Atheistic Meme re: Good Friday--Your Thoughts?

[PRmerger]

Mark, or whoever he got the story from. I can only guess at the motives.

Now, this was written within 1 generation of the event.

If Mark lied, there was a whole generation of people who could have simply spoken up and said, “Emm…hold your horses. This is a bald-faced lie. That man did not die. Here’s his burial place. Here’s his bones.”

Yet not a single person was able to offer any refutation of this account.

It would have been sooooo easy to refute. Just go to the tomb. Provide some tangle proof in calcium.

It’s so credulous to embrace any other explanation.

 

[PRmerger]

The Gospels would be the main source, and things like questionable authorship, historical implausibilities, and apparent myth making cause me to doubt.

I’d like to point out how circular this is: “I don’t believe in the Gospels because they contain myths” and “The resurrection is a myth. It’s in the Gospel, therefore I don’t believe the Gospels.”

 

[PRmerger]

Most of them come from the second century or later and there are contradictions among several of the accounts.

Can you offer some of them?

(And let’s be clear about our definitions. For it to be a contradiction one text should claim “A” and the other text should assert “Not-A”.)

 

[meltzerboy]

Now I’m just helping you connect the dots.

You simply can’t be a secular humanist who acknowledges objective morality, and remain a secular humanist.

It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t believe that cows are mammals, but I do acknowledge that all female mammals can produce milk”.

Albert Camus became a secular humanist and acknowledged objective morality. His objective morality was based on human values which we all share. This is one of the essential features of humanism. Further, there are several variations of humanism, and the concept has a long and complex history.

 

[PRmerger]

Albert Camus became a secular humanist and acknowledged objective morality. His objective morality was based on human values which we all share. This is one of the essential features of humanism. Further, there are several variations of humanism, and the concept has a long and complex history.

Oh, to be sure you “can” be a secular humanist and acknowledge objective morality.

But only by way of obfuscating one’s logic.

Again, it’s like saying, “I don’t believe that cows are mammals, but I do acknowledge that all female mammals can produce milk”.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Now, this was written within 1 generation of the event.

If Mark lied, there was a whole generation of people who could have simply spoken up and said, “Emm…hold your horses. This is a bald-faced lie. That man did not die. Here’s his burial place. Here’s his bones.”

Yet not a single person was able to offer any refutation of this account.

It would have been sooooo easy to refute. Just go to the tomb. Provide some tangle proof in calcium.

It’s so credulous to embrace any other explanation.

If memory serves, the life expectancy at the time was that if you survived childhood – which was a big if – then you had a 50/50 chance of making it to your mid-40’s; your chances of seeing each additional year after that plummeted pretty quickly. Since Mark was written 30+ years after the crucifixion at best, we can expect that a lot of the people who would have been around at the time were dead already.

Of the ones who were left, what would be the motivating factor to go as far as to write a refutation of the people going around saying there was an empty tomb because Jesus resurrected? Most who heard it would have just dismissed it and gone about their lives. If someone did write a refutation, who would want it, let alone copy and preserve it? For most people, it would be telling them something they already knew.

Consider this: Mormonism has been effectively debunked as far as its major historical claims go. Any fair-minded examination of the evidence would lead one to conclude that it is a fabrication created by a con man. And yet the Mormon Church continues to grow in the US. It’s one of the few Christian denominations (I know, it’s debatable to call them “Christian”; I don’t really care and am not going to debate that point) that is growing. It’s growth has slowed of late, but it’s better than the decline that so many others are seeing. And this is with a religion that has been thoroughly debunked. So is it really so unthinkable that something like the story of an empty tomb could take hold an spread, even if it was easily debunked?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I’d like to point out how circular this is: “I don’t believe in the Gospels because they contain myths” and “The resurrection is a myth. It’s in the Gospel, therefore I don’t believe the Gospels.”

Is that really how you read what I wrote? Try this instead :

1. If a historical document has questionable authorship and contains historical implausibilities and apparent myths, the contents of that document should be viewed with suspicion.
2. The Gospels are historical documents with questionable authorship that contain historical implausibilities and apparent myths.

3.Therefore the contents of the Gospels should be viewed with suspicion.

You are, of course, free to disagree with either premise, but that is not a circular argument.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Can you offer some of them?

(And let’s be clear about our definitions. For it to be a contradiction one text should claim “A” and the other text should assert “Not-A”.)

According to Pseudo-Hyppolytus, five of the twelve apostles were not martyred but died natural deaths (John, Matthew, Jude, Simon, and Matthias).
Bartholomew was supposedly either beaten and drowned, or beaten and beheaded, or skinned alive and crucified.
Matthias supposedly either died a natural death, was stoned and beheaded in Jerusalem, or was crucified in Ethiopia.
Simon the zealot was supposedly either sawn in half in Persia, crucified in Samaria, or martyred in Georgia, or died a natural death.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m also not convinced that Joseph of Arimathea is a historical person.

Ok.

This is, presumably, because there’s no other mention of him in any other historical texts, yes?

If so, do you hold the same standard for all other persons of antiquity? You need at least 5 independent texts which attest to the existence of a particular individual?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems implausible that Jesus would have died so quickly and his body removed so soon.

Jesus would have died so quickly? He was tortured—beaten, scourged…and CRUCIFIED–but you think he died “so quickly”?

This is a peculiar comment.

I’ve also heard some atheists claim that Jesus took too long to die and this makes it implausible.

What’s the perfect amount of time from imprisonment to death from crucifixion that is “plausible” to you? And can you cite some evidence to tell us how you came to this conclusion?

Reminds me of the objections atheists have made: “The universe is way too big to make it plausible for a God to have created it!” AND! “The universe is way too small to make it plausible for God to have created it!”

 

[PRmerger]

If memory serves, the life expectancy at the time was that if you survived childhood – which was a big if – then you had a 50/50 chance of making it to your mid-40’s; your chances of seeing each additional year after that plummeted pretty quickly. Since Mark was written 30+ years after the crucifixion at best, we can expect that a lot of the people who would have been around at the time were dead already.

You seem to be starting from the idea that no one proclaimed the resurrection until 30 years after the crucifixion.

This is contradicted by the historical texts.

Let’s start from the fact that the resurrection of Christ (whether it actually happened or not) started being professed from the very beginning.

Now how do you refute the fact that if it were a lie people wouldn’t come forth and just go to the tomb of the dead and buried Jesus?

Of the ones who were left, what would be the motivating factor to go as far as to write a refutation of the people going around saying there was an empty tomb because Jesus resurrected? Most who heard it would have just dismissed it and gone about their lives.

Source for this in bold, please.

 

[PRmerger]

Consider this: Mormonism has been effectively debunked as far as its major historical claims go. Any fair-minded examination of the evidence would lead one to conclude that it is a fabrication created by a con man. And yet the Mormon Church continues to grow in the US. It’s one of the few Christian denominations (I know, it’s debatable to call them “Christian”; I don’t really care and am not going to debate that point) that is growing. It’s growth has slowed of late, but it’s better than the decline that so many others are seeing. And this is with a religion that has been thoroughly debunked. So is it really so unthinkable that something like the story of an empty tomb could take hold an spread, even if it was easily debunked?

This is true–people will continue to believe contrary to facts. Mormonism is one example.
(I happen to think atheism/secular humanism is also an example of this)

However, are we agreed that Christianity is a religion which could be thoroughly, effectively and conclusively debunked through one very simple means: providing the bones of the dead Jesus.

Yes?

Yet no one, in 2000 years, has ever been able to do this.

Yes?

How was it that the Jews/Romans/Secular Humanists of ancient Palestine debunked the resurrection?

 

[PRmerger]

Is that really how you read what I wrote? Try this instead :

1. If a historical document has questionable authorship and contains historical implausibilities and apparent myths, the contents of that document should be viewed with suspicion.
2. The Gospels are historical documents with questionable authorship that contain historical implausibilities and apparent myths.

3.Therefore the contents of the Gospels should be viewed with suspicion.

You are, of course, free to disagree with either premise, but that is not a circular argument.

You are begging the question, KtS.

You view the gospels with suspicion because you already have the preconceived idea that it contains myth.

Also, just to provide some confirmation of your consistency, do you doubt the authorship of all ancient documents, too? Or just the Christian ones.

 

[PRmerger]

According to Pseudo-Hyppolytus, five of the twelve apostles were not martyred but died natural deaths (John, Matthew, Jude, Simon, and Matthias).

Oh! Well, here’s a nice example of what I was just asking for above.

Can you provide some proof of his authorship? And also proof that this is not a myth?

Why do you apparently believe in the authorship of this text (also, can you provide a source for this text? Thanks) but doubt the authorship of any of the NT documents?

 

[PRmerger]

According to Pseudo-Hyppolytus, five of the twelve apostles were not martyred but died natural deaths (John, Matthew, Jude, Simon, and Matthias).
Bartholomew was supposedly either beaten and drowned, or beaten and beheaded, or skinned alive and crucified.
Matthias supposedly either died a natural death, was stoned and beheaded in Jerusalem, or was crucified in Ethiopia.
Simon the zealot was supposedly either sawn in half in Persia, crucified in Samaria, or martyred in Georgia, or died a natural death.

Also, when you mentioned contradictions, were you referring to contradictions in the gospels or in other historical texts?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

You seem to be starting from the idea that no one proclaimed the resurrection until 30 years after the crucifixion.

No, I’m not saying that. I’m still only talking about the empty tomb here.

Source for this in bold, please.

Do you think it’s more likely that the most common reaction would be for people to go try and find the corpse?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This is true–people will continue to believe contrary to facts. Mormonism is one example.
(I happen to think atheism/secular humanism is also an example of this)

However, are we agreed that Christianity is a religion which could be thoroughly, effectively and conclusively debunked through one very simple means: providing the bones of the dead Jesus.

Yes?

Yet no one, in 2000 years, has ever been able to do this.

Yes?

How was it that the Jews/Romans/Secular Humanists of ancient Palestine debunked the resurrection?

I’m not sure you’re understanding my point in bringing up the Mormons. I’m pointing out that the fact that a religion can be easily debunked does not mean that it will not still gain converts. Even if someone did manage to identify Jesus’ remains – and I’m not sure that they could have, or that anyone would be motivated to bother – there could still be converts because there would have been people who wouldn’t have bothered to check.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

You are begging the question, KtS.

You view the gospels with suspicion because you already have the preconceived idea that it contains myth.

Do you think it’s possible to identify a myth?

Also, just to provide some confirmation of your consistency, do you doubt the authorship of all ancient documents, too? Or just the Christian ones.

I think there’s a degree of uncertainty with all ancient documents, so I maintain some level of skepticism in the sense that it wouldn’t be earth-shattering to me if I found out that scholars doubted this or that. With some things, like the writings of Seneca, I have very little doubt. With something like Homer, much more.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Oh! Well, here’s a nice example of what I was just asking for above.

Can you provide some proof of his authorship? And also proof that this is not a myth?

No. I have no clue who wrote it or if it’s reliable. In fact, I really doubt that it is. But that’s not the point. It’s an account of the alleged fates of the apostles, and it’s one that contradicts many other accounts, and that’s what you asked for examples of.

(also, can you provide a source for this text? Thanks)

newadvent.org/fathers/0524.htm

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Also, when you mentioned contradictions, were you referring to contradictions in the gospels or in other historical texts?

The Gospels don’t contain any accounts of the alleged martyrdoms of any of the apostles, so I’m talking about other historical texts.