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 But remember we are 2000 years out of date.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?

[Goat]

Furrowed Brow made a very true and good point. We should approach all of history the SAME WAY. But then he stated that my appeals to Alexander and Socrates were a defensive mechanism.

Well really all I want to do is exactly what Furrowed suggested. I want to make sure that we are in fact approaching ALL of the evidence . . . the same way, just as furrowed suggested we do.

Is this not a fair request?

Your approach IS a defensive mechanism. I agree with Furrowed Brow 100%, because you are not approaching the Jesus accounts the same way you are approaching the Socrates account or the Alexander account, or anything else.

[achilles12604]

Furrowed Brow made a very true and good point. We should approach all of history the SAME WAY. But then he stated that my appeals to Alexander and Socrates were a defensive mechanism.

Well really all I want to do is exactly what Furrowed suggested. I want to make sure that we are in fact approaching ALL of the evidence . . . the same way, just as furrowed suggested we do.

Is this not a fair request?

Your approach IS a defensive mechanism. I agree with Furrowed Brow 100%, because you are not approaching the Jesus accounts the same way you are approaching the Socrates account or the Alexander account, or anything else.

Well we shall see won't we. I am participating in a thread designed to test this very thing.

Want to continue to discuss if the TF was inserted or not? You kinda disappeared after post 92.

[Furrowed Brow]

This may have already been mentioned but there are supernatural claims that surround Alex the Great. Does FB reject Alex the Greats existence or just the supernatural elements?

Whatever text promotes a supernatural/political/warrior Alexander we ask what are we being asked to believe? What is the audience? What is to be gained? What is to be lost? We ask the question if the text is true did Alex exist. Answer yes. If the text is a lie did Alexander exist: answer yes/no. If the answer is no we need more evidence, to support the true claim.

If all the evidence is yes-no evidence, then there is a liklihood all the evidence has the same hole to be plugged.

If FB rejects the supernatural because they are supernatural he has a bias and Begs the Question.

I do reject them and I am personally bias. And that question is way smaller than you imply. But don’t mistake personal motivation with sound reasoning, and the ability to sift evidence with a logical eye.

If he rejects the historicity of A the G simply because there are supernatural claims about him then he has an irrational position.

I am irrational. But not when I’m reasoning. And you need more evidence.

Secular historians accept the history of A the G.

There is no different between secular history or no secular history. There is only history. There is a sound way of reasoning and an unsound way. If historians have yes-yes evidence then they are being reasonable.

[achilles12604]

This may have already been mentioned but there are supernatural claims that surround Alex the Great. Does FB reject Alex the Greats existence or just the supernatural elements?

Whatever text promotes a supernatural/political/warrior Alexander we ask what are we being asked to believe? What is the audience? What is to be gained? What is to be lost? We ask the question if the text is true did Alex exist. Answer yes. If the text is a lie did Alexander exist: answer yes/no. If the answer is no we need more evidence, to support the true claim.

If all the evidence is yes-no evidence, then there is a liklihood all the evidence has the same hole to be plugged.

If FB rejects the supernatural because they are supernatural he has a bias and Begs the Question.

I do reject them and I am personally bias. And that question is way smaller than you imply. But don’t mistake personal motivation with sound reasoning, and the ability to sift evidence with a logical eye.

If he rejects the historicity of A the G simply because there are supernatural claims about him then he has an irrational position.

I am irrational. But not when I’m reasoning. And you need more evidence.

Secular historians accept the history of A the G.

There is no different between secular history or no secular history. There is only history. There is a sound way of reasoning and an unsound way. If historians have yes-yes evidence then they are being reasonable.

AHEM!!!



I did not write ANY OF THAT thank you . . .

[Goat]

Furrowed Brow made a very true and good point. We should approach all of history the SAME WAY. But then he stated that my appeals to Alexander and Socrates were a defensive mechanism.

Well really all I want to do is exactly what Furrowed suggested. I want to make sure that we are in fact approaching ALL of the evidence . . . the same way, just as furrowed suggested we do.

Is this not a fair request?

Your approach IS a defensive mechanism. I agree with Furrowed Brow 100%, because you are not approaching the Jesus accounts the same way you are approaching the Socrates account or the Alexander account, or anything else.

Well we shall see won't we. I am participating in a thread designed to test this very thing.

Want to continue to discuss if the TF was inserted or not? You kinda disappeared after post 92.

I felt it was meaningless to continue, since you are not bothering to answer one specific question, and you are avoiding it like the plague.

So, since you refuse to answer , it is worthless.

[achilles12604]

Furrowed Brow made a very true and good point. We should approach all of history the SAME WAY. But then he stated that my appeals to Alexander and Socrates were a defensive mechanism.

Well really all I want to do is exactly what Furrowed suggested. I want to make sure that we are in fact approaching ALL of the evidence . . . the same way, just as furrowed suggested we do.

Is this not a fair request?

Your approach IS a defensive mechanism. I agree with Furrowed Brow 100%, because you are not approaching the Jesus accounts the same way you are approaching the Socrates account or the Alexander account, or anything else.

Well we shall see won't we. I am participating in a thread designed to test this very thing.

Want to continue to discuss if the TF was inserted or not? You kinda disappeared after post 92.

I felt it was meaningless to continue, since you are not bothering to answer one specific question, and you are avoiding it like the plague.

So, since you refuse to answer , it is worthless.

Post 19, 67 and a couple others. See I have answered you so many times I have the post numbers memorized.

I shall continue. Stay away if you like but I shall go on.

[Goose]

FB, that was my post you responded to. I can understand. There are two similar threads and I keep popping in and out. I'm getting confused myself.

This may have already been mentioned but there are supernatural claims that surround Alex the Great. Does FB reject Alex the Greats existence or just the supernatural elements?

Whatever text promotes a supernatural/political/warrior Alexander we ask what are we being asked to believe? What is the audience? What is to be gained? What is to be lost? We ask the question if the text is true did Alex exist. Answer yes. If the text is a lie did Alexander exist: answer yes/no. If the answer is no we need more evidence, to support the true claim.

The million dollar question is, how do we know if the text is true? Are you assuming it is true with Alex and assuming it isn't for Jesus? Is there a method that one could use to arrive at somewhat similar conclusions or are you going with your gut instinct.

If FB rejects the supernatural because they are supernatural he has a bias and Begs the Question.

I do reject them and I am personally bias. And that question is way smaller than you imply. But don’t mistake personal motivation with sound reasoning, and the ability to sift evidence with a logical eye.

I have no doubt you can sift with a logical eye. What I doubt is that eye is unbiased as you've acknowledged. Some type of transparent method would alleviate my concern.

If he rejects the historicity of A the G simply because there are supernatural claims about him then he has an irrational position.

I am irrational. But not when I’m reasoning. And you need more evidence.

Well, we are all a little irrational How much more evidence? Give us a number.

Secular historians accept the history of A the G.

There is no different between secular history or no secular history. There is only history. There is a sound way of reasoning and an unsound way. If historians have yes-yes evidence then they are being reasonable.

I agree, except historians rarely have yes-yes evidence for ancient history. Your yes-yes essentially boils down to enemy or neutral attestation, yes-yes?

[Goat]

FB, that was my post you responded to. I can understand. There are two similar threads and I keep popping in and out. I'm getting confused myself.

This may have already been mentioned but there are supernatural claims that surround Alex the Great. Does FB reject Alex the Greats existence or just the supernatural elements?

Whatever text promotes a supernatural/political/warrior Alexander we ask what are we being asked to believe? What is the audience? What is to be gained? What is to be lost? We ask the question if the text is true did Alex exist. Answer yes. If the text is a lie did Alexander exist: answer yes/no. If the answer is no we need more evidence, to support the true claim.

The million dollar question is, how do we know if the text is true? Are you assuming it is true with Alex and assuming it isn't for Jesus? Is there a method that one could use to arrive at somewhat similar conclusions or are you going with your gut instinct.

If FB rejects the supernatural because they are supernatural he has a bias and Begs the Question.

I do reject them and I am personally bias. And that question is way smaller than you imply. But don’t mistake personal motivation with sound reasoning, and the ability to sift evidence with a logical eye.

I have no doubt you can sift with a logical eye. What I doubt is that eye is unbiased as you've acknowledged. Some type of transparent method would alleviate my concern.

If he rejects the historicity of A the G simply because there are supernatural claims about him then he has an irrational position.

I am irrational. But not when I’m reasoning. And you need more evidence.

Well, we are all a little irrational How much more evidence? Give us a number.

Secular historians accept the history of A the G.

There is no different between secular history or no secular history. There is only history. There is a sound way of reasoning and an unsound way. If historians have yes-yes evidence then they are being reasonable.

I agree, except historians rarely have yes-yes evidence for ancient history. Your yes-yes essentially boils down to enemy or neutral attestation, yes-yes?

The difference between the texts for Jesus and the texts for Alexander is the collaborating evidence outside the texts. There are texts that describe military campaigns and battles, and sure enough, we find archeology evidence of those battles. The outside sources also aren't selling anything, while the texts for Jesus had a theological message to sell. The texts about Alexander do not make claims that our outside of our experience of being possible. Many of the stories about Jesus inject supernatural elements that are not feasible in our experience.

Does it mean that all the stories about Alexander are true? Nope. Sure doesn't. However, we do have multiple convergences of evidence to collaborate it. That is missing when it comes to the stories about Jesus.

[Goose]

The difference between the texts for Jesus and the texts for Alexander is the collaborating evidence outside the texts. There are texts that describe military campaigns and battles, and sure enough, we find archeology evidence of those battles. The outside sources also aren't selling anything, while the texts for Jesus had a theological message to sell. The texts about Alexander do not make claims that our outside of our experience of being possible. Many of the stories about Jesus inject supernatural elements that are not feasible in our experience.

Outside archaeological evidence of a battle doesn't support an individual's existence. It support the notion that the text was reasonably accurate in reporting the Battle. From there we can infer that the remaining text should be reasonably accurate as well. If you are willing to see that as corroborating evidence why would you reject the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible (NT)?

The texts for Alexander sure are selling something - his military ability. They are certainly not without bias. And not without claims of the supernatural. I'm aware of much of the evidence for Alexander. The first biography is extremely late - several hundred years later. The early evidence is scanty and fragmentary at best and difficult to date. Not to mention it's anonymous. You can continue to compare, but as you do, you inadvertently reveal a tremendous bias.

Does it mean that all the stories about Alexander are true? Nope. Sure doesn't. However, we do have multiple convergences of evidence to collaborate it. That is missing when it comes to the stories about Jesus.

What unbiased eyewitness evidence do you have for Alex? Isn't that what you guys ask for Jesus?

[Goat]

The difference between the texts for Jesus and the texts for Alexander is the collaborating evidence outside the texts. There are texts that describe military campaigns and battles, and sure enough, we find archeology evidence of those battles. The outside sources also aren't selling anything, while the texts for Jesus had a theological message to sell. The texts about Alexander do not make claims that our outside of our experience of being possible. Many of the stories about Jesus inject supernatural elements that are not feasible in our experience.

Outside archaeological evidence of a battle doesn't support an individual's existence. It support the notion that the text was reasonably accurate in reporting the Battle. From there we can infer that the remaining text should be reasonably accurate as well. If you are willing to see that as corroborating evidence why would you reject the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible (NT)?

Why, it can. It depends on the context. If you have an account that says 'xxx had lead a battle on this city on this date', and you find that there was a battle there,
it gives a bit more validity to the story. This is particularly true if it a disinterested third party, such as the keepers of the astronomical diaries. If there was no evidence of the battle as such a place at such a time period, then it would raise doubts about the existence for xxx. It is confirmation about the report.

[/quote]

The texts for Alexander sure are selling something - his military ability. They are certainly not without bias. And not without claims of the supernatural. I'm aware of much of the evidence for Alexander. The first biography is extremely late - several hundred years later. The early evidence is scanty and fragmentary at best and difficult to date. Not to mention it's anonymous. You can continue to compare, but as you do, you inadvertently reveal a tremendous bias.

[/quote]

And, therefore, the string of battles for which there are archaeological information validates the accounts. But, the accounts of the military success and prowess don't get me anything, or the average person anything.

Does it mean that all the stories about Alexander are true? Nope. Sure doesn't. However, we do have multiple convergences of evidence to collaborate it. That is missing when it comes to the stories about Jesus.

What unbiased eyewitness evidence do you have for Alex? Isn't that what you guys ask for Jesus?

The unbiased eye witness accounts are the accounts of the battles, and, for example, the astronomical diaries.