Hitch is dead

quote:

---

I guess I didn't make my point clear. There were still those around who witnessed the 3 years of Jesus' ministry and would know if the story of the feeding of the 5000 was a complete fabrication then the whole account would be brought discredited.

---

If they got to hear it, and cared to discredit it, and if they were believed. And we know that didn’t happen.The accounts of the post-Resurrection appearances in Matthew and Luke are sufficiently different that one must be badly wrong. But neither was corrected - and believers would want to correct those errors.

That's exactly the kind of terminology that the fake televangelist uses today isn't it? You asked for the founder's motives; money is the single biggest motive in human history. The individual's incentive to join the movement is not the same as the leaders incentive to create one is it? We've seen this time and again in fake religions like Christian Scientists, Mormonism and the endless ranks of American mega churches raising vast sums of money for their corrupt leaders. People follow leaders for multiple reasons, leaders exploit followers for a few simple ones; power and money.The early history of the church is all about power and money. Have a read of this and notice the power struggles, divisions and splits between Paul and the other players in the very early days of the founding of the church. And don't forget, Paul knew all about money.Focus On: Paul's Collection for the Poor in the Church at Jerusalem

Notice that your source attributes most of the books of the NT to Paul. The mythicists deny this. You cant have it both ways.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I really couldn't care less. The point under discussion is about Paul's collections, did you want to comment on that?

quote:

---

Notice that your source attributes most of the books of the NT to Paul.

---

That particular article certainly doesn’t.It attributes 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans and 1 Thessalonians to Paul. It cites Acts but implicitly attributes it to another author (asserting that Paul’s account should be preferred when Acts did not precisely agree with Galatians)

quote:

---

The mythicists deny this.

---

The mythicists I am aware of generally accept Paul’s authorship of the Epistles attributed to him by scholars. That includes all of the above - and more.(The RationalWiki article cited by Tangle earlier also attributes these epistles to Paul - although it looks a bit grudging to me. So I don’t see any sign of trying to have it both ways any more than either article attributes a larger amount of the NT to Paul)Edited by PaulK, : Added parenthetical comment about the RationalWiki article

It may be for you - and that is unfortunate.
But I don't think that's universally true.I believe the feeding of the 5000 is a fabrication.
I do not throw the whole Gospel into disrepute - the Bible stories describe many good lessons. Sure. Of course there was.
Perhaps not "all the money" or "all the prestige" or "all the power" - but no one has that anyway
There certainly was money, and prestige, and power to be gained amongst the Christians of that era.
Perhaps not "to the level that GDR finds compelling" - but your position contains an obvious bias.
This doesn't mean the incentives did not exist at all.My argument doesn't show that such incentives were definitively used, either.
We are too far removed from the situation to clearly understand what actual incentives were or were not used.
But to say these incentives did not exist, or could not possibly have been used - is just as silly as saying you are well aware of exactly what incentives were definitely used.
Such things are, unfortunately, lost to history. Just as all Christians today are being taught the same thing.
And we still have televangelists and other scammers.
Do you think such people didn't exist thousands of years ago?
That the early Christian movement was immune to the failures of human morality?
Now that's stretching the truth... No one in all of human history has ever held "all the power."
Your inclusion of such obviously false axioms in order to promote your belief is telling of the cracks that you're trying to pretend don't exist.It is stronger to admit weaknesses that exist, and focus on the truth behind your strengths than it is to put up an impenetrable facade that is clearly permeable to anyone who takes more than a passing look.

The differences are in the timing and location. All the accounts agree, like witnesses to a car accident, that the main event happened.

Just how do you equate giving money to a televangelist living an affluent life style to raising money for an impoverished group being promoted by a man living a hand to mouth existence? This is from the article you quoted.

quote:

---

he second condition is expressed in the final verse describing the meeting: "[The Pillars] asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10). It is broadly agreed that Paul's phrase "remember the poor" refers to a one—time collection of money raised among the believers in Antioch to be given to "the poor" in Jerusalem3. While it has been suggested that the label "poor" may have been an honorific title for the members of the church in Jerusalem, it more likely represents an accurate descriptor of their situation. The collection was intended not merely as a symbolic effort meant to demonstrate unity among the different churches; it also addressed a genuine need in the Jerusalem community.

---

Yes the early church was about looking after the poor. I realize that would sometimes meaning asking people to open up their wallets in order to fulfill that mission. How about you provide a source for that comment.

quote:

---

The differences are in the timing and location

---

And in what happened. Nobody would forget that Jesus turned up in person to tell them not to go to Galilee and assume that they went after all. If it happened. And if that did not happen it was invented and it wasn’t corrected.And that’s before we get into the stuff in Acts like Pentecost, which is tied into it.

quote:

---

All the accounts agree, like witnesses to a car accident, that the main event happened.

---

Reports of car accidents do NOT greatly disagree on where the accident occurred.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

That would be true today but I contend that it wouldn't have for early Christians. Today after centuries of cultures that have been under Judeo-Christian influence the idea of loving your neighbour is pretty much universally understood even if it isn't always followed. You agree that there are good lessons to be gained from the Bible without accepting but that has been gained from your culture.Most of what Jesus taught was counter-cultural. There were no atheists in their day. The point was trying to figure out what God wanted and what was He up to. A messiah was supposed to be the anointed one of Yahweh who would lead them against their enemies. Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that He could vanquish the Romans. The thing was though that He had no army with which to carry out this mission. The only reason that they believed that Jesus could do this is that they saw that God was with Him because of the miracles.After the crucifixion it was clear to the disciples that the had backed the wrong horse and that obviously a messiah couldn't suffer the humiliation of death by crucifixion. He was simply a failed messiah.However that all changed with the resurrection. Resurrection was then and still is the basic understanding of the Christian church. Without it Jesus wouldn't even be a footnote in human history. If the miracles such as the 5000 is shown to be false then the resurrection itself is thrown into question. This being the case the writers would be careful not to be making false claims that could easily be refuted by the remaining eyewitnesses. As far as the incentive to raise the funds go I think that we can simply look at the life style of Paul. He moved around constantly, was driven out of many communities with his life often being threatened, as while as being alienated from the culture and beliefs that he had grown up with and had been strongly committed to. Well, maybe I can be allowed a small use of hyperbole. Maybe the number of 5000 was a case of that.

And this illustrates another point - which I’ll get to.If the feeding of the five thousand was a fiction, not many people would be in a position to know that. They would have to know pretty much all Jesus’ career - with no gaps - to say that it never happened.The vast majority of those would be in Judaea where Mark might not even have reached before the Jewish revolt began in 66 AD - and I can’t think that refuting the claims of a minor sect would have been much of a priority then.Even then the vast majority would be Jewish, and likely adherents of the Pharisees - and the Church was already hostile to themBut there is an even greater problem - how do you prove it didn’t happen? Someone could say that they saw everything and they didn’t see that, but would they be believed.And finally - to the point - there are people who will invent the flimsiest of excuses to reject claims they don’t like. As has just been proven.

Nobody disagreed about where the crucifixion occurred. Yes, the details don't all line up. Different disciples and others had different experiences of the risen Jesus. However, like in a car accident where all agree that the accident happened, they all agreed that Jesus had been resurrected after being crucified.

The failures of human morality exist in all cultures and at all times. The issue was even addressed to Peter by Jesus. Jesus seemed to know intuitively the failures of human morality. He even prayed for His persecutors while on the cross.
...now granted you guys will likely shift gears and argue that it is all but a story written by men.Its more than interesting, however, that twenty years ago we were told the story of St.Malachi who prophesied that there would be but two more popes after John Paul II.
We had Benedict and we have Francis. This was recently in the news regarding the memoirs of Benedict:
In new biography,Benedict XVI laments modern anti-Christian creed Now, I've never been as anti-Catholic as Faith used to be, though I know that the institution(s) of the modern church has indeed glorified man more than God. The pomp and pageantry of the Vatican is no less reprehensible than the greedy televangelists and their storied collective of shame. Nevertheless, I agree with what the character of Jesus Christ said in the story--that Peter instinctively knew who He Was through Divine Revelation and not human wisdom. Human wisdom is essentially what Benedict was lamenting about in his autobiography.

quote:

---

In a wide-ranging interview at the end of the 1,184-page book, written by German author Peter Seewald, the pope emeritus said the greatest threat facing the Church was a worldwide dictatorship of seemingly humanistic ideologies.

​

Benedict XVI, who resigned as pope in 2013, made the comment in response to a question about what he had meant at his 2005 inauguration when he urged Catholics to pray for him that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.

​

He told Seewald that he was not referring to internal Church matters, such as the Vatileaks scandal, which led to the conviction of his personal butler, Paolo Gabriele, for stealing confidential Vatican documents.

​

In an advanced copy of Benedikt XVI — Ein Leben (A Life), seen by CNA, the pope emeritus said: Of course, issues such as ‘Vatileaks’ are exasperating and, above all, incomprehensible and highly disturbing to people in the world at large.

​

But the real threat to the Church and thus to the ministry of St. Peter consists not in these things, but in the worldwide dictatorship of seemingly humanistic ideologies, and to contradict them constitutes exclusion from the basic social consensus.

---

If you want to stay consistent in your acknowledgment of the failures of human morality, you would do well to look the gift horse of global humanism in the mouth and see it for what it really is. But then, in order to do that you would have to acknowledge that humanity will never move forward without Holy Communion with God (through Jesus) and this is the sticking point that believers and non-believers will; forever remain stuck at. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nobody disagreed about where the crucifixion occurred.

---

So why are they disagreeing on where the post-resurrection appearances happened? Again, if Jesus turned up on the road to Emmaus and told the disciples not to go to Galilee, how could the author of Matthew not know about it?

quote:

---

Different disciples and others had different experiences of the risen Jesus.

---

That obviously doesn’t account for the differences, especially when they are all supposed to be present for most of the appearance
stories.

quote:

---

However, like in a car accident where all agree that the accident happened, they all agreed that Jesus had been resurrected after being crucified.

---

As I said, believers will spout obvious nonsense to try and protect their beliefs.

Non Believers do the same thing. Admittedly, the primary "weapon" of nonbelievers is to attempt to find the evidence that discredits and picks apart the stories which form the basis of Christian belief. jar always said to throw God away, but I as a believer could never do that. What I have done in my mind is to suspend my belief in the inerrancy of the Logos and keep my faith strong regarding the Rhema which I feel is internal, personal, and by necessity subjective. In other words, I will throw the book away in order to give you your points in a given argument (if they have well-supported evidence behind them) but what I won't do is to fail to follow the example of Peter in the stories who knew who Jesus was not through logic, reason, and reality but through revelation. I happen to believe that humans will never make a brave new world as strident secularists. The reason? The failures of human morality will always come around and bite us in the butt. Stile and Tangle have made a good point that within organized religion itself this is also true, and I won't defend us in regards to that. I believe that we will see freedom of speech challenged through the excuse of public safety. I believe that the humanist manifesto will give rise to a global "religion" of sorts....a seeming ideal of love, tolerance, and mutual respect but in fact a belief devoid of any power without mandatory human cooperation. This will prove to be a huge mistake, but sometimes we have to learn the hard way.Edited by Phat, : added features