The Co-existence of Science and Theology

02/01/2008 08:49:33 AM · #1351

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Not wishing to offend

Ray,

No offence taken. I did glance through the article the first time it was posted and was already aware of both the multiple other resurection associations with other deities as well as a number of inconsistencies between gospels (as having studied a Harmony of the Gospels - which is a side by side comparison of all 4 Gospels, verse by serse). The crux of the Article originally linked by scalvert was for me this sentence; "We have not a single witness to the resurrection." It is this specific conclusion that I am addressing. My question still remains: Why would anyone, especially those that walked with Jesus during his tenure preaching, embrace a cruel execution for something that did not occurr? We have other than scripture accounts(read 1st century historians - like Tacitus for example - who had no particular favor for christians - account for the execution of christians by Nero) of 1st century christians being executed for their faith/belief in Jesus. Now, either one does not accept these records or they do. If they do accept that followers of Jesus were executed during the 1st century, then one has to wonder why those followers would embrace that cruelty for something that was known to be false? I thus submit to you and others here, that regardless of the inconsistencies between the Gospels, other writers of the time notate this persecution. If the resurection was known to be false amongst his most closest and trusted followers (as the body was stolen to fake everyone out), why would they die for that lie? I certainly wouldn't. I suspect you and others here would not as well. Thus for me to embrace a cruel death, I would have to have "witnessed" the event I was being accused of supporting.

Now for argument purposes, I am specifically containing this to the Apostles that literally walked with Jesus. Those that are most likely guilty of the ruse to deceive, and thus mis-represent the resurection. As it relates to the sentence from scalverts link "We have not a single witness to the resurrection.", I submit that we do in fact have witnesses to the resurection - those that walked with Jesus (see below) and subsequently embraced their execution for their belief. Unless one denies that there were any followers of Jesus and subsequently no Apostles and no persecution by Nero, etc.

edit to add post from Wikipedia: These are the specific witnesses that I am questioning - why would they die for a lie?
[i]Apostolic Ageâ��1st century

Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Saint Jude was crucified.
Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D. [i]

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 09:05:50.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/01/2008 09:18:16 AM · #1352

Originally posted by Flash:

"We have not a single witness to the resurrection." Why would anyone, especially those that walked with Jesus during his tenure preaching, embrace a cruel execution for something that did not occurr?

You continue to wave off the obvious: we have not a single witness (including Tacitus) that anyone who actually knew Jesus was executed either (nor witnesses of any other claims attributed those who might have actually known the events). Every account (including direct quotes of private conversations between two people) is written by someone who wasn't there, and often decades or hundreds of years after the fact.

Christians were executed, sure, but we don't know if anyone essentially died covering up a hoax as you seem to imply. YOU haven't answered why the centurions guarding the tomb would accept a bribe to lie about their own actions- a lie for which they'd surely be executed. 100 guards claiming they all fell asleep (mass incompetence) in exchange for money is much harder to comprehend than someone refusing to give up a secret on principle. BTW, most of the apostles supposedly (again, no witnesses) died unusually horrible deaths... rather inappropriate for the most devoted followers of an omnipotent god, no? Rather than "not tasting death" as promised, it looks like they got an extra helping. :-/

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

02/01/2008 09:21:44 AM · #1353

Originally posted by Flash:

why would they die for a lie?

The answer, of course, is they didn't. The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus.

Even granting the apostles were historical characters, there are further difficulties with this apologia. One must make a distinction between claiming the apostles died for what the "knew to be a lie" from what they "thought to be the truth". I'm sure it's already been stated somewhere in this thread, but this common apologetic claim is most unfortunate, since by this logic, the 9/11 hijackers (or Islamic Martyrs, if you prefer) died for what they "knew to be the truth"...and therefore we are all in grave danger of offending Allah. Do you see the flaw in your argument?

02/01/2008 09:29:57 AM · #1354

Originally posted by scalvert:

than someone refusing to give up a secret on principle.

We are not talking about a "someone". We are referencing multiple "someones". Multiple persons who embraced a cruel death for something they obviously believed was true. I submit that the reason they believed it to be true, was due to their witnessing it. Thus their death, especially in such a cruel way, became the basis on which others (like me) could eventually believe it as well. Yes, such an onipotent God does have a method, by which to show evidence when no apparent evidence exists.

02/01/2008 09:35:14 AM · #1355

Originally posted by david_c:

Originally posted by Flash:
why would they die for a lie?

The answer, of course, is they didn't. The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus.

Even granting the apostles were historical characters, there are further difficulties with this apologia. One must make a distinction between claiming the apostles died for what the "knew to be a lie" from what they "thought to be the truth". I'm sure it's already been stated somewhere in this thread, but this common apologetic claim is most unfortunate, since by this logic, the 9/11 hijackers (or Islamic Martyrs, if you prefer) died for what they "knew to be the truth"...and therefore we are all in grave danger of offending Allah. Do you see the flaw in your argument?

1. At least you clearly state that you do not accept the account of the Apsotles as anythuing other than fiction.
2. There is a great distinction between the 911 hijackers who did not literally walk with Mohamed and the Apostles who literally did walk with Jesus. THus my very specific point of limiting my argument to the martyrdom of the Apostles. However, since you do not accept that the Apostles even existed, then this would carry no weight with you.

02/01/2008 09:47:48 AM · #1356

Originally posted by scalvert:

Christians were executed, sure...

scalvert - in my most sincere typing notation, we are at least making some progress. We at least have arrived at a couple of items; namely that "A" Jesus likely taught, probably had some followers, and that some christians were executed. This if a far cry from where I thought we were 2-3 months ago.

02/01/2008 09:51:30 AM · #1357

Originally posted by Flash:

We are not talking about a "someone". We are referencing multiple "someones". Multiple persons who embraced a cruel death for something they obviously believed was true.

We're NOT talking about people "embracing a cruel death for something they obviously believed was true." I'm sure they didn't WANT to be killed, but there would be no benefit to recanting even if they knew a story was false (they'd be ostracized by friends and family, and likely executed anyway). And as for "obviously believing it was true," if they had even the slightest belief that Jesus would actually be resurrected, they certainly shouldn't have been skeptical or terrified if it happened!

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 09:55:37.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2008 09:52:28 AM · #1358

Originally posted by Flash:

We at least have arrived at a couple of items; namely that "A" Jesus likely taught, probably had some followers, and that some christians were executed. This if a far cry from where I thought we were 2-3 months ago.

That's because you aren't reading the posts. I never claimed otherwise, but none of the above lends any more credence to the stories than knowing there were Greeks who taught, had followers, and were persecuted/executed for their beliefs.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 09:54:37.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/01/2008 10:01:03 AM · #1359

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, that's correct; and THEN the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion and set about persecuting "pagans", among wehom they included the Greeks.

R.

I understand. The flip side to the persecution of the early Christians - the persecution of all the non-Christians.

Yes, and this is the great, central irony of the Christian faith, or at least the Western version of it: the empire (Roman) that was responsible for the persecution and execution of Jesus Christ, and that was based on a "pagan", polytheistic faith derived wholesale from the Greek version of same, later adopted Christianity as the state religion, co-opted the pagan rituals into the Christian orthodoxy, and then turned around and began persecuting the pagans who would not convert to Christianity.

R.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/01/2008 10:11:11 AM · #1360

Originally posted by Flash:

My question still remains: Why would anyone, especially those that walked with Jesus during his tenure preaching, embrace a cruel execution for something that did not occurr? We have other than scripture accounts(read 1st century historians - like Tacitus for example - who had no particular favor for christians - account for the execution of christians by Nero) of 1st century christians being executed for their faith/belief in Jesus. Now, either one does not accept these records or they do. If they do accept that followers of Jesus were executed during the 1st century, then one has to wonder why those followers would embrace that cruelty for something that was known to be false? I thus submit to you and others here, that regardless of the inconsistencies between the Gospels, other writers of the time notate this persecution. If the resurection was known to be false amongst his most closest and trusted followers (as the body was stolen to fake everyone out), why would they die for that lie? I certainly wouldn't. I suspect you and others here would not as well. Thus for me to embrace a cruel death, I would have to have "witnessed" the event I was being accused of supporting.

Flash,

You are making some huge assumptions.

1. You assume that resurrection was what influenced people to believe in early Christianity â�� it may be influential to you and in the modern context, but at the time it seems likely that it was his revolutionary teaching that was influential to believers, not the resurrection story. There were many claims of virgin births and resurrections in the popular mythology of the Gentiles at the time, indeed, it is very conceivable that these concepts were introduced into Christianity â��to keep up with the neighboursâ��.

2. You assume that the 1st century Christians had been told the resurrection story â�� some textual analyses indicate that the resurrection story was not fully introduced into the gospels until well into the 2nd century, so it is perfectly comprehensible that they did not die for a lie, because the â��lieâ�� had not yet been invented or become widespread.

3. You assume that the reports of the deaths of the apostles are true and accurate, and that they died trying to maintain the story of the resurrection above all else â�� again, this seems unlikely given that it was his philosophy that was new and revolutionary, not the fact that it was one of hundreds of tales of mysticism.

You also regularly apply modern sensibilities to ancient times (something that your history lessons should have taught you is empathy for a people in a fundamentally different time, culture and a place) such as treating the executions as somehow extraordinarily â��cruelâ�� â�� when they were â��ordinaryâ�� methods of execution at the time.

So â�� if you were given a radically different and better way of managing your relationship with the state and your personal god, would you persevere in this belief at the risk of transgressing with the authorities â�� say being chucked in jail for 5 years? Would it matter to you now that in 2,000 years there would be a worldwide myth eulogising the inventor of the new philosophy, or that the future super-enlightened justice system would treat 5 years of prison time as being horrifically cruel?

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/01/2008 10:37:39 AM · #1361

Originally posted by Flash:

1. At least you clearly state that you do not accept the account of the Apsotles as anythuing other than fiction.

Flash â�� I cannot believe that we are going to have to go through this again.

david_c writes: â��The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus.â��

You write: â��you do not accept the account of the Apsotles as anythuing other than fictionâ��

Can you see the huge glaring difference between these two statements? David_c points out the existence of doubt (ie â��there are arguments both waysâ��), you interpret this to be a wholesale denial of their existence (ie â��there are no arguments â�� they did not existâ��).

There is a gulf between these statements that you blithely ignore. As a religious man I should not be surprised as it is central to religion to have good, unquestioning lambs in the congregation (ie â��there are no arguments â�� it did happen this wayâ��) and you have been well taught. But it is frustrating that you cannot accept that there are some things that we cannot know for sure, but only place an intelligent estimate on the likelihood of it having been one way or another.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

02/01/2008 10:47:44 AM · #1362

Well, I don't seperate them. God will sort them out.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Matthew, all who profess to be Christians are not. They should not all be lumped together as if they are. Some are just following the ways of man.

And how would you separate them? What authority would you point to in order to make the distinction. Self professed Christians themselves cannot agree on which groups/individuals are "true" Christians and which are not. Although the "true" Christians are always suspiciously defined in ways that are identical to the "definer's" own beliefs, traits, and prejudices.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2008 10:49:49 AM · #1363

Matthew - both of your posts above are clear, and I thank you for that. You specifically explain why your positions are as they are.

For the record, when I read â��The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus.â�� it says that not only is Jesus questionable but that he even had Apostles is as well. I truly see no distinction between that claim and categorizing it as fiction. Both relate to madeup accounts. If david_c had meant to imply that the Apostles were actual historic figures, then I would not have expectd him to write that "Even granting the apostles were historical characters..." implying again that they were not actual persons but more fiction.

Regardless, I appreciate the detail of your points as it helps me understand why others here have difficulty with what to me seems so glaringly obvious.

sp edit

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 10:53:23.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/01/2008 10:55:17 AM · #1364

Flash;

If you said to someone "The Mercedes Benz is a much better automobile than the BMW" and that person responded "That's debatable", would you take that response to indicate that the person responding is convinced the Bimmer is a better car than the Benz?

R.

02/01/2008 10:55:23 AM · #1365

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, I don't seperate them. God will sort them out.

You very clearly DO separate them:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Matthew, all who profess to be Christians are not. They should not all be lumped together as if they are. Some are just following the ways of man.

02/01/2008 11:05:02 AM · #1366

Originally posted by Matthew:

But it is frustrating that you cannot accept that there are some things that we cannot know for sure, but only place an intelligent estimate on the likelihood of it having been one way or another.

Matthew;

I do understand that there are some things we cannot know for sure. I understand scalverts points that just because a man named Jesus walked the earth, taught a radical philosophy, had some followers and some where killed, doesn NOT prove that this specific Jesus did any of the things ascribed to him in scripture and specifically that was god/man. I understand that many many religions have parrellels in their teachings and more specifically as Bear_Music points out that many customs and practivces have their root in paganism. I have and do question many biblical accounts as is evidenced by my many posts on specifically searching for "other" evidences, most specifically circumstantial evidences, plus my side by side - verse by verse disection of the Gospels. However, after all that, I do have some what seem to me to be quite logical questions. Some I have presented in this thread. When a couple of days ago we were talking about history, it seemed logical to me to pose the accounts of non-biblical writers (like Tacitus, Josephus, etc) and place them into the discussion.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/01/2008 11:09:07 AM · #1367

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Sure. Why would they say "that's debatable" if they agreed that the Benz was a better car than the BMW? There would be no logical reason, unless they disagreed. "That's debatable" is a polite way of disagreeing, without actually stating the other person is wrong. You are implying they may be wrong, and thus could debate it to prove it so, if necessary.

However, what I think you are trying to point out, is that I infused too much into the implication, and as is typical, you probably are correct.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 11:13:58.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/01/2008 11:13:39 AM · #1368

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Flash;

If you said to someone "The Mercedes Benz is a much better automobile than the BMW" and that person responded "That's debatable", would you take that response to indicate that the person responding is convinced the Bimmer is a better car than the Benz?

R.

Sure. Why would they say "that's debatable" if they agreed that the Benz was a better car than the BMW? There would be no logical reason, unless they disagreed.

And this is the problem. You seem to confuse a well-rounded discussion, covering all relevant points, with opinion. Matthew said somewhere that the starting-point of intellectualism is objectivity. A good discussion that yields progress towards consensus is going to be an objective discussion, not one encumbered with ideological thinking.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 11:15:21.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/01/2008 11:14:54 AM · #1369

Originally posted by Flash:

Everything isn't actually black and white. That does seem to currently be a very popular thought process though. It could for example be that the Benz is better at some things and the BMW is better at others or under different criteria.

The problem seems to be that you are approaching everything in terms of absolute truth or fiction, when the reality is likely to be a mix of half truths, exaggerations, facts, hopes and dreams.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2008 11:18:16 AM · #1370

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Flash;

If you said to someone "The Mercedes Benz is a much better automobile than the BMW" and that person responded "That's debatable", would you take that response to indicate that the person responding is convinced the Bimmer is a better car than the Benz?

R.

Sure. Why would they say "that's debatable" if they agreed that the Benz was a better car than the BMW? There would be no logical reason, unless they disagreed.

However, what I think you are trying to point out, is that I infused too much into the implication, and as is typical, you probably are correct.

Everything isn't actually black and white. That does seem to currently be a very popular thought process though. It could for example be that the Benz is better at some things and the BMW is better at others or under different criteria.

The problem seems to be that you are approaching everything in terms of absolute truth or fiction, when the reality is likely to be a mix of half truths, exaggerations, facts, hopes and dreams.

That's pretty much it. For me, "that's debatable" means "I'm not sure I agree with you but I acknowledge you could make a case for your position." It's NOT the same things as saying "You're full of crap, the Benz can't hold a candle to the Bimmer." I have found few thin gs in life, actually, that I think can be reduced to black and white, to either/or.

R.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/01/2008 11:38:37 AM · #1371

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Robert - you have provided me with a different interpretation. I would not have seen it that way - especially in the following context;
"why would they die for a lie?

The answer, of course, is they didn't. The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus. "

For david_c to begin with "they didn't die for a lie" and then follow up with "The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus." seems to me like he is denying that either they didn't exist or they didn't die. Both of which imply a fictional accounting - which is what I said he said.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/01/2008 12:15:18 PM · #1372

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's pretty much it. For me, "that's debatable" means "I'm not sure I agree with you but I acknowledge you could make a case for your position." It's NOT the same things as saying "You're full of crap, the Benz can't hold a candle to the Bimmer." I have found few thin gs in life, actually, that I think can be reduced to black and white, to either/or.

R.

Robert - you have provided me with a different interpretation. I would not have seen it that way - especially in the following context;
"why would they die for a lie?

The answer, of course, is they didn't. The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus. "

For david_c to begin with "they didn't die for a lie" and then follow up with "The historicity of the apostles is every bit as questionable as that of Jesus." seems to me like he is denying that either they didn't exist or they didn't die. Both of which imply a fictional accounting - which is what I said he said.

That the accounts are fiction is one possibility, but it is only one out of many possibilities that lie within david_c's statement. What you are doing, and what you have continually been doing, is imposing a false either/or, black/white, truth/fiction paradigm on questions and statements that are inherently and deliberately much more complex and ambiguous than that. The account of the apostles' deaths could be a total fabrication, or they could be completely accurate and objective fact - but they need not be either of these, and given all the variables involved are unlikely in the extreme to be all one or the other.

Also, you continually want to trumpet this apparent willingness of these apostles to die for their beliefs as support for the truth of those beliefs. It should take only a second of honest reflection to see the flaw of this argument. Others have already pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists and the Hale Bopp (sp?) cultists were also willing to die for their beliefs. Do you think that their deaths provide support for their beliefs? If not, why is that different from the example you want to cite as support for the historical accuracy of the New Testament Jesus?

You have ignored both of these examples, as well as these examples implications. It also should be needless to point out that history is full of people willing to die for beliefs that -- both before and after the supposed events depicted in the New Testament. If you aren't willing to take these examples as support for the beliefs behind them, then you are implicitly acknowledging that people have and are willing to "die for a lie."

Another example that comes to mind is the followers of David Koresh. His followers believed him to be divine, perhaps even Jesus reborn. Unlike your account of the apostles, we have verifiable knowledge that these believers existed, that they had direct contact with and knowledge of Koresh, the beliefs that they held, and dramatic evidence of their willingness to die for those beliefs. Does this willingness on their part support their belief that David Koresh was indeed Jesus reborn? If not, why?

You want to hold yourself up as someone who as examined all the evidence, weighed the arguments on all sides (or either side in your paradigm), parsed the interpretations and testimony pro and con - but your arguments in general show a decided lack of basic critical thinking skills.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 12:30:59.

02/01/2008 01:46:53 PM · #1373

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Also, you continually want to trumpet this apparent willingness of these apostles to die for their beliefs as support for the truth of those beliefs. It should take only a second of honest reflection to see the flaw of this argument. Others have already pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists and the Hale Bopp (sp?) cultists were also willing to die for their beliefs. Do you think that their deaths provide support for their beliefs? If not, why is that different from the example you want to cite as support for the historical accuracy of the New Testament Jesus?

1. I have not ignored these
2. I have plainly stated that I make a distinction between those that actually walked with Jesus, and more specifically have narrowed my argument to the Apostles to avoid this
3. The reason that a difference exists is as stated in #2

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

You have ignored both of these examples, as well as these examples implications. It also should be needless to point out that history is full of people willing to die for beliefs that --

Please read above.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Another example that comes to mind is the followers of David Koresh. His followers believed him to be divine, perhaps even Jesus reborn. Unlike your account of the apostles, we have verifiable knowledge that these believers existed, that they had direct contact with and knowledge of Koresh, the beliefs that they held, and dramatic evidence of their willingness to die for those beliefs. Does this willingness on their part support their belief that David Koresh was indeed Jesus reborn? If not, why?

1. There are a couple of problems with this analogy as a direct comparative to the Apostles: mainly that some of those supposed martyrs of Koresh's were shot in the back trying to escape. This exactly illustrates my point that the Apostles would have been unlikely to maintain their committment to a lie, especially over time. Please remember the chronology of the Apostles executions. 35AD, 44AD, 60AD etc. If once it became apparent that the executions would be forthcoming, it is doubtful to me that the remaining Apostles would have subjugated themselves for something they knew was untrue.

Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Saint Jude was crucified.
Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D. [

2. There seems to be a need by you and others to continually reference all martyrs in history as evidence for the discrediting of the Apostles - when I specifically have emphasized an intent to deal only with the specific Apostle scenario, as I already recognize the problems with the larger inclusion of "all christian martyrs".

sp edit

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 13:58:36.