The Co-existence of Science and Theology

04/01/2008 06:38:36 PM · #1526

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do think it's important to consider that Jesus was felt to be a human. This does make him unique (until you can show me otherwise) among most religions. I'd say it is also unique because there is evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. I don't think Osiris or Baldr or Odin qualify there.

Jesus was a god in human form. Mithras was a god in human form. Dionysus was a god in human form. Jesus was born of a virgin and a god. Mithras was born of a virgin and a god. Dionysus was born of a virgin and a god. Jesus died and was resurrected. Mithras died and was resurrected. Dionysus died and was resurrected.

Dionysus is a prophet, indeed prophecy is one of his responsibilites. Euripides writes that he's a prophet, and that the reveling of the bacchanals (those crazy broads who drank a lot of wine and ripped shepherds up) was a feast of prophecy.

04/01/2008 06:56:27 PM · #1527

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do think it's important to consider that Jesus was felt to be a human. This does make him unique (until you can show me otherwise) among most religions. I'd say it is also unique because there is evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. I don't think Osiris or Baldr or Odin qualify there.

Jesus was a god in human form. Mithras was a god in human form. Dionysus was a god in human form. Jesus was born of a virgin and a god. Mithras was born of a virgin and a god. Dionysus was born of a virgin and a god. Jesus died and was resurrected. Mithras died and was resurrected. Dionysus died and was resurrected.

Dionysus is a prophet, indeed prophecy is one of his responsibilites. Euripides writes that he's a prophet, and that the reveling of the bacchanals (those crazy broads who drank a lot of wine and ripped shepherds up) was a feast of prophecy.

So we're saying that early Christians within a few years after his death were educated enough to know of all these disparate religions and decided to foist upon Jesus the same qualities? Assuming these other people actually walked the earth, how long did it take for them to develop these qualities? (I'm assuming that's an unanswerable question because nobody can really point to any evidence of when "Dionysus walked around the towns and talked to people".)

I'm just trying to get the gist of the argument here. So far I'm getting, "Jesus is a lot like of other characters in other religions. His attributes were made up by his followers (very quickly after his death)."

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/01/2008 06:57:50 PM · #1528

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do think it's important to consider that Jesus was felt to be a human.

If it's that important, then you might want to consider that the son of a god, born to a virgin, isn't quite your average human.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

==Frankly, to have true Free Agency "magic" (ie. something outside materialism) is necessary. You keep saying it isn't necessary, but you either claim an illusory free will or don't bother to explain how you the complex "program" of mice or monkeys or man could arive at two different results from the same inputs.

Well if you DEFINE true Free Agency as something outside of the physical world, then rational debate of the issue is a moot point, but the fact that brain damage and drugs affect can affect decision making should be sufficient to eliminate that definition. If you could manage to subject two cloned animals to exactly the same conditions and experiences throughout life, then you might very well get the same results from the same inputs. However, if two identical twins are given popcorn under the same conditions, and one of them had choked on it several times as a kid, would you expect any decisions regarding popcorn to be identical? To dismiss all the variables of body chemistry and life experience is to ignore much of the "programming" involved (an appalling oversight given your medical background).

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/01/2008 07:04:43 PM · #1529

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Frankly, to have true Free Agency "magic" (ie. something outside materialism) is necessary. You keep saying it isn't necessary, but you either claim an illusory free will or don't bother to explain how you the complex "program" of mice or monkeys or man could arive at two different results from the same inputs.

Ahh, deja vu. Haven't we been through this one before? You seem to be stuck on the deterministic nature of classical physics. Modern physics depends on randomness and chaos. That's how you can get different results from the same (or seemingly same) inputs. (Yes, I'm still around and have watched this thread for a long time.)

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 19:05:42.

04/01/2008 07:14:34 PM · #1530

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly, to have true Free Agency "magic" (ie. something outside materialism) is necessary. You keep saying it isn't necessary, but you either claim an illusory free will or don't bother to explain how you the complex "program" of mice or monkeys or man could arive at two different results from the same inputs.

Ahh, deja vu. Haven't we been through this one before? You seem to be stuck on the deterministic nature of classical physics. Modern physics depends on randomness and chaos. That's how you can get different results from the same (or seemingly same) inputs. (Yes, I'm still around and have watched this thread for a long time.)

But that doesn't help the argument at all (and thus I'm ignoring it). Yes, quantum randomness exists in nature. But now we are attributing free will to randomness and chaos? It doesn't make me feel much better about myself.

I'll let Chalice continue if he wants. The whole argument was resurrected (pun intended) because he mentioned Free Will among his things that do not fit with science. Shannon replied that all those things are just a result of complexity. I came back to say not the way Chalice is talking about free will. Off we go. I think I can piece together from the posts that we all agree that true Free Agency (the ability to dictate two different outcomes from the exact same inputs) does not exist within a materialist system (unless you want to invoke randomness which wouldn't really indicate the same exact input).

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 19:15:55.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/01/2008 07:17:19 PM · #1531

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What early Christians within a few years after his death? The ones in the oldest gospel, written no earlier than forty years after this supposed event?

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/01/2008 07:21:47 PM · #1532

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sorry, but science isn't necessarily here to make you feel better about yourself :)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll let Chalice continue if he wants. The whole argument was resurrected (pun intended) because he mentioned Free Will among his things that do not fit with science. Shannon replied that all those things are just a result of complexity. I came back to say not the way Chalice is talking about free will. Off we go. I think I can piece together from the posts that we all agree that true Free Agency (the ability to dictate two different outcomes from the exact same inputs) does not exist within a materialist system (unless you want to invoke randomness which wouldn't really indicate the same exact input).

Just because it's based on randomness doesn't mean that it's not free will. It just explains the mechanism by which you have the freedom to make different decisions. It introduces the ability to come up with different conclusions, weigh them, and assign them values beyond some intrinsic value.

04/01/2008 07:28:41 PM · #1533

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm just trying to get the gist of the argument here. So far I'm getting, "Jesus is a lot like of other characters in other religions. His attributes were made up by his followers (very quickly after his death)."

Dionysus didn't have to walk the earth for such a story to be known and used. The common mythologies, history and folk tales of the day would be EXACTLY what an author would draw upon when writing a story. If stories of a great war or cataclysmic event were known, then the author(s) would have to account for those in any explanation of history. We know that the Romans borrowed parts of their religion from other cultures, and guess who compiled the first Bible...

The four "approved" Gospels (out of dozens) were apparently written decades after Jesus' death and contradict each other on many basic points (who witnessed what, where and when). We don't know of a single word written by anyone who actually met Jesus in person, so even if he really existed as a man, there's not a single eyewitness account of anything he did. Now consider all the places in the Bible where Jesus said this or that... how exactly does an author know the verbatim Word of Godâ�¢ decades after the only people involved in a private conversation are dead? Can anyone say "Creative License?"

04/01/2008 07:30:36 PM · #1534

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we're saying that early Christians within a few years after his death were educated enough to know of all these disparate religions and decided to foist upon Jesus the same qualities? Assuming these other people actually walked the earth, how long did it take for them to develop these qualities? (I'm assuming that's an unanswerable question because nobody can really point to any evidence of when "Dionysus walked around the towns and talked to people".)

I'm just trying to get the gist of the argument here. So far I'm getting, "Jesus is a lot like of other characters in other religions. His attributes were made up by his followers (very quickly after his death)."

What early Christians within a few years after his death? The ones in the oldest gospel, written no earlier than forty years after this supposed event?

Paul writes in his first letter to the Thessalonians "They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the deadâ��Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

A) First Thessalonians is overwhelmingly attributed to Paul's authorship.
B) It is also overwhelmingly considered his first or among the very earliest of the letters we have from him.
C) It is overwhelmingly attributed to a date in the early 50s (ie. 50-52) AD, which is roughly 15 years after the time Jesus is reported to have been killed.
D) Paul writes about it like it is part of the known Christian "kerygma" (preaching).
E) Paul admits himself that he persecuted Christians before his conversion.
F) It is logical to assume that it took some time to go from Persecutor to Apostle.
G) We can thus conclude that at least 10 years after Jesus' reported death people believed he had risen. These people were the ones Paul found necessary to run around and try to shut down because they were causing trouble.
H) It's quite likely that people believed this immediately after Jesus' death because by about 45 AD (and possibly much earlier) there were enough of them to be enough of a problem that Paul has to run around trying to stop them.

chalice

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/01/2008 07:46:44 PM · #1535

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chalice:
I have read a fair number of scientific books (and I am pleased to say that none of them are written by so-called Creationist scientists, nor are they written by the equally dogmatic Mr. Dawkins).

That's too bad. You do know that Richard Dawkins is the world's preeminent evolutionary scientist, don't you? That he has written a number of books that are cornerstones in the fields of evolutionary and genetic study? *** Because one feels does not imply the existence of a god that created the universe, for all the reasons already cited. Dawkins covers some of this in "The God Delusion" in relation to morality and altruism. It can be equally applied to sentiment.

What I have known of Dawkins has come from third parties other than Creationists who indicate that in their opinion he is strident, confrontational, and at least in the opinion of one scientist doing a disservice to science in general and evolution in particular. Since I have a distinct preference for authors who can see the merits of both sides of an argument these stated opinions were enough for me to go elsewhere for my reading edification.

Having said that, given your obvious respect for the man I bought The God Delusion at the bookstore today and I will read it this week. Since it appears to be his best seller to date and you cite it from time to time, I'll start there.

(Lunch break is now over and I have only had time to read all of the comments today. I won't be home until after midnight EST so I am unable to join in the conversation in real time during the work week.)

It IS April 1st, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| /
|/
/

...but the posting is still accurate...I did buy the book.

04/01/2008 07:55:03 PM · #1536

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we're saying that early Christians within a few years after his death were educated enough to know of all these disparate religions and decided to foist upon Jesus the same qualities? Assuming these other people actually walked the earth, how long did it take for them to develop these qualities? (I'm assuming that's an unanswerable question because nobody can really point to any evidence of when "Dionysus walked around the towns and talked to people".)

I'm just trying to get the gist of the argument here. So far I'm getting, "Jesus is a lot like of other characters in other religions. His attributes were made up by his followers (very quickly after his death)."

What early Christians within a few years after his death? The ones in the oldest gospel, written no earlier than forty years after this supposed event?

Paul writes in his first letter to the Thessalonians "They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the deadâ��Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

A) First Thessalonians is overwhelmingly attributed to Paul's authorship.
B) It is also overwhelmingly considered his first or among the very earliest of the letters we have from him.
C) It is overwhelmingly attributed to a date in the early 50s (ie. 50-52) AD, which is roughly 15 years after the time Jesus is reported to have been killed.
D) Paul writes about it like it is part of the known Christian "kerygma" (preaching).
E) Paul admits himself that he persecuted Christians before his conversion.
F) It is logical to assume that it took some time to go from Persecutor to Apostle.
G) We can thus conclude that at least 10 years after Jesus' reported death people believed he had risen. These people were the ones Paul found necessary to run around and try to shut down because they were causing trouble.
H) It's quite likely that people believed this immediately after Jesus' death because by about 45 AD (and possibly much earlier) there were enough of them to be enough of a problem that Paul has to run around trying to stop them.

I think there's too much supposition in what you've presented here, but no matter. I find it interesting that Paul's account of Jesus relates only to his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Nothing else. No miracles, no parables, no ministry. Nothing.

Funny, that. All Paul knows of Jesus is exactly the same mythical elements easily attributable to Dionysus, Mithras, Horus, and dozens of other gods that came before.

04/01/2008 07:58:23 PM · #1537

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, at least you didn't deny he existed. :)

Well, I don't know and neither does anyone else who is being honest.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I can understand what you think, although I'll obviously disagree and feel there are arguments which can be made about lots of that. An example would be the resurrection claim. Among prophets of all religions I'm aware of only Jesus is claimed to have risen from the dead. This claim arose very very early in the history of the Jesus movement which makes it unlikely to have been merely fabricated out of thin air as an accolade to increase his credibility. (What I'm saying is that there is likely evidence that Christians even a decade after Jesus' death believed he was resurrected. Had his body not at the very least been missing it would have been easy for detractors to say "what are you talking about, here are his bones right here.")

My equally obvious response would be 'perhaps someone moved the body'....

Choice A: Someone moved the body for some unknown, particular reason. Perhaps they were close to him. Perhaps they had more political motivations. Perhaps it never really happened.
Choice B: Dead person was the one and only son of God, who rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, but had to take his bones with him otherwise he couldn't go.

Around about here is where I start having a hard time with historical 'proof' and argument. Just as an example.

Resurrection/ rebirth is a fairly typical archetype. Recurring seasons would be a pretty simple example. I'm certain you could find other religions with similar metaphors or stories with a bit of thought or research, if you were interested. I in no way claim to accept/ promote or validate this, but it took me about 5 seconds worth of searching //www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paganrising.html

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 20:02:05.

04/01/2008 08:05:04 PM · #1538

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

as it ever been shown that any of the above ever arrive at different results with the same inputs ?

04/01/2008 08:08:26 PM · #1539

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But now we are attributing free will to randomness and chaos? It doesn't make me feel much better about myself.

It always seems to end up at this. If it is about making you feel better about yourself, then believe what you like. But it isn't some sort of argument for it being true or not.

04/01/2008 08:22:24 PM · #1540

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we're saying that early Christians within a few years after his death were educated enough to know of all these disparate religions and decided to foist upon Jesus the same qualities? Assuming these other people actually walked the earth, how long did it take for them to develop these qualities? (I'm assuming that's an unanswerable question because nobody can really point to any evidence of when "Dionysus walked around the towns and talked to people".)

I'm just trying to get the gist of the argument here. So far I'm getting, "Jesus is a lot like of other characters in other religions. His attributes were made up by his followers (very quickly after his death)."

What early Christians within a few years after his death? The ones in the oldest gospel, written no earlier than forty years after this supposed event?

Paul writes in his first letter to the Thessalonians "They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the deadâ��Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

A) First Thessalonians is overwhelmingly attributed to Paul's authorship.
B) It is also overwhelmingly considered his first or among the very earliest of the letters we have from him.
C) It is overwhelmingly attributed to a date in the early 50s (ie. 50-52) AD, which is roughly 15 years after the time Jesus is reported to have been killed.
D) Paul writes about it like it is part of the known Christian "kerygma" (preaching).
E) Paul admits himself that he persecuted Christians before his conversion.
F) It is logical to assume that it took some time to go from Persecutor to Apostle.
G) We can thus conclude that at least 10 years after Jesus' reported death people believed he had risen. These people were the ones Paul found necessary to run around and try to shut down because they were causing trouble.
H) It's quite likely that people believed this immediately after Jesus' death because by about 45 AD (and possibly much earlier) there were enough of them to be enough of a problem that Paul has to run around trying to stop them.

I think there's too much supposition in what you've presented here, but no matter. I find it interesting that Paul's account of Jesus relates only to his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Nothing else. No miracles, no parables, no ministry. Nothing.

Funny, that. All Paul knows of Jesus is exactly the same mythical elements easily attributable to Dionysus, Mithras, Horus, and dozens of other gods that came before.

Yet we have the utter distinction that Jesus was a real man while these other people were merely stories (at least as far as we can tell). Not only that but he was a real man who existed merely years before Paul. Not only that Paul was a respected member of the community dead set AGAINST people running around preaching Jesus. Not only that but in the earliest Christian document we have (First Thessalonians) the idea that he was resurrected is presented. Not only that, but earliest tradition says that Luke, a companion of Paul, wrote both the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles. (I'd assume Paul was hip to what Luke wrote, eh? Paul is more interested in doctrine than in historical data (although he does mention some historical events in Jesus' life).

Just because there are similarities between things doesn't imply a connection. My bike has two wheels and so did Egyptian chariots. Should I infer some direct connection of design? Just repeating that we have stories of resurrections before Jesus doesn't make his story simply made up.

More importantly you'll have to point out where I "supposed" too much in my argument. All those are basically agreed by mainstream New Testament scholars (religious and secular). You can show me which you find to be too far fetched.

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 20:24:23.

04/01/2008 08:42:18 PM · #1541

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My bike has two wheels and so did Egyptian chariots. Should I infer some direct connection of design?

Urm, yes, probably. What was your point again ?

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 20:42:59.

04/01/2008 08:42:20 PM · #1542

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yet we have the utter distinction that Jesus was a real man while these other people were merely stories (at least as far as we can tell).

Huh? You think the Mithras and Dionysis adherents thought they were just stories? You don't think they actually believed in the reality of these deities? Doesn't make sense.

We don't have the distinction that Jesus was a real man. Like the others, he was a god in human form.

All your points about Paul have only one source -- Paul. To ascertain historical veracity, cross-referencing is king. What historical events aside from death, resurrection and ascension does he talk about?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just because there are similarities between things doesn't imply a connection. My bike has two wheels and so did Egyptian chariots. Should I infer some direct connection of design? Just repeating that we have stories of resurrections before Jesus doesn't make his story simply made up.

You don't think it makes it possible that the story has borrowed elements? Some of those elements are astoundingly similar. Identical, in fact. Twelve disciples, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, virgin births, nailing to a tree, saviour of mankind, prophecy... if it was such a unique event, you'd think God would have made damn sure it happened only once.

04/01/2008 09:41:13 PM · #1543

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yet we have the utter distinction that Jesus was a real man while these other people were merely stories (at least as far as we can tell).

Huh? You think the Mithras and Dionysis adherents thought they were just stories? You don't think they actually believed in the reality of these deities? Doesn't make sense.

We don't have the distinction that Jesus was a real man. Like the others, he was a god in human form.

All your points about Paul have only one source -- Paul. To ascertain historical veracity, cross-referencing is king. What historical events aside from death, resurrection and ascension does he talk about?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just because there are similarities between things doesn't imply a connection. My bike has two wheels and so did Egyptian chariots. Should I infer some direct connection of design? Just repeating that we have stories of resurrections before Jesus doesn't make his story simply made up.

You don't think it makes it possible that the story has borrowed elements? Some of those elements are astoundingly similar. Identical, in fact. Twelve disciples, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, virgin births, nailing to a tree, saviour of mankind, prophecy... if it was such a unique event, you'd think God would have made damn sure it happened only once.

This is merely off the top of my head, but I know he mentions the Last Supper. Now lets recall that all I'm arguing about is that early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected. Early in the sense of "his peers" not decades later. Paul's assertion that Jesus was resurrected (made about 15 years after his death) is cross-referenced by the gospels (written later). It simply makes no sense to suppose that the belief that Jesus was resurrected originated at some point decades or centuries after Christianity began.

Perhaps we are talking cross-wise again. You tell me. When do you think this idea that Jesus was resurrected (which it seems you suppose was plagarized from the "golden oldies" of the time) started? What is your evidence to say it started at that time? Why do you believe it did not start earlier?

My argument is that we can prove it existed merely 15 years after his death and have good reason to suppose it was around much earlier than that even up to the point of his actual death.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/01/2008 10:35:31 PM · #1544

It doesn't matter when stories of his resurrection began. They could have started in 33, 43, or 150. They remain stories, based on pre-existing traditions.

I agree, it would make no sense to assume the resurrection stories began a long time after the supposed event, or long into the first century. They would have originated closer to the time of other such stories, such as the competing cult of Mithras. Early Christianity and Mithraism share the most common features, including ascension to heaven, twelve disciples, redemption through death, baptism to cleanse sins, potent magical wine, burial in a cave or tomb, and so on.

Consider that you are speaking as though his life and death are givens. In that sense, it may be important to pinpoint the moment of death (though I don't see why, except perhaps only to reinforce already-held beliefs). If he didn't even exist as a historical personage, it becomes a curious matter of speculation, but unimportant.

wanjun

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/01/2008 10:49:49 PM · #1545

I haven't followed the whole thread. But I thought the issue here wasn't whether Jesus (or insert God of your choice) existed but rather if they did, could they be accepted by the scientific community and vice versa.

from the last few posts though I think I can see that science and theology probably can't coexist in peace. so... calm down chilren.

04/01/2008 11:13:38 PM · #1546

Didn't we already go through this exercise several times? Davy Crockett was a real person that we know existed. It's been said that he wrestled a bear to death when he was three years old- a story told within his lifetime and cross-referenced by subsequent authors. Does that mean he actually did? Paul's claim that Jesus was resurrected goes well beyond that simple example since we only know what someone said Paul claimed to have heard from others. AFIAK, there are no surviving manuscripts literally penned by Paul, who in turn never really knew Jesus.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When do you think this idea that Jesus was resurrected (which it seems you suppose was plagarized from the "golden oldies" of the time) started?

There's really no way to know since there are no firsthand accounts (an especially lousy job of publicity for something so important). The stories we know of may be no more factual than the aforementioned tales of Davy Crockett.

You assume that Paul was "hip to what Luke wrote," but Paul makes no mention of virgin birth, healing the sick, raising other people from the dead, calming storms or feeding 5,000 people (all of which figure prominently in Luke). The ONLY miracle Paul mentions is the resurrection, where Jesus appears to 500 people- an account that appears nowhere in the gospels. There is not a word of Joseph, John the Baptist, or Judas' treachery, and Paul appears to be unfamiliar with many of Jesus' teachings and moral lessons. How is it possible for a contemporary so close to these critical events to be completely ignorant of them? One obvious answer: because those stories hadn't been invented yet.

04/01/2008 11:19:18 PM · #1547

Originally posted by Louis:

I guess what I'm saying is that it is difficult to start stories about someone who existed only years before. Christianity had lots of detractors and there certainly were eyewitnesses around only a decade later. If you decide to say, "hey, Jesus rose from the dead!" there would be lots of people around to say, "you are kidding right? There's his tomb right there idiot!" It is much easier to make up stories about someone who supposedly existed centuries or millenia ago. That way there's no proof against.

All four gospel accounts mention Pontius Pilate. There is plenty of external evidence to say he was proconsul from 26-36 AD. Caiaphas is also mentioned as the high priest and there is external evidence to say he held that office from 18-36 AD. So at the very roughest we have a 10 year period in which Jesus was killed. Luke records John the Baptist's ministy as being " in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea . . ." From external evidence we conclude that year is 29 AD. The gospel of John mentions three specific Passover feasts during Jesus' minstry and he was killed during the last. This puts us around 32 (some say 33) AD. So at the loosest we have external evidence to say it was somewhere between 29-36 AD and we likely know it was around 32-33 AD.

The gospel accounts of Jesus are so completely different from other mythology being mentioned here that it is almost embarassing to think they are merely examples of the same fictionalization. The account of Jesus' death mentions real historical figures, is accurate to the culture and context of the period, paints a bleak and less-than-rosy picture of his closest followers, and uses women (who were felt at the time to be so unreliable as to not be allowed to testify in court) as the first to discover the empty tomb. It's hardly a story I would imagine would be created if people had the liberty to spin their own yarn.

04/01/2008 11:25:57 PM · #1548

Originally posted by scalvert:

You assume that Paul was "hip to what Luke wrote," but Paul makes no mention of virgin birth, healing the sick, raising other people from the dead, calming storms or feeding 5,000 people (all of which figure prominently in Luke). The ONLY miracle Paul mentions is the resurrection, where Jesus appears to 500 people- an account that appears nowhere in the gospels. There is not a word of Joseph, John the Baptist, or Judas' treachery, and Paul appears to be unfamiliar with many of Jesus' teachings and moral lessons. How is it possible for a contemporary so close to these critical events to be completely ignorant of them? One obvious answer: because those stories hadn't been invented yet.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Paul seems quite aware of these details. He is too busy however, supporting and building the church to write out all the details of which the members were likely well aware. So you are telling me that people had invented the idea that Jesus died and was resurrected, and was betrayed all by themselves and only later were all the other details added? That makes very little sense to me. I don't want to go down that rabbit hole though. I started talking about Jesus' resurrection and that's what we're dealing with. My supposition is that this belief was held almost immediately after his death and that such an audacious claim about a real man to have developed so quickly is unparalleled in history. Scholars can wax eloquently about the similarities between the story and other mythology, but that means nothing. So what? Who cares? There are lots of ancient stories of genocide and mass murder. Does that make the holocaust a fictional event?

Message edited by author 2008-04-01 23:32:12.

04/01/2008 11:48:44 PM · #1549

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess what I'm saying is that it is difficult to start stories about someone who existed only years before.

But if he didn't exist at all, it would be trivial.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

All four gospel accounts mention Pontius Pilate....Caiaphas...Passover feasts...

A text that indicates a contemporary and historically verifiable figure or city or event does not automatically make that text itself historically verified.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The gospel accounts of Jesus are so completely different from other mythology being mentioned here....

They are? Are you as familiar with those ancient religions as well?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... and uses women (who were felt at the time to be so unreliable as to not be allowed to testify in court) as the first to discover the empty tomb.

That's not so unique. The mysteries of Dionysus were revealed to women. Women were its main adherents, as were slaves, two of the most marginalized groups in Hellenic society.