They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[twobitsmedia]

And of course, there is positive evidence that some of the writings of Josephus were interpolated later.

Positive evidence=Just another writing to refute another writing. NOTE: Reader gets to pick which writer they want to accept based on their preconceived convictions.

[Goose]

We don't need writings from when Paul WAS an enemy. Paul tells us himself that he was an enemy and persecuted the Church (Gal 1:13, 1Cor 15:9, Phil 3:6). This is confirmed by the writer of Luke/Acts (Acts 7:58, 8:3, 9:1, 22:4, 26:10).

Goose. You’ve got Paul’s say so, and an unknown author of Luke’s says so.

That's insufficient evidence because...

(BTW, you really need to come join me in the "Are the Gospels hopelessly anonymous" thread.)

Can you think of a reason why he would confess this to fellow believers he is trying to instruct if it wasn't true?

The manipulations and misdirection one human plays on others can be subtle and complex -and some less subtle. Look at what Paul is doing. He is selling his brand.

The problem of course with these elaborate and "complex" conspiracy theories is 1) they suffer from lack of evidence 2) they are strained 3) there are better explanations. Why gravitate toward a complex theory rooted in conspiracy when a simpler and more powerful explanation exists that has direct evidence for support?

[center]“I uses to hate Christians until I became one!”

“I use to think I hated snowy flakes until I tried them!” Then I realise they really were GGGrrreat!!!” [/center]

Why do you think Paul abandoned a life of reasonable comfort and power as a Pharisee to became a Christian and persecuted? I can't wait to hear this one. It should be entertaining.

It is a standard appeal to the quality of the product you are selling by stating you never thought of the produced/ or never believed the claims until you tried it for yourself. This is yes/no evidence because in the no case Paul is a marketing man. The confession an aid to the ends of spreading the word. The world of advertising later adopting the very same tactic.

If Paul was marketing a product - Christianity - how much money was he making? What was his annual turnover and bottom line? The reality is, there were no riches for these men such as Paul. Only lives of hardship. If you are to appeal to the quest for power as Paul's reason for converting, Paul had much power as a Pharisee persecuting the Church.

On the one hand Goose I think you are displaying amazing credulity, on the other hand I think it would be quit nice to be you. I think the world would just seem nicer.

The world from my perspective is pretty darn good. I don't need to assume with out evidence someone is lying, conspiring, or had a mental-meltdown to make my world work. I don't need to approach the subject of Christianity (or other religions) with a bias. I don't need to hold a bias against the supernatural. I can approach evidence and arguments for history rationally using an objective methodology that can be applied uniformly across the spectrum of ancient hisoty. I can evaluate evidence using reason and logic. And lastly, I don't need to draw bizarre analogies to Frosted Flakes to make my world work. It's pretty awesome actually. In fact, it's the primary reason I'm still a Christian after seriously questioning the faith.

That's an early creedal passage referring to an earthly Jesus that died, was buried and rose again and seen by multiple people. It's cited by a former enemy of the church. It's powerful enemy attestation you need to contend with. It more than meets your "yes-yes" criteria.

If Paul is telling the truth then yes, if Paul is lying then no...

You should provide some evidence that Paul was lying about his former life as a persecutor and enemy of the Church. That would be much more productive for you. Without that you have a non-argument backed by wishful thinking.

...Why would Paul lie? Looks like a standard marketing ploy. He is trying to spread Christianity and tell people why it is so good. If he makes himself look like - not just a non believer, but someone who was the least likely to embrace the product, then this works in his favour not against.

"I was the president of Frosty Flakes, every time I saw someone buy a box of snowy flakes made me just want to punch them, until I tried them for myself. I gave up my old job on the spot. You can believe the ex president of Frosty Flakes when he says try snowy flakes they're GGGrreat!!!"

Your analogy is actually quite appropriate, but not in the way you probably intended. There is certainly something "Flakey" about an argument comparing the marketing of Frosty Flakes with Paul's persecution of the Church and subsequent conversion.

[LittlePig]

Just a few comments for y'all's conversation...

We don't need writings from when Paul WAS an enemy. Paul tells us himself that he was an enemy and persecuted the Church (Gal 1:13, 1Cor 15:9, Phil 3:6). This is confirmed by the writer of Luke/Acts (Acts 7:58, 8:3, 9:1, 22:4, 26:10).

Goose. You’ve got Paul’s say so, and an unknown author of Luke’s says so.

That's insufficient evidence because...

(BTW, you really need to come join me in the "Are the Gospels hopelessly anonymous" thread.)

Calling Paul's testimony 'enemy attestation' seems a stretch since he gives the testimony when he is not an enemy. At some point we all become convinced of what we believe, and prior to that we would often be 'enemies' of that belief. Having prior opposite belief does not make your current attempt to promote something 'enemy attestation' which has power when you promote something unintentionally or grudgingly, neither of which is the case for Paul when he is known as Paul. And since Paul's conversion experience can easily be understood as a purely psychological event, it in itself is not necessarily attestation of a resurrected Jesus, even if it is mostly accurate. And if Paul actually WANTED to believe for some reason, there would be nothing 'enemy' about it at all.

Can you think of a reason why he would confess this to fellow believers he is trying to instruct if it wasn't true?

The manipulations and misdirection one human plays on others can be subtle and complex -and some less subtle. Look at what Paul is doing. He is selling his brand.

The problem of course with these elaborate and "complex" conspiracy theories is 1) they suffer from lack of evidence 2) they are strained 3) there are better explanations. Why gravitate toward a complex theory rooted in conspiracy when a simpler and more powerful explanation exists that has direct evidence for support?

If the explanation is a 'miracle,' I'm not sure what you would be calling direct support and a simpler explanation. It might be easier to say, but miracles have their own problems and theoretical convolutions. If the explanation is only a label that cloaks a mystery, it's not even an explanation, and the simplicity only comes from not having to explain. Since the apparent method for determining whether or not an event is a miracle boils down to 'unexplainability,' your choice to label it a miracle is a subjective point of investigative weariness, not a choice based on probable causation by known processes.

And there is no guarantee that all historical conundrums have left sufficient information to formulate correct theories. So say many anti-darwinists anyway.

[center]“I uses to hate Christians until I became one!”

“I use to think I hated snowy flakes until I tried them!” Then I realise they really were GGGrrreat!!!” [/center]

Why do you think Paul abandoned a life of reasonable comfort and power as a Pharisee to became a Christian and persecuted? I can't wait to hear this one. It should be entertaining.

If the accounts we have of Paul's life as Saul the Pharisee are accurate, I don't see the life of comfort that you talk about. Here is a guy who goes way out of his way to persecute people of his own tradition with a claimed messiah. This is a guy either getting cruel for a career or status or is emotionally out of kilter. Murder and false witness are no laughing matter for Pharisees under the Law, and if Paul ever began to doubt his role in the persecution of Christians, what then? He didn't seem to fear legal consequences since he probably had some of the Jewish leadership on his side, but what about his conscience? What is a troubled mind with bloody hands to do? Is sacrificing an animal enough to take away what Saul did?

It's interesting to note the different focus of Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters. Paul seems much more focused on organizational issues like doctrine and church building. And much of his doctrinal material focuses around atonement, 'free' and complete atonement through faith, not Law. Where would Paul be under the Law?

There are a lot of ways you can look at these stories without stretching them too much, IMO.

It is a standard appeal to the quality of the product you are selling by stating you never thought of the produced/ or never believed the claims until you tried it for yourself. This is yes/no evidence because in the no case Paul is a marketing man. The confession an aid to the ends of spreading the word. The world of advertising later adopting the very same tactic.

If Paul was marketing a product - Christianity - how much money was he making? What was his annual turnover and bottom line? The reality is, there were no riches for these men such as Paul. Only lives of hardship. If you are to appeal to the quest for power as Paul's reason for converting, Paul had much power as a Pharisee persecuting the Church.

People have a wide range of complex motivations and often do very difficult or even self-destructive things for reasons other than money. People want respect, meaningful lives, self worth, participation in community, etc., etc., etc. Paul would not have had to change his beliefs much to become the center and pillar of an energetic movement, something potentially much more rewarding than simply being one of many low-level Pharisaic leaders. And once pople have become someone admired and respected in a community, I think they are much likelier to give themselves to it even more, maybe even to the point of death. If Paul had 'bailed out' to escape death, where would he have gone? Who would he have been? Some people don't consider life to be worth it at any cost.

On the one hand Goose I think you are displaying amazing credulity, on the other hand I think it would be quit nice to be you. I think the world would just seem nicer.

The world from my perspective is pretty darn good. I don't need to assume with out evidence someone is lying, conspiring, or had a mental-meltdown to make my world work. I don't need to approach the subject of Christianity (or other religions) with a bias. I don't need to hold a bias against the supernatural. I can approach evidence and arguments for history rationally using an objective methodology that can be applied uniformly across the spectrum of ancient hisoty. I can evaluate evidence using reason and logic. And lastly, I don't need to draw bizarre analogies to Frosted Flakes to make my world work. It's pretty awesome actually. In fact, it's the primary reason I'm still a Christian after seriously questioning the faith.

Your faith hinges on the interpretation of a single, mysterious event in ancient history?

[Furrowed Brow]

Goose. You’ve got Paul’s say so, and an unknown author of Luke’s says so.
That's insufficient evidence because...

Take another look at the reasoning I applied to Pilate’s Stone. Yes Pilate existed if the inscription is true. So yes to Paul’s testimony if it is true. That much is a tautology. However we don’t just take the stone’s word. Now the other side of the equation. If the inscription on the stone is a lie. I.e. the temple was not built, Pilate did not pay for it etc. Did Pilate exist. Again the answer yes, because there is no obvious reason or motivation to lie about Pilate’s existence. That is not to say Pilate existed, there may be some unknown reasons and motivations to lie. But that kind of criticism based the available evidence is thin. So the Stone is yes/yes evidence. Now apply the same approach to Paul’s writings. If it is a lie did Jesus exist - and the answer is not the same because it is very easy and plainly obvious motivations to lie or embellish the facts. It is not safe to infer truth just because someone says so - and even less safe when there is a major case for false testimony.

The problem of course with these elaborate and "complex" conspiracy theories is 1) they suffer from lack of evidence 2) they are strained 3) there are better explanations. Why gravitate toward a complex theory rooted in conspiracy when a simpler and more powerful explanation exists that has direct evidence for support?

Goose, you really are not engaging with the yes/yes method. Assuming Paul is lying is not more elaborate than assuming he is telling the truth. And in fact less so, because to assume truth requires supernaturalism, which is way more elaborate. It is more elaborate because it assumes two things - supernaturalism and naturalism, as compared to just assuming one - naturalism. That is not a biased assessment that is just a matter of counting the fundamental premises at play, and assessing the size of the commitments and their evidence. Bottom line: one reading assumes Paul’s integrity as a witness, and the other a lack of it.

• 1) Pauls’ writings are the evidence. We have more than one way of interpretation the evidence. Thus yes/no.
  2) Strained!!!! The lie interpretation is cogent, penetrating and I suggest very in keeping with human nature. Moreover you are again continually trying to defend the “it is true” interpretation. The yes/no method is simply trying to ascertain the strength of the evidence and what you can safely infer.
  3) that repeats 2. The yes/no method puts both interpretations on the table and does not reach a conclusion about any event in Jerusalem 0 AD. It is a method that looks at what all the possible motivations, conceits and power plays that would make reasonable explanations of the evidence. And the only sane inference is Paul is yes/no evidence. If it is a lie you cannot infer existence for JC. And the lie/embellishment reading does not go away.

Why do you think Paul abandoned a life of reasonable comfort and power as a Pharisee to became a Christian and persecuted? I can't wait to hear this one. It should be entertaining.

To be a big fish in a small pond. To work for himself rather than being told what to do. To impose his personality and opinions on others. Why do people join communes? Why do people hole themselves up With David Koriesh, or Jim Jones. Human group forming has its own internal compelling logic and social psychology. Your question does not answer itself in any kind of straight forward way. And that is the point you seem to want to conintually push away.

If Paul was marketing a product - Christianity - how much money was he making?

In psychology there are theories of human behaviour based on economic models of gain and loss. Behaviour is assessed on the psychological gains balanced against the psychological losses. An abused wife may stay with a partner because of perceived gains, and some real gains in other areas of her life. Someone may give up a highly paying job to do charity work because there is a psychological gain.

The marketing metaphor is apt because Paul is trying to convince others of an idea that he wants them to take up and adopt. The gains are not necessarily financial. He is basically asking people to copy him. A huge egotistical gain to be had if they do. However seeing Pauls claims as a marketing tactic - is just as compelling seen as a psychological mechanism to convince others of how good something is - as it is as seeing Paul as an honest witness.

What was his annual turnover and bottom line? The reality is, there were no riches for these men such as Paul.

Why does it have to be about the money. That was not the intent of the marketing analogy. I see people running various groups and committees for no profit. It consumes many hours of their times. They have to be committed to what they are doing and for very little thanks. And sometimes it is obvious some of these people are not primarily doing it for others, they are doing it because they get a huge kick out of being at the centre of something. They like giving instructions, and organising, and they really love telling people what to do - in the UK we like to call these kinds of people a little Hitler or Captain Mannering + some other names I’m not able to repeat. Anyhow- the pay off is psychological.

What was his annual turnover and bottom line? The reality is, there were no riches for these men such as Paul. Only lives of hardship. If you are to appeal to the quest for power as Paul's reason for converting, Paul had much power as a Pharisee persecuting the Church.

Again you are relying on Paul’s witness, and an unknown authored Luke. If we were accusing Paul of a crime because we think he has the motivation, and he defends himself by saying, that does not sound like me at all, just look at all the things I have done to show I have completely different set of motivations. You would want to check out if what he said was true. And when he produces an anonymous letter from a friend who confirms what Paul is the guy he says he is you are going in to be equally unimpressed….I’d hope.

I don't need to assume without evidence someone is lying, conspiring, or had a mental-meltdown to make my world work. I don't need to approach the subject of Christianity (or other religions) with a bias.

But you are baised. And that sentece proves it. You may not need to, but this is about the quality of the evidence, and not about how you do not need to assess it. YES - NO. is not a biased methodology. It airs an antimony. To ignore the antimony is to be biased. It assumes truth and it assume the alternative. And if you assume the alternative interpretation the case is compelling. To look away is the bias.

I can evaluate evidence using reason and logic. And lastly, I don't need to draw bizarre analogies to Frosted Flakes to make my world work. It's pretty awesome actually. In fact, it's the primary reason I'm still a Christian after seriously questioning the faith.

Then why do you steadfastly refuse to accept that the no side of the yes/no is founded on legitimate questions if your questions were serious?

You should provide some evidence that Paul was lying about his former life as a persecutor and enemy of the Church. That would be much more productive for you. Without that you have a non-argument backed by wishful thinking.

Another sentence revealing who is being biased here. Yes - I have to provide evidence he was lying just as you have to provide evidence that he is telling the truth, and until we have that evidence to resolve the question, you have yes-no evidence and you cannot safely infer the existence of JC. If you are applying the “innocent until proven guilty” defence then that is used in law as a mechanism to prevent innocent people being found guilty. And that is the point. You are assuming innocence. The yes-no method assumes innocent and assumes guilt. It does not decide the issue - it just puts the evidence in proper perspective.

Your analogy is actually quite appropriate, but not in the way you probably intended. There is certainly something "Flakey" about an argument comparing the marketing of Frosty Flakes with Paul's persecution of the Church and subsequent conversion.

The frosty’s analogy was just a way of introducing and writing large some psychological mechanism that you seem to be ignoring. It is interesting you find it bizarre, when the psychological mechanism it points at are completely apt.

[Goose]

Goose. You’ve got Paul’s say so, and an unknown author of Luke’s says so.
That's insufficient evidence because...

Take another look at the reasoning I applied to Pilate’s Stone. Yes Pilate existed if the inscription is true. So yes to Paul’s testimony if it is true. That much is a tautology. However we don’t just take the stone’s word. Now the other side of the equation. If the inscription on the stone is a lie. I.e. the temple was not built, Pilate did not pay for it etc. Did Pilate exist. Again the answer yes, because there is no obvious reason or motivation to lie about Pilate’s existence. That is not to say Pilate existed, there may be some unknown reasons and motivations to lie. But that kind of criticism based the available evidence is thin. So the Stone is yes/yes evidence. Now apply the same approach to Paul’s writings. If it is a lie did Jesus exist - and the answer is not the same because it is very easy and plainly obvious motivations to lie or embellish the facts. It is not safe to infer truth just because someone says so - and even less safe when there is a major case for false testimony.

FB, I'll answer this post in the "reasanable evidence" thread. It seems more fitting there.

[Furrowed Brow]

People have a wide range of complex motivations and often do very difficult or even self-destructive things for reasons other than money. People want respect, meaningful lives, self worth, participation in community, etc., etc., etc. Paul would not have had to change his beliefs much to become the center and pillar of an energetic movement, something potentially much more rewarding than simply being one of many low-level Pharisaic leaders. And once pople have become someone admired and respected in a community, I think they are much likelier to give themselves to it even more, maybe even to the point of death. If Paul had 'bailed out' to escape death, where would he have gone? Who would he have been? Some people don't consider life to be worth it at any cost.

That says more or less what I wanted to say, but I think does it better. Rather than being an old cynic, I'm more trying to point Goose to the complexity of human motivations. Eyes open to the multicoloured three dimensional vista of human behaviour .