridiculous stuff too, haven't they heard of miracles). I am talking about what the water does when it is there. I am talking about the deaths and the genetics of life. For those not to show any evidence requires an even bigger miracle than the Flood itself. It does not merely smack of deception it cannot be any thing but deception for a god to make the world look exactly unlike the events that are claimed to have taken place.

If the word “begat” always means “the son of” and if “son of” always means the next descendant after the father then the genealogy could be examined precisely. But it is not possible to take a book that inherently claims to be spiritual and of supernatural inspiration and logically use it to prove or disprove science. Nor can science ever be an adequate tool for proving that the Bible is spurious.

Now that is just wishfull thinking. The begat stuff isn't its the last of it. Science is more than adequate tool for your beliefs. Not for Ckwebs as he does not believe in the flood you sure do seem to believe in it. The Bible does not claim to be inherently spiritual. You do that. It has too much history to pass as a purely spritual book.

Galileo certainly did not believe literally that “the sun stood still” yet he believed the Bible. His religious opponents claimed to believe it better than he did. They were the fools, not Galileo.

Actually many of his opponents knew he was right. They just didn't want the flock to know that. Apparently the Church was afraid that people would lose faith. That is the real reason the Chuch pitched a fit. They wanted more time to prepare. Supposedly anyway.

**Ethelred** · June 20, 2002, 22:26

Originally posted by ckweb
Samething happened when the Tel-Dan inscription was found. Lemche and Seters took along time to recover from that one. Oh they tried to fight it for awhile but inevitably they had to admit that Tel-Dan provide external corroboration to the "House of David".

David always seemed to be historical to me. Goliath was not 9 feet tall of course. Nor were the Philistines the barbarians. They were however illiterate so the other guys got to do all the writing.

Lots of stuff in the Bible is real. No reason there shouldn't be information it that is usefull historically.

People had a lot of doubt about Harald Hardrede's Saga but every once in while something shows up to confirm parts. Bodies and weapons around Stamford Bridge near York and a few years ago the fire ship he used against the King of Denmark was found in the harbour where it should have been. Legends are not quite the same myths.

**ckweb** · June 21, 2002, 01:53

Originally posted by Ethelred
You have said it allright but that doesn't make it true. It does not in any way meet a legal standard. We only have only one book that mentions it and a few other equally religious writing that the early christians found wanting and did not use when the Bible was assembled. Nothing from any contemeprary sources. There are other things that do make the claim but ALL of them are based on what the Christians said and that includes the Jewish writing on it. Nothing comes from the time itself.

Even the four gospels did not include an eyewitness acount of the crucifiction. Even they have NO ONE seeing the resurection. Non-visable guards do not count as witnesses. No one found them and asked them. Most likely they had left on their own assuming they had ever been there. Even the Gospel of Mary that was not used in the Bible apparently has no mention of these things. I haven't read it myself but allegedly it does not add anything to our knowledge of Jesus. It can be found online if you want.

I said before that there is only one single sentence supporting the existence of Jesus outside the Bible and of course those other gospels that the assemblers of the Bible found lacking in credibility themselves. Just one line in Josephus and he wasn't contemporary anyway. You sneered. And that is ALL you did. Not one bit of evidence to support that sneer has been forthcoming.

I reiterate there is no reason to think that Jesus actually died on the cross and was resurected from the dead. Same for the Mt. Sinai incedent. You are assuming your faith and using that for proof. Its circular thinking.

A few hours on the cross while hard on a person is not fatal. It took days. I do suspect that Jesus existed. I suspect he was crucified. I also suspect he didn't die. No vast conspiricy is needed for this if you are thinking that book the Jesus Conspiracy or whatever it was. Just a near death.

First, I never sneered. I only pointed out that you don't know your sources very well.

(1) We don't have just one book. We have four canonical gospels, each of which are "books" in their own right, written by different people (although occassionally Matthew and Luke borrow independently from Mark; but they have also supplemented their accounts with a great deal of new information, which in fact points to other sources no longer extant that were earlier than Mark even). We also have the letters of Paul, written before the Gospels, indicating that he spoke or at least knew of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Around 55 C.E., Paul wrote in 1 Corinthinians of these 500 witnesses. This is only twenty years after the event and many of these people would still have been alive to question. Historical criticism confirms that the resurrection stories are of first century origin. This is historical fact. In addition to these sources, we have a wealth of non-canonical gospels and other literature that testify to the resurrection, ranging from the first century to the second and third centuries (i.e. Gospel of Peter, etc.). These Christian sources are sufficient to prove the historicity of Jesus and make a strong case for his resurrection as well. From a sociological perspective, I'd like you to account for how Jesus would have become the subject of sooooooo much literature (and there really is copious amounts) if there was no resurrection. If you take the picture of Jesus drawn up by Borg and Crossan (two leading secular scholars on Jesus), you have a very insignificant man wandering through a very insignificant province doing what as many as hundreds before him had done. What made him different? What set him apart that people started writing about him so profusely? Why were people suddenly willing to challenge Jewish and more significantly Roman authority in their conviction? (This is not like Islam either, which expanded through conquest). Why were they willing to suffer as martyrs? You simply can't dismiss the Christian literature because it is written by people who believed. After all, who else would claim the resurrection had happened, unbelievers? Where else would you expect to get this information? Sociologically speaking and textually, the early Christian phenomenon meets a legal standard and then some. (The jury that is the world, however, hasn't made a unanimous verdict but the legal standard is met. This is a case with sufficient evidence to go forward. Whether as a member of the jury the evidence persuades you or not is a completely different matter.)

(2) There are two references (not just one) to Jesus in Josephus and though you slander him, he is an extremely important historical source. It is true that there are Christian interpolations into the references but the references themselves are authentic. Having said so, it is true that Josephus does not claim the resurrection.

(3) The Talmud has polemical references against Jesus, which clearly shows that Jesus was a historical person. The Talmud even attributes miracles to Jesus, though they claim the source of his power is Beelzebub. Obviously, there is no reference to the resurrection here and the references themselves are little historical value because of their late written date (however, it should be note that it was based on oral tradition that was contemporary). Though not relevant to the issue of the resurrection, they are independent corroboration to the historicity of Jesus and are not based on Christian information. The Talmud passes on statements made by Rabbis of Jesus' time who were hostile towards him.

(4) There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary. It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive). But, even if they are based on Christian testimony, the Roman sources provide another witness to people apart from those mentioned in the NT that claimed to have witnessed or known witnesses of the resurrection. Some later sources repeatedly mention Christians and the superstitions that surround them. They mention them as a real annoyance and yet the Romans never seem to counter the central claim of the resurrection, despite the fact that it was they who were responsible for his crucifixition.
-----
You are drawing a very thin line by saying the actual resurrection itself was not observed; the resurrected body was seen. And, talk about a little irony here, medical science proves that Jesus could not have survived a crucifixition. Even if you assumed he wasn't dead when removed from the cross, he would have died from the wounds in the tomb. The Romans did guard the tomb; there is simply no question. Crucifixition was a Roman method of execution for capital crimes. It was customary to post guards at tombs to prevent grave robbing or stolen bodies, especially in the case of messiah-would-bes who were causing all sorts of disturbances in the area. Your scenario requires almost more of a miracle than the resurrection.
-----
I can assure you that you probably take for granted things about your history that stand on considerably less proof than that which exists for the historicity of Jesus and the likelihood of his resurrection. Personally, in view of all the Christian literature testifying to the resurrection, I think it is incumbent upon the non-Christian to present a convincing and cogent explanation for the sociological phenomenon that is Christianity if it is not based on an historical resurrection. And please, do not appeal to hokus arguments based on religious movements like Islam or Hinduism. Both these religions were enforced politically on the population. The early converts of Islam clearly had social and political reasons behind their conversion. In the early history of Christianity, there is no convincing social or political reason for converting. In fact, you were moving yourself down to a rung even lower than Jews were considered at the time. It was not until well into the 4th century, when Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Mediterranean world, and after the church had suffered endless persecution from all sorts of different sources, that Christianity became a state religion.

Originally posted by Ethelred You are assuming your faith and using that for proof. Its circular thinking.

BTW, how is my argument circular? How am I assuming my faith? My argument is not based on my faith. It is based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. I'm not saying because I believe in Jesus' resurrection, therefore I know Jesus is resurrected. That would be circular. Also, using the Bible as an historical-cultural artifiact is not circular either. I'm critically testing the issue.

You know something, Ethelred. I've noticed that you tend to see how I've argued a point in a previous post and then you try my own argument against me. Its eery how many times that has happened in this thread. Oh well . . .

Originally posted by Ethelred
Oh it means something if it occured as stated. It doesn't have to meen Jesus was god however. Many early christians did not think he was. The JW's are hardly the first to think that and even they do not go as far as some early christians did.

No. It doesn't have to mean Jesus is God, although it virtually demands belief in God. Its the interpretation I accept, however, based on the most reliable sources of his life.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Would you care to listen to one of the more mainstream christian claims a bit more. The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible and the Reverend says it is. What do you mean that is circular. The Bible can't be wrong, God woudn't allow it.

Yes that women is a virgin. She told me is a virgin and virgins don't lie.

Nothing I would say. I can't be held to account for the uneducated people who share my religious convictions and poorly argue them. Now, if those circular arguments were official doctrine of the church (as I'm wondering if that is the case of Mormonism), I'd be in trouble. However, they are not so I am not.

**Jack the Bodiless** · June 21, 2002, 05:08

ckweb:

(1) We have four books, all written well after the event, with three being apparently derived largely from one source (the "Q" source for Mark, Matthew and Luke), none written by an eyewitness, and none attributed to the alleged authors until later. All draw from an oral tradition of which we have no direct record. Of the non-canonical gospels, Thomas appears closest to a collection of "tales of Jesus", and fails to mention the resurrection. Mark barely mentions it. It's elaborated in the later gospels (with the Bethlehem Nativity also being added in).

Paul claims to have known 500 eyewitnesses. That, in itself, is suspicious. Do you, personally, know 500 eyewitnesses to any event? I don't know 500 witnesses to anything.

As for why he became so important: have you seen Life of Brian? Sure, it's a comedy, but the portrayal of the people's desperate desire for a Messiah was probably not far off the mark. IIRC, there were several "messiahs" about. And Jesus seems to be an amalgam of various figures: some mythical, some possibly real.

Of course, the reality of the resurrection is irrelevant to the success of Christianity, because (even according to the Bible itself) hardly anyone actually saw Jesus afterwards. To all but a handful of people, there was no way of distinguishing an actual resurrection from a fictional one.

(2) The only non-doctored refereces in Josephus do not refer to the actual existence of a man with supernatural powers.

(3) The Jewish references support a possible historical Jesus, but their failure to mention the resurrection is telling. If they're prepared to credit him with Satanic powers, then why bury a return from the dead?

(4) There are no Roman records of an actual resurrection: only of the existence of Christians who believed in a resurrection as part of their religion.

There is nothing particularly miraculaous about the resurrection. Throughout history, the resurrection of many popular mythic heroes has been claimed. In the Middle-East, there were also the examples of Osiris and Mithras. If we assume that Jesus was a real person credited with magical powers by loyal followers, it would have been more miraculous if tales of his return did not begin to circulate after his untimely death.

Apart from Paul's "I know 500 people", there appears to be more evidence for the resurrection of Elvis Presley than that of Jesus. Would you say that the resurrection of Elvis meets legal standards of evidence?

**Ethelred** · June 21, 2002, 09:26

Originally posted by ckweb
First, I never sneered. I only pointed out that you don't know your sources very well.

Saying it without showing it looks at least a bit dismissive.

(1) We don't have just one book. We have four canonical gospels, each of which are "books" in their own right, written by different people (although occassionally Matthew and Luke borrow independently from Mark; but they have also supplemented their accounts with a great deal of new information, which in fact points to other sources no longer extant that were earlier than Mark even).

Its one book. Multiple sources. All filtered by the same group. All purely believers. You don't have ANY independent stuff. You cannot prove the Bible only with the Bible. That is not going to pass in any court so you do not have legal proof.

It would be like saying you have legal proof that tobacco does not cause cancer by quoting four different tabacco executives. Which I am sure you would not consider legal proof.

We also have the letters of Paul, written before the Gospels, indicating that he spoke or at least knew of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Around 55 C.E., Paul wrote in 1 Corinthinians of these 500 witnesses.

None of whom wrote the Gosples. The Apostles were all in hiding at that time according to what the Bible says.

Just how many people do you think saw the gunman on the grassy knoll. How many actually did? People really do make things up.

Historical criticism confirms that the resurrection stories are of first century origin. This is historical fact.

Its also a fact that people think the grassy knoll story is true. It isn't. I have seen the evidence. Kennedy was shot from behind. The evidence is online.

I have never claimed he wasn't crucified. I simply said there is no outside corroboration and you are not showing any here.

In addition to these sources, we have a wealth of non-canonical gospels and other literature that testify to the resurrection, ranging from the first century to the second and third centuries (i.e. Gospel of Peter, etc.).

I mentioned those. They were not thought credible. In fact John was often not thought credible.

These Christian sources are sufficient to prove the historicity of Jesus and make a strong case for his resurrection as well.

They don't prove they only suggest. A Romon or Jewish source that is truly independent would. The only one is Josephus and he doesn't mention the Crucifiction or the Resurection.

From a sociological perspective, I'd like you to account for how Jesus would have become the subject of sooooooo much literature (and there really is copious amounts) if there was no resurrection.

By not dying. Most of the literature is based on what a few Apostles said. You are mistakeing someone else repeating the original for new stuff.

If you take the picture of Jesus drawn up by Borg and Crossan (two leading secular scholars on Jesus), you have a very insignificant man wandering through a very insignificant province doing what as many as hundreds before him had done. What made him different?

Not being that way in the first place. He was of the line of David. Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line. Herod certainly wasn't. The province was not insignifcant. It was just as now the crossroads between Europe and both Africa and India. Hardly insignificant.

Yes there were others. They didn't get lucky. Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

That kind of manipulation of oppinion makes a difference.

What set him apart that people started writing about him so profusely? Why were people suddenly willing to challenge Jewish and more significantly Roman authority in their conviction?

They weren't chalenging the Romans as far as I can see. That came later after people decided that Jesus was the only god.

(This is not like Islam either, which expanded through conquest).

Would you care to show how that is true? Constintine conquered and HE expanded chrisitanity by personal fiat. Norway was not the only place converted by axe and sword. Iceland however does fit your thinking. I like that one.

Why were they willing to suffer as martyrs?

Fanatics are short on thinking. Sorry but that is a true statement. Belief can short circuit thought. None christians were martyred after Constantine. Not as often I suppose but it did happen.

You simply can't dismiss the Christian literature because it is written by people who believed.

I am not dismissing it. I am pointing out that most of it came from the same sources as the Bible did. That means its not independent. You cannot prove the Bible by quoting people that are paraphrasing the Bible.

After all, who else would claim the resurrection had happened, unbelievers?

Well Eusebious did add the bit in Josephus where it says Jesus was the Mesiah. Well it may not have been Eusebious but it sure wasn't Josephus.

Where else would you expect to get this information?

From the Romans. They kept records of all kinds of things. A man walking around after dying would be like to catch their attention. They would not dismiss it out of hand either as the same basic claim was made for other people around that time.

Sociologically speaking and textually, the early Christian phenomenon meets a legal standard and then some.

Then tobacco is not cancer causing I guess.

(The jury that is the world, however, hasn't made a unanimous verdict but the legal standard is met. This is a case with sufficient evidence to go forward. Whether as a member of the jury the evidence persuades you or not is a completely different matter.)

Wrong. Hearsay is usually inadmissable and that is all you have. You are mistaking hearsay for evidence.

(2) There are two references (not just one) to Jesus in Josephus and though you slander him, he is an extremely important historical source.

In no way did I slander Josephus. HE only wrote one reference. It is blatantly obvious that a christian added the other. Josephus would not call anyone the Mesiah now would he. He was a Jew not a christian.

It is true that there are Christian interpolations into the references but the references themselves are authentic. Having said so, it is true that Josephus does not claim the resurrection.

Again only one can be considered to have been written by Josephus. The other has ONLY been seen in a copy by Eusebious a man that said it was OK to lie to support christianity.

That one true reference is "James the brother of Jesus". Many christians think Jesus was an only child.

(3) The Talmud has polemical references against Jesus, which clearly shows that Jesus was a historical person. The Talmud even attributes miracles to Jesus, though they claim the source of his power is Beelzebub.

Sorry but those are all based on christian tales. None were based on actual non-christian accounts.

Perhaps it is you that don't know the sources. I have checked on this stuff. Josephus is all there is that is independent. He had access to Roman records which is where he likely got the stuff on James.

Obviously, there is no reference to the resurrection here and the references themselves are little historical value because of their late written date (however, it should be note that it was based on oral tradition that was contemporary).

Yes christian oral tradition. Thats not even hearsay unless you want call it hearsay at six degrees of seperation.

Though not relevant to the issue of the resurrection, they are independent corroboration to the historicity of Jesus and are not based on Christian information. The Talmud passes on statements made by Rabbis of Jesus' time who were hostile towards him.

Give a link. Last time I checked the original source was christian.

(4) There are Roman sources of varying reliability, including Tacitus, which is contemporary.

No. Wrong on two points. Tacitus even came after Josephus. Second he was using christian statements not Roman records for that.

It is possible, particularly in the case of Tacitus, that some of these Roman sources provide independent corroboration based on "court" records (though it is not conclusive).

Only Josephus does.

You just are taking peoples word on this stuff. If you had checked as I have you would have seen this.

Here is what Tacitus REALLY said.

From:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Tacitus.html

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

A reference to christians is not the same as a reference to Christ which also is not quite the same as Jesus.

But, even if they are based on Christian testimony, the Roman sources provide another witness to people apart from those mentioned in the NT that claimed to have witnessed or known witnesses of the resurrection.

That is contradictory. If its based on the original source its not another witness. Thats like saying

Bill - I saw a man on the grassy knoll fire a gun.

Bob- Bill said he saw a man on the grassy knoll fire a gun

John - Bob says Bill saw a man on the grassy knowl fire a rifle.

And then claiming you have three witnesses.

Some later sources repeatedly mention Christians and the superstitions that surround them. They mention them as a real annoyance and yet the Romans never seem to counter the central claim of the resurrection, despite the fact that it was they who were responsible for his crucifixition.

I take it you think that evidence of christians somehow constitutes evidence of Jesus. This is past dubious. Way past. It is however typical of the kind of thing that is passed off as proof.

You are drawing a very thin line by saying the actual resurrection itself was not observed; the resurrected body was seen.

Not so thin. Not when the claim involves a lot of other stuff that is used to show a miracle instead of a mistake in thinking a live person was dead one.

And, talk about a little irony here, medical science proves that Jesus could not have survived a crucifixition.

Is that like Tacitus supporting the existence of Jesus? It sure isn't medical science. People survied for days, not hours on the cross. Its not science when someone just plain ignores things like that.

Even if you assumed he wasn't dead when removed from the cross, he would have died from the wounds in the tomb.

The wounds weren't fatal. Scourging is bad but it need not be fatal. The spear claim is only in John and he contradicts the other gosples on a number of things.

The Romans did guard the tomb; there is simply no question.

Actually I said the guard was not there when the witnesses arived. There may or may not have been a Roman guard.

Crucifixition was a Roman method of execution for capital crimes.

One of many. Used enough that we know hours does not kill.

It was customary to post guards at tombs to prevent grave robbing or stolen bodies, especially in the case of messiah-would-bes who were causing all sorts of disturbances in the area. Your scenario requires almost more of a miracle than the resurrection.

My scenario does no such thing. The Romans would not give a fig if a Jewish tomb of a crucified criminal was robbed.

You have an exceedingly lax concept of miracle.

I can assure you that you probably take for granted things about your history that stand on considerably less proof than that which exists for the historicity of Jesus and the likelihood of his resurrection.

I don't take them for granted. All that I know is subject to change given evidence. You have to give real evidence though.

I have never claimed Jesus did not exist. I have only said there is only one single corroborating mention of him and that even that was not contemporary.

Personally, in view of all the Christian literature testifying to the resurrection, I think it is incumbent upon the non-Christian to present a convincing and cogent explanation for the sociological phenomenon that is Christianity if it is not based on an historical resurrection.

Constantine is more than enough. Bandwagon tactics and stuff written by people that have put faith over facts is neither convincing nor even remotely legal evidence. You are the one making extraordinary claims. I am under no obligation to disprove a total lack of reliable evidence for those claims. Note I said reliable. Faith is not reliable.

You are easily swayed by the thinking of numbers.

And please, do not appeal to hokus arguments based on religious movements like Islam or Hinduism.

No don't mention the other religions that have done the same.

Both these religions were enforced politically on the population.

Thank you for noticing that. Now please notice that the same EXACT thing happened with christianity. Constantine made chrisianity the state religion. However Budhism which you left out was repressed in many places. India included.

The early converts of Islam clearly had social and political reasons behind their conversion.

And getting along with Constitine doesn't fit that in what way?

In the early history of Christianity, there is no convincing social or political reason for converting.

Very early. Before it was prevalent. Later it bacame popular at least partly do to some simlarities with Mithraism which was popular with Roman soldiers.

In fact, you were moving yourself down to a rung even lower than Jews were considered at the time. It was not until well into the 4th century,

Not all that far into it. Constantine became Emperor in 324 AD.

when Christianity was already firmly established throughout the Mediterranean world, and after the church had suffered endless persecution from all sorts of different sources, that Christianity became a state religion.

Christianity was not firmly established till Constantine. It wasn't even at all uniform till after that.

BTW, how is my argument circular? How am I assuming my faith?

By using bandwagon tactics. You assume that others faith in someway justifies yours.

Well Bill believes in the Grassy Knoll theory so I should too.

My argument is not based on my faith. It is based on the sociological phenomenon of Christianity.

Which is based on a belief in the Bible and the beliefs of others. Its faith based on faith that the faith is justified. Thats about as circular as it gets.

I'm not saying because I believe in Jesus' resurrection, therefore I know Jesus is resurrected. That would be circular. Also, using the Bible as an historical-cultural artifiact is not circular either. I'm critically testing the issue.

You are not criticly testing anything. You are assuming that someone elses faith is justified. And you are assuming that a cultural congruence in historical parts of the Bible somehow justifies a faith in parts that are both non-hitorical and non-possible without a miracle.

The real existence of Hrolf Kraki in no way shows that he actually got a magic sword direct from Odin. Yet this is exactly what you are doing except its a resurection instead of a magic sword.

You know something, Ethelred. I've noticed that you tend to see how I've argued a point in a previous post and then you try my own argument against me. Its eery how many times that has happened in this thread. Oh well . . .

Could it be that you are seeing yourself use standard tactics that I have seen many times before and learned can be used in exactly the same way to show what you are doing?

Cicular reasoning is standard operating procedure in chrisitian apolegetics. I don't use it myself I just point it out when its used. You use it.

No. It doesn't have to mean Jesus is God, although it virtually demands belief in God. Its the interpretation I accept, however, based on the most reliable sources of his life.

No god is needed for a man to get up if he only apears dead. No god is needed either if men are capable of doing miracles on their own. Both are equally possible given that we have no evidence for either.

Nothing I would say.

You say it in nearly every post. That is exactly what you say when you say the cultural phenomana is your reason. You are believing because others do. I only trimmed down the numbers for clarity. Now with only two people you see it. Somehow adding more people makes it inivisible to you.

I can't be held to account for the uneducated people who share my religious convictions and poorly argue them. Now, if those circular arguments were official doctrine of the church (as I'm wondering if that is the case of Mormonism), I'd be in trouble. However, they are not so I am not.

They are your doctrines, you only add more people.

**ckweb** · June 21, 2002, 16:09

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
ckweb:

(1) We have four books, all written well after the event, with three being apparently derived largely from one source (the "Q" source for Mark, Matthew and Luke), none written by an eyewitness, and none attributed to the alleged authors until later. All draw from an oral tradition of which we have no direct record. Of the non-canonical gospels, Thomas appears closest to a collection of "tales of Jesus", and fails to mention the resurrection. Mark barely mentions it. It's elaborated in the later gospels (with the Bethlehem Nativity also being added in).

Unfortunately, you show yourself to be largely ignorant of the present state of scholarship and the "Q" source theory that you purport to expound.

"Q", derived from the German word Quelle, which means sources, is based on the double tradition of Matthew and Luke. It is independent of Mark. Its content is a purely hypothetical conjecture. We do not know whether or not it contained a resurrection story.

Matthew and Luke apparently make use of the independent traditions of Mark and "Q", while each having additional sources, sometimes labelled "M" in the case of Matthew and "L" in the case of Luke.

The resurrection stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all regarded to be independent traditions.

Mark and "Q" are considered the earliest gospels. Mark is traditionally dated somewhere between 60-75 C.E., which places him only thirty years after the events he purports to discuss. Most scholars believe that Mark relies on independent tradition (oral and written; and not "Q"). He does make clear reference to the resurrection. There is no reason to doubt Markan authorship. But authorship really doesn't matter anyway. "Q" may date earlier than Mark. It is difficult to assess, however, as the document itself is purely hypothetical.

Matthew is dated somewhere between 80-90 C.E. with a select few scholars pushing it back to circa 110 C.E. If 80-90 C.E. is correct, this places Matthew only fifty years after the events. Matthew, as stated above, depends on Mark and "Q" and probably at least one more source, "M". Again, you are correct that many scholars deny Matthean authorship but many of those who do admit that the "M" tradition may in fact be Matthean in origin. But, again, authorship really doesn't matter anyway. (Interestingly, there is a source theory that receives some scholarly support and argues for the primacy of Matthew, dating it earlier than 80-90 C.E. on account of the fact that it is one of the most authentically Jewish Gospels. This source theory argues that Luke used Matthew; and Mark used and conflated Matthew and Luke. There is no "Q" in this theory. However, it is a fringe theory.)

Luke is dated to 85 C.E., give or take 5-10 years. Of all the Gospels, Luke is considered one of the most historical in nature together with its companion volume, Acts. Some scholars question Lukan authorship but for the most part, it is accepted. Luke, as mentioned, draws on Mark and "Q". Some suggest he may also have drawn upon Matthew but then you would have to date Matthew earlier. Besides, "Q" solves the issue by presumably containing everything from Matthew that Luke places in his gospel. Luke also claims to have conducted interviews and appears to have relied on additional sources ("L").

John used to be considered the most inauthentic of the four Gospels because of its highly theological nature and because it is considerably different in tone and style from the so-called Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the Gospel of John is right at home in the thought world of first century Palestine. Still, scholarly disputes rage over the dating of John, anywhere from as early as 70 C.E. (or even earlier) to 110 C.E. The picture is complicated by the fact that the Gospel appears to contain several redactional layers, leading scholars to date them in succession and thereby by bringing the earliest layers closer to the time of Christ. The Gospel of John is almost certainly not written by the disciple, John. This attribution seems to have clearly involved some confusion on the part of the early church father who made it. The tradition of Gospel, however, stems from the "Beloved Disciple," who is unidentified in the Gospel (though a strong case can be made for an implicit identification with Lazarus). The Johannine tradition (also reflected in three epistles) appears to have been represented of a different church than the Apostolic church of James, Peter, and Paul.

The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel found at Nag Hammadi. It does not contain "tales of Jesus" as you suggest. Instead, it is primarily a collection of sayings. At one point before it was published, speculation was that it might be "Q". However, since its publication, this idea has been soundly rejected as it does not contain the double tradition. Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to approximately 145 C.E. A very select few, such as some of the Jesus Seminar scholars, date the Gospel earlier than the Synoptics but this involves some really questionable arguements.

Crossan, a Jesus Seminar scholar, places great emphasis on the Gospel of Peter as well and dates in the first century.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Paul claims to have known 500 eyewitnesses. That, in itself, is suspicious. Do you, personally, know 500 eyewitnesses to any event? I don't know 500 witnesses to anything.

Yes. I know of 500 eyewitnesses to many, many things. I can't be responsible for your isolation that you don't participate in communities this size.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
As for why he became so important: have you seen Life of Brian? Sure, it's a comedy, but the portrayal of the people's desperate desire for a Messiah was probably not far off the mark. IIRC, there were several "messiahs" about. And Jesus seems to be an amalgam of various figures: some mythical, some possibly real.

On what basis do you argue these points? What sociological evidence can you provide to substantiate your claim that these points would be sufficient to explain the phenomenon of Christianity.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Of course, the reality of the resurrection is irrelevant to the success of Christianity, because (even according to the Bible itself) hardly anyone actually saw Jesus afterwards. To all but a handful of people, there was no way of distinguishing an actual resurrection from a fictional one.

500 is not just a handful and the resurrection is not irrelevant to the success of Christianity, it is the most reasonable explanation for it.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
(2) The only non-doctored refereces in Josephus do not refer to the actual existence of a man with supernatural powers.

Is there an echo in this forum?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
(3) The Jewish references support a possible historical Jesus, but their failure to mention the resurrection is telling.

Another echo. Why is it telling that they do not mention the resurrection? They opposed Jesus.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If they're prepared to credit him with Satanic powers, then why bury a return from the dead?

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
(4) There are no Roman records of an actual resurrection: only of the existence of Christians who believed in a resurrection as part of their religion.

There's that echo again.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is nothing particularly miraculaous about the resurrection. Throughout history, the resurrection of many popular mythic heroes has been claimed. In the Middle-East, there were also the examples of Osiris and Mithras. If we assume that Jesus was a real person credited with magical powers by loyal followers, it would have been more miraculous if tales of his return did not begin to circulate after his untimely death.

Apart from Paul's "I know 500 people", there appears to be more evidence for the resurrection of Elvis Presley than that of Jesus. Would you say that the resurrection of Elvis meets legal standards of evidence?

Did I not say that opponents would appeal to Elvis Presley? How absurd . . . reveals your ignorance to history and how history is reconstructed. Whether you accept the evidence or not, the fact is that much of human history is based on considerably less evidence than exists for the historicity of Jesus and the likelihood of the resurrection. On many historical figures, historians would love to have four written sources and a sociological phenomenon that continues to this day. Unfortunately, they often have to rely on history written as many as several hundreds of years after the fact and have next to no sociological or anthropological evidence to support these sources.

**ckweb** · June 21, 2002, 20:04

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its one book. Multiple sources. All filtered by the same group. All purely believers. You don't have ANY independent stuff. You cannot prove the Bible only with the Bible. That is not going to pass in any court so you do not have legal proof.

Not the same group. The Bible contains sources from different communities of faith that evolved at least in part independently of one another. Christians did not become an homogenous entity until the See of Rome gained primacy several centuries laters and even then there were many different groups co-existing within the Roman Catholic Church as well as outside it. Coptic Christianity, for example, as always been preserving a different tradition. Orthodox and Roman Catholicism only co-existed under shared authority for a few centuries. BTW, I am not proving the Bible with the Bible. I am testing the Bible against the sociological phenomenon of Christianity. If a man was brought back to life, the evolution of Christianity is exactly what I would expect to happen as a result of such an event. I am using sociology, a bit of anthropology, and a touch of historical criticism, and some common sense to prove that the Bible is a reliable witness to the resurrection event.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It would be like saying you have legal proof that tobacco does not cause cancer by quoting four different tabacco executives. Which I am sure you would not consider legal proof.

Not the same thing at all. And yes, I'm being dismissive because your analogy isn't worth responding to.

Originally posted by Ethelred
None of whom wrote the Gosples. The Apostles were all in hiding at that time according to what the Bible says.

Just how many people do you think saw the gunman on the grassy knoll. How many actually did? People really do make things up.

Its also a fact that people think the grassy knoll story is true. It isn't. I have seen the evidence. Kennedy was shot from behind. The evidence is online.

I'm going to be dismissive again. This isn't worth the bytes you've taken up on Apolyton's Server. It's nonsense and does nothing to disprove my argument.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I have never claimed he wasn't crucified. I simply said there is no outside corroboration and you are not showing any here.

I did. And you may have done the same in an ensuing paragraph. We'll get to that.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I mentioned those. They were not thought credible. In fact John was often not thought credible.

I deal with this in my response to Jack. Read that post to save from re-writing everything here.

Originally posted by Ethelred
They don't prove they only suggest. A Romon or Jewish source that is truly independent would. The only one is Josephus and he doesn't mention the Crucifiction or the Resurection.

Is there an echo in here?

Originally posted by Ethelred
By not dying. Most of the literature is based on what a few Apostles said. You are mistakeing someone else repeating the original for new stuff.

You are assuming repetition . . . your ideological presuppositions have forced you to dismiss evidence rather than deal with it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not being that way in the first place. He was of the line of David. Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line. Herod certainly wasn't. The province was not insignifcant. It was just as now the crossroads between Europe and both Africa and India. Hardly insignificant.

First good points you have made. Although the Gnostics have quite a different, more convoluted position than you claim in this paragraph.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes there were others. They didn't get lucky. Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

That kind of manipulation of oppinion makes a difference.

Okay now you are developing an interesting argument. Unfortunately, I do not have the time today to respond to this paragraph or the previous one. But, rest assured I will respond in the couple of days or so.

Originally posted by Ethelred
They weren't chalenging the Romans as far as I can see. That came later after people decided that Jesus was the only god.

Sure they were. They were being killed by Romans.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Would you care to show how that is true? Constintine conquered and HE expanded chrisitanity by personal fiat. Norway was not the only place converted by axe and sword. Iceland however does fit your thinking. I like that one.

You didn't read my post. Go back and see what you missed.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Fanatics are short on thinking. Sorry but that is a true statement. Belief can short circuit thought. None christians were martyred after Constantine. Not as often I suppose but it did happen.

Again, you couldn't have been reading my post very carefully. Go back.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am not dismissing it. I am pointing out that most of it came from the same sources as the Bible did. That means its not independent. You cannot prove the Bible by quoting people that are paraphrasing the Bible.

Paul, "Q", Mark and John are clearly independent. Matthew and Luke are probably independent with respect to their resurrection stories. Some of the Roman sources may be independent--it is inconclusive. A lack of footnoting on the part of the Romans makes it difficult to discern whether or not they are independent.

Originally posted by Ethelred From the Romans. They kept records of all kinds of things. A man walking around after dying would be like to catch their attention. They would not dismiss it out of hand either as the same basic claim was made for other people around that time.

Sure they would. This was a disturbance, considered superstitious and evil, in what to the Romans was a relatively backwater province with an annoying propensity for uprisings. There goal would be to stamp out this claim and its adherents immediately, which is what they attempted to do. Your Tacitus quote in an ensuing paragraph proves as much.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Wrong. Hearsay is usually inadmissable and that is all you have. You are mistaking hearsay for evidence.

You don't understand my argument.

Originally posted by Ethelred
In no way did I slander Josephus. HE only wrote one reference. It is blatantly obvious that a christian added the other. Josephus would not call anyone the Mesiah now would he. He was a Jew not a christian.

Again only one can be considered to have been written by Josephus. The other has ONLY been seen in a copy by Eusebious a man that said it was OK to lie to support christianity.

That one true reference is "James the brother of Jesus". Many christians think Jesus was an only child.

Two References: (1) Ant 20.9.1 S200-201 ("James the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ"), (2) Ant 18.3.3 S63-64. The latter reference contains interpolations but Josephus scholars believe the underlying passage is authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(The italicized sections are the likely interpolations)

BTW, Messiah is a Jewish term! Christians appropriated it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Sorry but those are all based on christian tales. None were based on actual non-christian accounts.

Perhaps it is you that don't know the sources. I have checked on this stuff. Josephus is all there is that is independent. He had access to Roman records which is where he likely got the stuff on James.

You didn't check very well. Some of the Roman sources are inconclusive as independent sources; you simply can't dismiss them as based on Christian "tales".

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes christian oral tradition. Thats not even hearsay unless you want call it hearsay at six degrees of seperation.

The Talmud does not contain Christian oral tradition. That is the most absurd anything I have ever heard; well, close to it, anyways.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Give a link. Last time I checked the original source was christian.

I will as soon as I can find it. I tend to use hard copies for my research. You can't always trust documents online.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No. Wrong on two points. Tacitus even came after Josephus. Second he was using christian statements not Roman records for that.

Tacitus is 55-117 C.E. That's pretty close to contemporary. I see no basis for your claim that he was using Christian statements. You are making an assumption as far as I can tell based upon your ideological presupposition. Tacitus is inconclusive; he may or may not have obtained his information about the crucifixition from an independent source.

[As an aside, I'm inclined to think he did get from Roman records given what we know of his attitude. He apparently hated Jews, Greek, and Christians with a passion and wouldn't have gone within a sufficient distance to hear the claims from them. But, that is purely speculation on my part so don't bother arguing against it. I know it doesn't hold up academically.]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only Josephus does.

You just are taking peoples word on this stuff. If you had checked as I have you would have seen this.

Here is what Tacitus REALLY said.

From:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Tacitus.html

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

A reference to christians is not the same as a reference to Christ which also is not quite the same as Jesus.

First, in these cases, a reference to Christ is the same as a reference to Jesus unless you can give me a good reason to believe otherwise.

Second, thank-you for quoting Tacitus. As you notice, he makes no reference as to his sources. It is therefore inconclusive as to whether he knew this information from the Christians or because he knew from Roman records of the incident or through contact with Roman officials who were present in Pilate's court.

Third, I read stuff like this all the time. "I'm just taking people's word on this stuff" . . .

Originally posted by Ethelred
That is contradictory. If its based on the original source its not another witness. Thats like saying

Bill - I saw a man on the grassy knoll fire a gun.

Bob- Bill said he saw a man on the grassy knoll fire a gun

John - Bob says Bill saw a man on the grassy knowl fire a rifle.

And then claiming you have three witnesses.

That's not the scenario I'm proposing. My scenario is more like:

Mark says Bill saw a man on the grassy knoll
Matthew says Bob saw a man on the grassy knoll
Luke says Peter saw a man on the grassy knoll
John says Allan saw a man on the grassy knoll
Paul says 500 people saw a man on the grassy knoll
The Romans say another number of people saw a man on the grassy knoll.

Considerably different and considerably more reliable scenario.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I take it you think that evidence of christians somehow constitutes evidence of Jesus. This is past dubious. Way past. It is however typical of the kind of thing that is passed off as proof.

What I've said is that Christian sources should not simply be dismissed simply because they are Christian sources. That's like dismissing British sources that report British history simply because they are British.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not so thin. Not when the claim involves a lot of other stuff that is used to show a miracle instead of a mistake in thinking a live person was dead one.

Is that like Tacitus supporting the existence of Jesus? It sure isn't medical science. People survied for days, not hours on the cross. Its not science when someone just plain ignores things like that.

The wounds weren't fatal. Scourging is bad but it need not be fatal. The spear claim is only in John and he contradicts the other gosples on a number of things.

Actually I said the guard was not there when the witnesses arived. There may or may not have been a Roman guard.

One of many. Used enough that we know hours does not kill.

My scenario does no such thing. The Romans would not give a fig if a Jewish tomb of a crucified criminal was robbed.

You have an exceedingly lax concept of miracle.

I'm going to be dismissive again because I simply do not have the time to prove you wrong on these points. However, I will at least say you are not the first to make these suggestions and the improbability of your claims have been proven time and again (even by people that don't believe in the resurrection).

Originally posted by Ethelred Constantine is more than enough. Bandwagon tactics and stuff written by people that have put faith over facts is neither convincing nor even remotely legal evidence. You are the one making extraordinary claims. I am under no obligation to disprove a total lack of reliable evidence for those claims. Note I said reliable. Faith is not reliable.

You are easily swayed by the thinking of numbers.

No don't mention the other religions that have done the same.

Thank you for noticing that. Now please notice that the same EXACT thing happened with christianity. Constantine made chrisianity the state religion. However Budhism which you left out was repressed in many places. India included.

And getting along with Constitine doesn't fit that in what way?

Very early. Before it was prevalent. Later it bacame popular at least partly do to some simlarities with Mithraism which was popular with Roman soldiers.

Not all that far into it. Constantine became Emperor in 324 AD.

Christianity was not firmly established till Constantine. It wasn't even at all uniform till after that.

Again, you didn't read my post. Christianity was firmly established and again I'm going to be dismissive because my previous post spoke for itself (and your points are not at all persuasive). Plus, this is in almost any Introduction to the History of Christianity.

Originally posted by Ethelred
By using bandwagon tactics. You assume that others faith in someway justifies yours.

Well Bill believes in the Grassy Knoll theory so I should too.

Which is based on a belief in the Bible and the beliefs of others. Its faith based on faith that the faith is justified. Thats about as circular as it gets.

You are not criticly testing anything. You are assuming that someone elses faith is justified. And you are assuming that a cultural congruence in historical parts of the Bible somehow justifies a faith in parts that are both non-hitorical and non-possible without a miracle.

The real existence of Hrolf Kraki in no way shows that he actually got a magic sword direct from Odin. Yet this is exactly what you are doing except its a resurection instead of a magic sword.

Could it be that you are seeing yourself use standard tactics that I have seen many times before and learned can be used in exactly the same way to show what you are doing?

Cicular reasoning is standard operating procedure in chrisitian apolegetics. I don't use it myself I just point it out when its used. You use it.

No god is needed for a man to get up if he only apears dead. No god is needed either if men are capable of doing miracles on their own. Both are equally possible given that we have no evidence for either.

You say it in nearly every post. That is exactly what you say when you say the cultural phenomana is your reason. You are believing because others do. I only trimmed down the numbers for clarity. Now with only two people you see it. Somehow adding more people makes it inivisible to you.

They are your doctrines, you only add more people.

All gibberish and clearly an attempt to pervert my arguments by alledging they are some thing they are not. I have to admit, this post really sucked the life out of this debate for me. I think I'm going to stop soon unless I actually see something worthwhile. I'll try to get back to you on the issues above that I said I would still respond to but if I forget, I apologize. I'm heading back to my RA position again and have a great deal of work to do before the new school year. Anyways, Ethelred, it's been nice. Your ignorant and wrong but that's ok.

**Ethelred** · June 21, 2002, 22:53

Originally posted by ckweb
Not the same group. The Bible contains sources from different communities of faith that evolved at least in part independently of one another.

Yes the same group. I did not say the same source. I said filtered by the same group. A single group filtered all the different writing and chose what goes in and what doesn't. That means that stuff they didn't like (Gnostic documents for instance) got left out.

Christians did not become an homogenous entity until the See of Rome gained primacy several centuries laters and even then there were many different groups co-existing within the Roman Catholic Church as well as outside it.

The christian churches all used the same version of the Bible that was put together by a single group.

BTW, I am not proving the Bible with the Bible. I am testing the Bible against the sociological phenomenon of Christianity.

Thats not a valid test. It can at best show give a limit on the worth. An upper limit not a lower limit. For instance millions of people believe in homopathic medicine. That does lend some credibility to it. But it only suggests a possibility. Real science however shows it to have ZERO credibility in the actual chemistry involved.

If a man was brought back to life, the evolution of Christianity is exactly what I would expect to happen as a result of such an event.

That is not a reasonable claim since the same exact claim was made for other religions at that time.

I am using sociology, a bit of anthropology, and a touch of historical criticism, and some common sense to prove that the Bible is a reliable witness to the resurrection event.

You are using specious reasoning. You are still saying that a whole bunch of people believe it so you do. You main sources for the people you are regarding as the important believers is from an era of a mytical thinking and LOTS of fraudulent claims. Eusebious was not the only known liar of that time but he is the man that put together the 50 copies of the Bible, that became the standard, for Constantine.

Not the same thing at all. And yes, I'm being dismissive because your analogy isn't worth responding to.

It is the same thing and yo are dismissive because you have no responce that can show any flaw in what I said.

Four gospels vs. four tobaconists do not make for evidence either way. You need physical evidence to support the claims. Eyewitnesses are notoriously poor sources of information in court. Without physical evidence people cannot be trusted because of the way human memory works. If enough people make a claim about what happened that effects the thinking of the others. One persuasive person can sway many to misremember.

I'm going to be dismissive again. This isn't worth the bytes you've taken up on Apolyton's Server. It's nonsense and does nothing to disprove my argument.

Thats very resonable and very close analogies that you have falsly claimed are worthless. You just don't want to think about I guess. It would mean that your bandwagon is full of holes and you can't accept that.

I did. And you may have done the same in an ensuing paragraph. We'll get to that.

You gave not outside corroboration. There is none to give.

I deal with this in my response to Jack. Read that post to save from re-writing everything here.

I read it. John was not felt credible by some at the time the Bible was assembled. I was not talking about the claims of it being more spirtual.

Is there an echo in here?

This is because you refuse to comprehend the meaning. You post stuff that even you admit does not support you yet you call multiple non-supporting sources support because you can claim so many of them.

You are the one that insists the Resurection is the key to christianity. You have no support for it happening yet you posted stuff that did not support you to support you anyway. That was strange. That is why it was pointed out by both of us that it does in fact not support you.

At all.

You are assuming repetition . . . your ideological presuppositions have forced you to dismiss evidence rather than deal with it.

I am not assuming. There are only four gosples. They may or not be be fully indepent. Likely there are at least partly influencing each other. They are only indications not evidence since the question here is ARE THEY reliable. Without outside confirmation they do not constitute a reliable source. Only YOUR ideological presupposition stops you from seeing this obvious reality.

First good points you have made.

You need to work on your counting skills.

Although the Gnostics have quite a different, more convoluted position than you claim in this paragraph.

Well I don't all the details and I didn't feel like getting in the Rosicrucian stuff as its not relevant even if some of it actuall seems possible. Not likely but possible.

Okay now you are developing an interesting argument. Unfortunately, I do not have the time today to respond to this paragraph or the previous one. But, rest assured I will respond in the couple of days or so.

Clifford D. Simik wrote a novel call Time Is the Simplest Thing but that was Science Fiction. The shortage of time complicates living.

Sure they were. They were being killed by Romans.

Not when the writing was being done though. Which is what you were talking about. Paul for instance wrote mostly BEFORE Nero and if you will look at the times you give for the Gosples you will see they mostly come after Nero. The next time of persecution (at least major anyway) was Diocletian which was after the gospels were written. After all the witnesses were long dead.

What I was talking about however was the time that christianity REALLY expanded. That was after Constanine and the end of the repression.

Also early on there was question wether Jesus was god. The Trinity concept came after Constantine. As long as people were willing to treat the Roman gods with the proper respect the Romans did not persecute. That started with Diocletian. Nero was a bit of an anomaly but his persecutions did give an impetous to christianity.

Yes impetous. Nero helped Christianity by giving it publicity and the martyrs of course helped a lot with converting Roman soldiers from Mithraism to Christianity. They were impressed by the bravery. The big gap between Nero and Diocletian was very important for the survival of early Christianity.

You didn't read my post. Go back and see what you missed.

I read your post. I didn't miss anything. Christianity was a minor religion till Constantine. Then it was the main one and that was by the personal whim of Constantine. YOu are overstating the case for Christianity prior to him.

Again, you couldn't have been reading my post very carefully. Go back.

Again I read it. You are mistaking the slow growth of a minor religion for something profound. Without Constantine Christianity would still be a minor religion.

Paul, "Q", Mark and John are clearly independent.

"Q"? Hypothetical things cannot be clearly independent. Well maybe in physics but this is not a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. John is clearly indpendent thats for sure. He has a number of things that are a bit contradictory in comparison to the others.

Matthew and Luke are probably independent with respect to their resurrection stories. Some of the Roman sources may be independent--it is inconclusive. A lack of footnoting on the part of the Romans makes it difficult to discern whether or not they are independent.

What Roman sources? None that I have seen and I have seen the ones claimed were actually independent. Perhaps you know of others. Tacitus certainly was not independent.

Sure they would. This was a disturbance, considered superstitious and evil, in what to the Romans was a relatively backwater province with an annoying propensity for uprisings. There goal would be to stamp out this claim and its adherents immediately, which is what they attempted to do. Your Tacitus quote in an ensuing paragraph proves as much.

The Romans only went after the Christians when they later refused to honor the Romans gods and in particular the Emperor as a god. Roman authority was based on this. The only other religions that they went after engaged in human sacrifice. They didn't much care for the Druids for instance. Most religions accepted other gods so the Romans had no problem with them.

There problems in Judea and Palestine were not with people that said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" Their problems were with people disrupting things. If Jesus had not upset the locals the Romans would not have cared what he said. This is why they left Paul alone and went after James the brother of Jesus. James made waves and Paul didn't.

Paul is the most important man in Christian history because of that. Between Jesus and Constantine that is.

You don't understand my argument.

Perhaps you don't understand what is wrong with your arguement. Or you may not have expressed it well enough.

Two References: (1) Ant 20.9.1 S200-201 ("James the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ"), (2) Ant 18.3.3 S63-64. The latter reference contains interpolations but Josephus scholars believe the underlying passage is authentic:

Some of the more gullible ones you meen. Interpolations is more than a tad kind to a blatant counterfit.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(The italicized sections are the likely interpolations)

Try fabrication. Nothing else in Josephus even hints at him thinking that way. He didn't like Christians. He would not have called him 'The Christ'. Its a blatent add in by a later Christian. ONLY ONE copy of Josephus is the source for this and it was Eusebious's copy. All others that have been found do not have that passage.

BTW, Messiah is a Jewish term! Christians appropriated it.

I know that. That is why I know that Josephus would not use it without being a follower of Jesus. He wasn't so he did not use it. That passage contains the Miracle Ingredient Frauduline.

In fact Jesus does NOT qualify as the Messiah even if you are a believer. That entails a real King in a real Kingdom of Israel. That has yet to happen and its been nearly two thousand years.

You didn't check very well. Some of the Roman sources are inconclusive as independent sources; you simply can't dismiss them as based on Christian "tales".

I read them. I can do exactly that. Perhaps if you can give a link to one that does not do that. You claimed Tacitus allready and I showed that you were wrong on that. Want to try again?

The Talmud does not contain Christian oral tradition. That is the most absurd anything I have ever heard; well, close to it, anyways.

It certainly does. It contains writings that are based soley on Christians oral tradition or actual Christian writings. Nothing based on independent non-Christian sources.

I will as soon as I can find it. I tend to use hard copies for my research. You can't always trust documents online.

You can't always trust documents in print either. See Josephus.

Tacitus is 55-117 C.E. That's pretty close to contemporary. I see no basis for your claim that he was using Christian statements.

Then you are in denial. It was very clear that was saying what Christians said. CLose to the same time is not contemperory. This is a case of being a little bit pregnent. He either is of the same time or he isn't. If he isn't he can't be an eyewitness.

You are making an assumption as far as I can tell based upon your ideological presupposition. Tacitus is inconclusive; he may or may not have obtained his information about the crucifixition from an independent source.

This is exceedingly evident as wishfull thinking on your part. There is no proof of his source so you WISH it was independent.

[As an aside, I'm inclined to think he did get from Roman records given what we know of his attitude. He apparently hated Jews, Greek, and Christians with a passion and wouldn't have gone within a sufficient distance to hear the claims from them.

He didn't have to meet any Christians to have heard what they say. It looked to me like he was going on what other Romans had said the Christians said. Two degrees of seperation at least.

But, that is purely speculation on my part so don't bother arguing against it. I know it doesn't hold up academically.

It doesn't hold up to reading what Tacitus wrote.

First, in these cases, a reference to Christ is the same as a reference to Jesus unless you can give me a good reason to believe otherwise.

The reason is that Christ is a purely Christian term taken from the Greek. Tacitus was a Roman. If he was talking about Jesus he would have said so. There is no reason for him to use the title Christ if he new the man's name.

Second, thank-you for quoting Tacitus. As you notice, he makes no reference as to his sources. It is therefore inconclusive as to whether he knew this information from the Christians or because he knew from Roman records of the incident or through contact with Roman officials who were present in Pilate's court.

He makes no reference so you assume and then you reach conclusion based on the assumption and then forget about the assumption at the base. This remains non-evidence for Jesus and the Crucifiction and in particular the Resurection.

Third, I read stuff like this all the time. "I'm just taking people's word on this stuff" . . .

Yes you did. You even assumed a source so I guess you are taking your own word more than anything else.

That's not the scenario I'm proposing. My scenario is more like:

Its even worse.

Mark says Bill saw a man on the grassy knoll
Matthew says Bob saw a man on the grassy knoll
Luke says Peter saw a man on the grassy knoll
John says Allan saw a man on the grassy knoll

I had one eyewitness. You have hearsay.

Paul says 500 people saw a man on the grassy knoll

Hearsay.

The Romans say another number of people saw a man on the grassy knoll.

False. The Romans say the the Christians claims someone else than they saw. Hearsay twice removed.

Considerably different and considerably more reliable scenario.

No its worse. Not one single verifiable eyewitness.

What I've said is that Christian sources should not simply be dismissed simply because they are Christian sources. That's like dismissing British sources that report British history simply because they are British.

I am not doing that. I am saying the quesion is whether the Christian sources are reliable. You can't show them reliable just by quoting other people quotes of them. You must have independent sources. You don't have those.

I'm going to be dismissive again because I simply do not have the time to prove you wrong on these points.

Nor anything else to do so.

However, I will at least say you are not the first to make these suggestions and the improbability of your claims have been proven time and again (even by people that don't believe in the resurrection).

So you shouldn't have any difficulty finding such things online. Go to Google and find some. I have looked and found nothing that was competent and reliable. Just a lot of suppositions.

Again, you didn't read my post. Christianity was firmly established and again I'm going to be dismissive because my previous post spoke for itself (and your points are not at all persuasive). Plus, this is in almost any Introduction to the History of Christianity.

Again I read your post. Its obvious from the way I reply that I read it. Chrisianity was NOT firmly established untill Constantine. Even after that things were still changing. The Trinity was not dogma till later.

All gibberish and clearly an attempt to pervert my arguments by alledging they are some thing they are not. I have to admit, this post really sucked the life out of this debate for me.

Thats because you have nothing to gainsay what I said. You dismissed perfectly reasonable things completely out of hand. You made unsupported claims. You refused to deal with the facts and the severe lack of them on your side.

I think I'm going to stop soon unless I actually see something worthwhile.

You did. You just don't want to deal with it.

I'll try to get back to you on the issues above that I said I would still respond to but if I forget, I apologize. I'm heading back to my RA position again and have a great deal of work to do before the new school year. Anyways, Ethelred, it's been nice. Your ignorant and wrong but that's ok.

I am reasonably knowledgeable and correct. That isn't what you weren't expecting. I allready had read the stuff you think is evidence. You expected to surprise me with stuff that I allready knew and had found to be less than what you claim it is.

I am still waiting for those Roman references. Tacitus did not fit your claims. No others do either. I HAVE read them.

Have a link about your claims of legal proof as opposed to scientfic proof:

Internet Infidels, Inc / Secular Web / SecWeb.org

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=212

Sample

Does The Claim of Jesus' Resurrection Prevail Under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Attorney, Pamela Binnings Ewen, attempts to show that if a trial were conducted under the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereinafter FRE), the claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected after he died, as described in the Gospels, would prevail.

One of the problems with Ewen's effort is that she is asking a rhetorical court to do something that has never been done before under the FRE: to validate a supernatural claim.

Announcement

Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment