Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 16 of 280 (573978)
08-13-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
08-13-2010 10:23 AM


My own position on the resurrection is that I am very doubtful that any of the details in the Gospels can be trusted. Firstly the resurrection seems to be a bolt-on.
No non-partisan source even mentions a resurrection until 2 centuries later - in Lucian. Pliny never mentions it in his 110CE account of the religion.
Martyredom - dying for one's beliefs - is also not a theme of the Gospels. The only two accounts are the stoning of Stephen and the execution of James. Stephen is convicted of a trumped-up charge, so the question of dying for a belief isn't relevant - recanting his faith would not have achieved anything. We are told little about James and what he died for so no conclusion is possible there. The whole theme of death as sacrifice for belief just isn't present in the gospels so the whole theological underpinning of the death/resurrection seems to me to be a later concoction.
There is also good reason to think that the early Christians didn't actually believe in a physical resurrection - it was a spiritual one.
Paul is the source closest in time to Jesus and he doesn't mention empty tombs, or in fact any physical resurrection and later ascension of Jesus. That, to me, is very telling ideed.
I'll develop this in more detail in a separate thread because it probably isn't best discussed in this one...
Edited by Bikerman, : Because I always spell resurrection wrongly - mental block

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 08-13-2010 10:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 11:34 AM Bikerman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 280 (573991)
08-13-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bikerman
08-12-2010 11:23 AM


I think on balance he probably did, but there are some pretty major problems with the gospels.
A lot of people say "on balance, there's some evidence for Jesus" but then they can never get specific about what that evidence actually is.
This seems to me like another one of those issues where people take it on faith that there's a bunch of evidence for Jesus, because that's what they hear from everybody, but when you really go looking for it you find out that "evidence for Jesus" is basically an urban legend - everyone believes it, but for no good reason.
It's not a dig or a slight; believe me, I was the same way for years. But after a year or two of challenging proponents to provide reliable evidence for Jesus - not just historical writers mentioning that people believed in Jesus, which a lot of people can't seem to understand is different - and having them not come up with anything, I really think the balance of the evidence is all on the "against" side. There's just no historical evidence for Jesus at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bikerman, posted 08-12-2010 11:23 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 1:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 19 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 2:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 280 (573992)
08-13-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
08-13-2010 1:13 PM


What is important is that even if there was firm conclusive evidence that Jesus was actually a real historical figure it still says nothing relative to his divinity.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 1:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 19 of 280 (574003)
08-13-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
08-13-2010 1:13 PM


What we have is scant, I agree, which is why I say that on-balance I just about believe that there was a historical character - but only just and that itself is belief, rather than anything more solid.
We have the mention in Tacitus to the Christians in the context of Nero and the great fire. If genuine this indicates that there was, at least, a bunch of people who called themselves his followers which would be evidence worth considering. However, you will note that I say 'if genuine' - and there is the problem. Opinion seems divided - some say it was added later by Christian apologists, and a concincing case can be made for that assertion.
Then we have Suetonius who also mentions Nero persecuting the early Christians
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. "
Now this is also problematic because of the word 'Chrestus' - which in that spelling is a Greek Proper name, not 'Christus'. So it could refer to another agitator called Chrestus and that must be considered as a possibility. The counter is that jesus was called Chrestus by the ignorant/illiterate in early times.
The pro side is that this is within a couple of decades of the putative Jesus, so any followers at this time would seem to indicate a real person within their living memory....
That, basically, is all we have. On the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt to the status-quo (the onus being on the revolutionary to overthrow, not the defender to defend) I accept that there probably was a Jesus. It is far from certain, however, and it would not take much more to change my mind on this.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 2:21 PM Bikerman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 280 (574006)
08-13-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 2:06 PM


Well, right. That's what I mean - evidence of people who believed in Jesus isn't the same as evidence for Jesus.
On the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt to the status-quo (the onus being on the revolutionary to overthrow, not the defender to defend) I accept that there probably was a Jesus.
But that's just the argumentum ad populum - the belief is popular, therefore it is true. But that's a fallacy. The burden of evidence is on the positive, not the negative claim; the popularity of the belief is irrelevant. Thus the most logical conclusion is that there never was a historical Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 2:06 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 2:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 21 of 280 (574012)
08-13-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
08-13-2010 2:21 PM


quote:
But that's just the argumentum ad populum
Yes, you are quite correct, and i can't believe that I used ad-pop in a debate...ouch! I withdraw that completely, obviously.
The whole thing, therefore, rests on whether the two accounts I listed are genuine. I think the date is important - it isn't just that people believed in Jesus - I agree that is no evidence at all. The fact that, if genuine, these accounts refer to contemporary believers, to me makes it more likely that their belief was in a real someone, not simply a notional someone. It isn't proof positive, of course, but I think it is more weighty than, say, a bunch of 2nd century Christians who were not contemporary and therefore have to accept it on faith from accounts....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 2:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 3:16 PM Bikerman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 280 (574021)
08-13-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 2:39 PM


The fact that, if genuine, these accounts refer to contemporary believers, to me makes it more likely that their belief was in a real someone, not simply a notional someone.
"Contemporary" isn't exactly how I would describe thirty years of time between the supposed life and death of Jesus and the accounts we're using to support it. Imagine if everything we knew about World War II came from the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and the testimony of one or two veterans, thirty years after the fact. Couldn't we use that to "prove" that Kilroy was a real person?
And then there's everything that is missing but shouldn't be. Rome was the world's most widespread bureaucracy. Shouldn't there be an enormous paper trail on the executed King of the Jews? Shouldn't there be truly contemporaneous mention of the revolutionary ministry of Jesus, by someone who was actually there?
Given the distance of Rome to the Middle East there's no reason to expect that any of Rome's Christians would have ever seen Jesus, nor even expected to meet anyone who had ever seen them. They were following a leader who, even if he existed, they knew only from letters and stories. It's not difficult at all to imagine that every single one of them was following a notional Christ; Christ would have been notional to every single Roman Christian regardless of his existence, the same as Christ is for us, now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 2:39 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 4:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 23 of 280 (574026)
08-13-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
08-13-2010 3:16 PM


I don't disagree with that - in fact I could go further and say that he should have at least got a mention from Philo or Seneca and didn't.
Maybe I'm reluctant to ditch an idea that I spent many years studying as a fact...I wouldn't be the first..but I still think that there must have been a 'Christos' to account for the presence of the Christians. How would you go about creating a religion based on the life of an individual, if that individual never existed? - call it the Kilroy Wuz God religion. Wouldn't people, confronted by such an attempt now, point out that their Dad had fought at such and such and no Kilroy was there? I can quite see how you could pull this trick off if you had a couple of centuries between the putative God and the religion being formed....you can make a lot of smoke about events that far back without much fear of contradiction. But we know with a fair degree of certainty that there were Christians around from at least 50CE - the time of Pauls epistles...that's certainly within living memory for a lot of the people who would have met any Jesus...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2010 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 5:24 PM Bikerman has not replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2010 5:43 PM Bikerman has not replied
 Message 26 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 5:43 PM Bikerman has not replied
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 2:41 PM Bikerman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 280 (574033)
08-13-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 4:37 PM


But there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 4:37 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 280 (574038)
08-13-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 4:37 PM


I'll add a few points to suspect that there was a living person behind the stories, although I think we'll have to say that he was less successful than the Gospels would suggest (but then exaggeration is to be expected).
For one, there's the dating. On the accepted dates, it is impossible for Christianity to have been founded much later. But an earlier date would have been much more useful if the story was fiction. Firstly, then - as now - antiquity was a good thing for a religion. It got respect. Secondly relations with the Romans are a bit problematic in the Gospels. They try to blame Jesus' death on the Jews, even though the Roman authorities are clearly responsible. Placing Jesus' life before Roman rule - even in the time of Herod would avoid that.
For another, there's Paul. Clearly a latecomer and clearly one who was prepared to dispute with the leaders of the Jerusalem church. The situation given us by Acts, where Paul converts only after the death of Jesus fits that quite well. It is easier to go against a dead founder than a living one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 4:37 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 26 of 280 (574039)
08-13-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 4:37 PM


Jar - this is replying to you (I clicked the wrong reply button) just to be clear :-)
Absolutely, I agree, but there is lots of indication that he corresponded with people who had - some of the disciples amongst them.
Paul is, of course, very disinterested in the actual life of jesus and his works contain almost no details of that. I think that points to a jesus who was nothing more than one of a number of prophets and leaders of small sects. Paul is anxious to concentrate on the spiritual message of the 'risen' Christ (spiritually risen not physically) because he is trying to build a power-base and expand his version, the Pauline Christianity.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 4:37 PM Bikerman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:00 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 10:47 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 280 (574044)
08-13-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 5:43 PM


The last sentence is significant.
quote:
Paul is anxious to concentrate on the spiritual message of the 'risen' Christ (spiritually risen not physically) because he is trying to build a power-base and expand his version, the Pauline Christianity.
Paul changed very little it appears before and after his Road Trip experience (insert White Castle reference).
Personally I believe that Jesus existed and actually is the Messiah, but I also in all honesty have to point out that there is almost no evidence to support the former and no evidence to support the latter.
Edited by jar, : fix quote

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 5:43 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 6:23 PM jar has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 28 of 280 (574048)
08-13-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
08-13-2010 6:00 PM


Oh I know that - believe me I know, I spent quite a long time desperately trying to find the evidence. I think (just) that there was a character who became known as Christ. I don't know anything about him and, more importantly, nobody else does, and I doubt he was anything very special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:00 PM jar has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 280 (574316)
08-15-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 5:43 PM


Bikerman writes:
Paul is, of course, very disinterested in the actual life of jesus and his works contain almost no details of that. I think that points to a jesus who was nothing more than one of a number of prophets and leaders of small sects. Paul is anxious to concentrate on the spiritual message of the 'risen' Christ (spiritually risen not physically) because he is trying to build a power-base and expand his version, the Pauline Christianity.
I don't see this at all. In the first place Paul's "power-base" existed prior to his conversion to being follower of Jesus. He lost his power-base and spent the rest of his life in poverty with a good chunk of the time in captivity.
I read Paul as being much more concerned with spreading the message of loving your neighbour, of forgiveness, and what this meant for the world to come.
Also I don't agree with the thought that Paul would believe that Jesus was just spiritually risen. They believed that about Judas Maccabees but nobody after he had been killed by the Romans ever suggested that he had really been the messiah let alone God incarnate. Even after defeating their enemies and maintaining power for an extended period of time he was just another failed messiah.
During and after the crucifixion Jesus followers had gone back to their everyday lives. He was just another failed messiah. Something then happened to change all of that and I believe that the account they gave for why that changed as being true. They had no reason to make the whole thing up. Preaching a message that was counter to the power structures of the time wasn't a route to wealth or power. It was extremely hazardous to your health to put it mildly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 5:43 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 280 (574327)
08-15-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 11:16 AM


Bikerman writes:
No non-partisan source even mentions a resurrection until 2 centuries later - in Lucian. Pliny never mentions it in his 110CE account of the religion.
Martyredom - dying for one's beliefs - is also not a theme of the Gospels. The only two accounts are the stoning of Stephen and the execution of James. Stephen is convicted of a trumped-up charge, so the question of dying for a belief isn't relevant - recanting his faith would not have achieved anything. We are told little about James and what he died for so no conclusion is possible there. The whole theme of death as sacrifice for belief just isn't present in the gospels so the whole theological underpinning of the death/resurrection seems to me to be a later concoction.
There is also good reason to think that the early Christians didn't actually believe in a physical resurrection - it was a spiritual one.
Paul is the source closest in time to Jesus and he doesn't mention empty tombs, or in fact any physical resurrection and later ascension of Jesus. That, to me, is very telling ideed.
Sorry I missed this post. I covered part of this in what I just posted. I think this thread is ok as it is a discussion of why you believe what you believe so it is likely appropriate to discuss why I came to a different conclusion. If that is wrong I'm sure one of the mods will let me know.
Why would a non-partisan write about the resurrection? It would only be the partisans, the ones who actually witnessed a resurrected Jesus that would write about it and probably most of them were illiterate. If there was no physical resurrection I can't imagine that there would be non-partisan people writing about it 200 years later. As I mentioned they weren't writing things like that about Judas Maccabees immediately after his death let alone 200 years later.
It wasn't just about dying for a belief. He was one of many who claimed to be the messiah and in the end they were all put to death by the Romans.
I can see why Paul wouldn't mention the resurrection directly as his letters were to the specific groups of believers who would have already known about it. He did write the following in his first letter to the Corinthians.
quote:
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
That goes back to the point I made earlier. It is the bodily resurrection of Jesus that is key to Christianity. If it is true then the rest starts to fall into place. If it isn't true then Christianity is at best a Jewish sect.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 11:16 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:29 PM GDR has replied
 Message 32 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:38 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024