[
Replying to post 35 by Zzyzx]
Yes, we have anonymous accounts telling tales about crucifixion and a 'resurrection'.
I will take this to be an admission then, that we cannot demonstrate the authors would not have witnessed the crucifixion? In other words, since as you say, we cannot demonstrate who the authors would have been, then we cannot possibly know that they would not have witnessed the things which they wrote.
I will also point out the fact that there are some authors who write anonymously, because they do not want their identity to be known. However, there are also authors who may not identify themselves, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting their identity be known, but rather because the audience being addressed would have already known the author, giving the author no reason to give his name to his intended audience.
So then the question is, does the fact that the authors do not identify themselves, give us any evidence whatsoever that the reports may be false?
We have no evidence that authors were or were not present and whether the accounts are true or false.
This is indeed false. We do have evidence the authors would have been present, because we have those a lot closer in time attesting to who the authors would have been. This may not be proof of who the authors would have been, but it is at least evidence.
Next, we know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we know that we have pretty good evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, which would demonstrate this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus as well. Seeing as how this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" we would have to assume that he would have been lying here, or he would have had to have been alive at the time of the events.
Correct: Presence of tales does not demonstrate that the crucifixion happened as described and/or whether witnesses were present.
My friend the fact that we have the reports is evidence. The reports are certainly not any sort of evidence the reports would be false.
Many observe that accounts exist. Some consider them accurate and others do not.
This is true. However, some go on to acknowledge there may be very good facts, evidence, and reasons on both sides of the equation, and allow folks to analyze these facts, and evidence for themselves, in order to come to their own conclusions, not insisting that everyone must, and has to see things in the same way.
Those who present the tales being true are expected to demonstrate that they are true and accurate.
Who do they owe this to? If I were out of town, and sat down to write a letter to my wife, I may not identify myself to my wife, because I am confident she would know my identity, which would give me no reason to assure her of who I was. If I were to go on in this letter to tell her of some extraordinary event, I would not be obligated to demonstrate or prove what I was saying to her, if she already believed the event had occurred, and I was simply giving her the details which I may have witnessed.
If you were to somehow have access to this letter hundreds of years later, your complaint that I did not identify myself, nor demonstrate the event actually happened, would have nothing to do with the event being true, of false. In other words, these things would not even enter into the equation.
So then, since I am writing to my wife, who would have already been convinced of the event, I owe no proof to her, and I certainly do not owe any sort of proof to others who may read this letter, whom I never intended to read the letter. However, there may be certain, facts, and evidence which you may be able to glean from this letter, which may give one reason to believe the event very well may have occurred. One would never know this, if they are under the false impression that my not identifying myself would have something to do with the truth of the claims, or that I did not demonstrate my case in this letter, would have any bearing upon the truth, when neither would have had a thing in the world to do with it.
The point is, you continue to seem to insist that the authors not identifying themselves, or not demonstrating their case, would have something to do with the truth of the matter, when it could have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
“I don't believe your tales� does not obligate anyone to prove the tales false or to provide alternate 'explanations'
Okay. Well then, "I do believe the claims", does not obligate anyone to prove the claims to be true, an it certainly does not require them to provide alliterate explanations".
However, as I have pointed out, when those opposed attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence we have, it sort of demonstrates their understanding that there are good facts, and evidence to support the claims, which is why they understand an alternative must be given.
I will also point out that, although I am not obligated to prove the claims, I am asked many times to explain why I do believe the claims, as if the issue would be so simple it could be explained in one post. All I can tell you is, if there are those opposed who think they can explain the reasons why they do not believe the claims very simply, then they are indeed under the false impression that it is all so simple, and I can assure you that it is not that simple in the least.
The tales themselves tell of Paul/Saul being 'converted' in a mysterious 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was). There is no independent / disconnected verification of the tales told by the author of Acts (whoever that may have been). At least it makes a good story.
Here is an example, because it is not that simple at all. The fact of the matter would be, this same Paul would have been out in order to violently oppose this movement, (and we have evidence of this from more than Acts) who becomes it's biggest missionary, and we indeed have very good evidence that Paul continued to live in this same way well into his old age, going to jail for years, for his efforts.
This sort of demonstrates that we have certain evidence to support what is reported, when one would have to simply assume there must have been "hallucination, delusion, or fantasy" involved.
Polycarp was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. What do you suggest he witnessed?
You need to keep up with the conversation. He claimed to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and would have lived some 30 years in the first century. Here is what Irenaeus had to say about Polycarp,
I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths.
The point is, who is in a better position to know who would have authored the Gospels?
Oh, were there thousands of believers?
WHERE do we find those figures? Could it be in the tales themselves? Is there independent / disconnected verification of those claims?
There is plenty of evidence for this, that we do not even have time to go into. First, it is a fact which can be easily demonstrated that the Gospel was only preached to the Jews, for a good number of years, and the Apostles never expected the message to go any further than the Jews, which can be demonstrated by when Peter first preached it to Gentiles. So then, who would Paul have been traveling around, dragging off to prison? It could have only been Jews, and as I said, this can be demonstrated to have been the case for a good number of years.
So Paul would have made it his business to travel around in order to drag off the scant few who were believing the message? But I guess we can argue that this may not have been true, even though we have this reported by not only the author to Theophilus, but also Paul himself, to audiences who would have been able to verify this information.
So then, why don't we all simply discard the NT completely? I will tell you why. It is because those opposed understand it is not that simple in the least, and there is far more involved than simply saying, "it could be false information". If it were that simple, there would be nothing to debate, and you would not have spent a good portion of your life now, debating a subject in which there would be no facts, and evidence to support.
This is just the tip of the ice berg of the evidence we have that there would have been many Jews who believed the message. So, what kind of evidence do we have that there would not have been very many Jews who would have believed?
Yes Jesus was and is rejected as 'messiah' by Jews.
Not by all of them. And you might want to check out "One For Israel" because it seems as if there are a good number of Jews who are now beginning to see how they have not been told the whole truth, and a good number of them are coming to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
So what if he did indeed predict the rejection (IF he did in his own words and not just in later after-the-fact accounts written by others).
It seems that most everything is a "so what" to you, but what you fail to realize is, all these "so whats" are mounting against you, and all you seem to have is, "so whats", and "what ifs".
I recognize some of that as part of the story line in the gospel of Matthew.
Again, it is just part of the tale – not verification of anything.
My friend, it can be verified that we have the report, which you have just demonstrated. Your argument seems to be the reports, cannot be verified to be true, but then again, they cannot be verified to be false, so what reason do I have to doubt the claim, the Jews would have called down these curses upon themselves?
1) I have no way of knowing whether the story is true
You do know the claim was made. So then, do you have a way to know the claim would be false?
2) I have no way of knowing the motivation of people living 2000 years ago
Right! But you do know there would be other ways to support those in need, other than selling your land. Is it possible then, that these folks sold their land because they were convinced it would be useless to them? It is possible indeed. Did it come about that this land was indeed useless for them to own? Well yes it did come about.
Correction: A spun yarn does NOT require an explanation.
If you are insisting the yarn had already been spun, then you are under obligation to demonstrate this to be the case.
Perhaps Jews did not 'totally' reject Jesus' message.
Oh? Because, I was under the impression that this is why the message had to be taken hundreds of miles away? But, "perhaps" there were a few? Or, "perhaps" there were thousands?
A small percentage may have believed.
Which would be all that it would take to be in the thousands.
However: Luke 4:28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
My friend, we are talking about those who would have believed after the death of Jesus, and you are bringing something in which would have been before?
Dead wrong. “Things are not always the way they seem� stands alone as a true statement. It requires no evidence against what has been presented.
So then, you are agreeing that this would be no argument at all against the claims?
Disagreement would seem to necessitate 'Things ARE always the way they seem' – which runs counter to life experience.
What would not "run counter to life experience" is the fact that many times things are exactly the way they seem.
But I still do not see how this is not an admission the way things seem to be, with what we are discussing, which would be the only reason I could imagine anyone bringing this into the conversation?
Yes, and if it looks like folklore, fiction, and fantasy we are well advised to consider those options.
Exactly how does it look like those things? I can tell you that I can fill up a few pages demonstrating how it does not.
Exactly.
I challenge no one's beliefs (that is a personal matter); however, I often challenge claims, statements, stories they announce in public.
Then we seem to be wasting a lot of time and space, because we seem to agree that neither one side or the other can be demonstrated, and I make no claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts.
I refer to anyone who sets forth the tales as being truthful and accurate as being a promoter of the tales.
Okay, back to the letter to my wife. If I write a letter to her, in which I describe some very extraordinary things which she already believes, and I am simply describing to her what I may have witnessed, with no intentions that anyone else may ever read this letter, would I be considered a "promoter" of the event, simply because someone reads this letter hundreds of years later?
The tales themselves indicate distention within church congregations Philippians 4:2-3
NO! We are talking about the content of the NT, being addressed to those who would have already believed. We cannot in any way know what sort of facts, and evidence one may have given in any sort of oral transmission to those who would have been unbelievers.
Paul/Saul also cautions about false teachers (those who disagree with him?)
Paul warns about false teachers and teachings several times. In 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul urges Timothy to command the false teachers to stop teaching false doctrines. They were devoted to myths and endless genealogies and were abusing the law (v. 4, 7). In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, he warns of demonically inspired teachers who forbid marriage and certain foods. False teaching has been a threat in every age including the present. It threatens to keep many from the narrow road leading to salvation and instead leads them to the broad road of destruction.
What would any of this have to do with the content of the NT being addressed to those who would have already believed, and was not intended to convince unbelievers of the claims?
It appears as though people believed differently than Paul/Saul wanted them to believe.
How do we know this? From letters that would have been addressed to those who would have already believed the claims.
Oh. I thought you made the claim that Jesus was “the most influential person in history�
Go back and read again, and you will see that I said, "Jesus is proclaimed to be the most influential person in all of history by modern magazines" which would be a fact. I worded it this way, because I am fully aware there are others who have him listed a little lower, but this does not negate the fact that there are indeed those who rank him at #1. But again, the argument was not banking on him actually being #1, because this would be subjective anyway. The question is, would you like to argue as to whether Jesus would be one of the most well known figures in all of history, if not the most well known?
Yes, it might take a 'simple soul' to assume that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.
Right! And it "might" take "simple souls", to simply dismiss the claims because they are hard to believe.
Paul/Saul and the gospel writers (whoever they may have been) would not likely be considered 'simple souls'. The tales indicate some measure of education and literacy (not to mention PR skills)
I am not the one who referred to them as "simple souls" (that would have been Marco) but some do, and then would like to go on to have the faith in these "simple souls" to have orchestrated all these things in such a way.
Feel free to start a thread on that topic.
I am not the one who makes the comparison.
Some of us are willing to devote time and energy to present ideas to readers that contradict the religious propaganda that permeates our society.
The unverified tales are used as a basis for influencing the society in which we live.
Maybe those with this opinion should devote their time to preventing any of us from attempting to legislate our beliefs upon others, instead of attempting to demonstrate there would be no reason to believe as one does, and maybe they would make more headway in this way, instead of attempting to insist everyone see things in the same way.
Thank you.
Those who maintain that the 'resurrection' actually occurred are invited / encouraged / expected to present verifiable evidence to support the tales (something more substantial than the tales themselves)
Again, we seem to be wasting a lot of time, and space, since I am not insisting the resurrection did occur, and you are not insisting that it did not.
Take that up with those who 'insist the resurrection did not happen'.
Are you suggesting this does not occur here on this site? I assure you it does, and it seems sort of strange that you would not be just as sure to scold them?
Correction: There are TALES to support TALES – plus conjecture, opinion, testimonials
If it could be demonstrated that this is all we had, there would not be so many who are opposed who understand they must give some sort of explanation for the information we have. You know, like we do not have web sites devoted to debating things like, "Little Red Riding Hood" that you like to compare this to, because we all know there is really no comparison, which is exactly why you debate this issue, and not things such as "Little Red Riding Hood".
It is very naive in debate to say, 'If I throw out some stories you must provide alternative explanation for what my stories tell.'
The fact of the matter is, I am not the one who "threw out these stories". Next, it is not that you must give some sort of explanation, but that you understand that you must, and attempt to do so. The point is, I am not insisting that you must, but for some reason even though I am not insisting this, there are those who for some reason feel the need to come up with alternative explanations.
One might ask why Apologists spend hours, days, weeks, and years attempting to defend the tales as true – when all they need do is present credible, verifiable evidence
You will have the ask the Apologists this question. I am simply refuting the idea that I would have no reason to believe the claims.
It is not any particular claim that warrants opposition, but the entire dogma and doctrine and propaganda that is foisted upon members of society including those who regard it as rubbish.
Again, if this is what is truly bothering you, then you need to spend time attempting to make it where folks cannot legislate their beliefs upon others, and I will be right there with you.
Those of us who oppose theocracy in any form spend FAR less time and energy than promoters of religion spend in furthering its propaganda.
I am really beginning to wonder about that? Because you see, I could not care less what it is you believe about these things, and I certainly would not want to force you in any way to believe them. I am not sure there are not those who are ready to somehow enforce an end to religion?
None of those things are used as propaganda to influence the society in which you (we) live.
Perhaps you (and readers) can understand that you (they) would likely put in time and effort to resist imposition of OTHER religious beliefs on society (say Sharia law).
As demonstrated above, your argument does not seem to be as to whether Christianity would be true, or false, or whether there would be any reason to believe it, but rather with those who attempt to legislate what they believe upon others. With this being the case, allow me to end with a real live true story, which would be just one example, of why I am not a member of any Church at the time, and have not been for years.
If you will remember, a good number of years ago, Disney World decided to make insurance available to the partners of employees who would have same sex partners. Of course this was a big deal, and the Southern Baptist Convention lead the way by announcing a boycott of Disney World.
Well, when it was time for the statewide conference of the denomination I was a member of at the time, a motion was brought to the floor, to send a letter of protest to DW. When this motion was brought to the floor, I stood up on the floor and addressed hundreds of delegates, and I asked the question, "what do we have to do with DW"? I went on to say, "DW does not name the name of Christ, so why would we expect DW to adhere to what we expect"? I then said, "there are a lot of folks who do name the name of Christ, and they are preaching a false Gospel, and I would be more than happy to not only send a letter of protest to them, I would also be in favor of forbidding any of our members from supporting any of these ministries in any way, but I do not see what we have to do with DW, and what they decide to do"?
The point I am making is, it seems we may agree a whole lot more than we think.