Proof: impossible I think...maybe

[anEvilAtheist]

According to this construct, which I think is a fairly good albeit unsuitable for explaining all acquisition of knowledge/beliefs (I don’t imagine any construct could succeed in that) then I am also a follower of Spartan meritocracy.

And that has been my experience. You may or may not credit it (!) but my choosing an active Christianity in my life, and my later becoming a Catholic Christian, are examples of me revising my assumptions about my existence.

Yeah, I guess any such construct will be somewhat of a simplification, but it seems pretty good. I thought you might be a follower of Spartan meritocracy. You certainly did not strike me as someone who had blind faith and ignored the evidence. Both Catholics and atheists can hold that position, it’s just a matter of what evidence you’ve been exposed to and how you interpret it.

At the risk of being nitpicky, I would have to point out that there is a relatively small number of things that the Church teaches infallibly. There are considerably more that she teaches authoritatively, but that’s a very different claim: governments proclaim authoritatively, but not infallibly.

I know that there are very few times the pope has spoken ex cathedra, but haven’t there been a decent number of teachings from the various ecumenical councils? If you know more about it, I’d be interested in finding out about how much is really infallible.

There are certainly no shortage of fundamentalists in most walks of life who are uncritical of their significant beliefs; there are also others who worry them to death and never find peace of mind, which seems unproductive to me (I’ve just participated in a thread which evidenced that tendency). However, there is an issue of logical primacy here. If one accepts a default worldview, experience will tautologically be shaped and understood through that prism. So it’s not surprising that it remains firm in the face of experience.

I completely agree.

That isn’t reserved for Catholics. I think if Dawkins had a vision of the Blessed Virgin, he would dismiss it as another pesky meme passed on to him by some undesirable type.

Dawkins claims that he believes it is possible that God exists, but I think you are right to question whether, if God exists, anything could ever convince him.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I understand your reservations expressed elsewhere as to how far scripture can prove the validity of a religion. By the same token, what ‘proof’ would be substantial enough to dissuade us Christians of the nature of an event occurring 2000 years ago? You aren’t convinced by the evidence that suggests the resurrection, so why would I be convinced by evidence that suggests otherwise? The historiographical restrictions that stop something being universally convincing would also stop it becoming universally disbelieved simply because some putative contrary evidence emerges.

Nothing, just because there are alternative explanations does not mean that the religious explanation is false. However, it is certainly one thing to consider. If there was no evidence at all that Christianity were true and evidence that it was probably false, it would make sense to reject Christianity (assuming Christianity being true wasn’t one of your initial assumptions). If there is no convincing proof either way, as may be the case, we just need to consider the evidence as a whole.

‘Cling’ is a judgemental word, by the way. I’ve often heard it said that atheists ‘cling’ to their disbelief. Typically I assume good faith, as I’m sure do you.

Thanks for catching this. I apologize. I realize now that it’s typically used in a pejorative context (Obama’s comments etc.) Although I do think it is better to consider modifying one’s beliefs instead of sticking with old ones that seem to have been disproven, I did not mean to be overly judgmental. I guess you could say holding firm and resolute in their faith instead, though then it seems like I think that it is better to never revise your beliefs.

I taked before about what is ‘reasonable’, which you rightly pointed out is a vague term. I would define it a sense of the inherent (rather than slight) possibility of its being true - not a certainty, but an idea with potential. The radical atheist position is to argue that belief in God is stupid and unscientific. Without rehearing the ‘first cause’ arguments of philosophy, I would say that the proposition that there is agency in the creation of, well, creation itself, is not an unreasonable possibility. And I find it much more reasonable than the unscientific claim of some scientists that everything there is came into being spontaneously without obvious cause.

This is not proof of God’s existence, which as you say, is setting the bar much too high. But it is, to me, a reasonable starting point. And I’ve yet to hear an equally reasonable alternative.

Your definition of reasonable seems reasonable.

Though I do think that by your definition a belief can be stupid and still reasonable. For example, a friend of mine could say that he believes that he will win the next ten lotteries that he enters. It is definitely possible that this belief is true, but I think I would rightly call this belief stupid. Would it actually happening mean that I was wrong to call his belief stupid? I would argue no.

By your definition, and many others, I would agree that it is reasonable that the universe could have been created by an active agent. I am no expert on cosmology, but to me I think that matter eternally existing (such as under loop quantum cosmology) seems intuitively more reasonable than matter starting at a given point in time. However in matters of cosmology, I do not know how reliable my gut feelings are since I do not have personal experience of how things behave when they are ridiculously big or ridiculously small. For example, before I knew that things became bigger and moved faster through time when going at very fast speeds, I would have found that belief unreasonable. I have no frame of reference at all for beginning to comprehend how things might work when there is absolute nothingness, not even any empty space.

Filling in all those blanks about what this agent of creation might be like then becomes the province of theology, which in some ways is a troubled area of study because it takes something very non-specific - revelation - and tries to look at it specifically and systematically. But theology has certainly aided me in my understanding of God by helping me to ask the right questions.

I generally agree with you here, but even if I thought that some agent created the universe, it wouldn’t follow that we’d be able to find out anything about him.

Then we have another thing in common, because so am I. I find the other positions self-defeating, and in any event, it puts me in the company of great Christian philosophers like Duns Scotus.

Best wishes to you for a good week ahead.

I should really check out more of his work. I hope things also go well for you.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It is apparent from a review of much of the Bible that for the ancients, “historical fiction” = “non-fiction.” It appears that they used to play fast and loose with details to teach.

I agree that they played “fast and loose with details to teach”, and that’s one thing I respect about a lot of Catholics, you do not think that every detail in every story is literally true. However, couldn’t the miraculous things Jesus supposedly did also have been added in order to teach (or for some other reason)?

Come on, friend: I saw your analysis up above. You are a good person with a brain. What I’m showing you here isn’t a lot of junk. You’re looking at a genuine miracle which the literalists here will never understand. Give God a chance. This is real.

I’ll just have to disagree with you on this. I think that most people do not realize how easy it is to perceive meaning or patterns when they do not exist. For example, some people really get into Theomatics and think that numerical patterns in the bible indicate divine inspiration. However, people find the same amount of these patterns in non-religious material. I just don’t see how the example you gave is much different than this or why it should be seen as good evidence.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Glad to hear from you again.

You are proposing a heuristic mechanism to determine good and bad that lacks an ability to accurately forecast cause and effect within any reasonable accuracy even within one’s own lifetime. That cannot “play well” with the longer lived universe’s order where humanity is only a late comer. Clearly, long before man arrived the universe was doing just well following its own natural law and could do no wrong/bad since material outcomes are of no consequence to life that does not yet exist; that is unless you want to elevate galaxies and star systems annihilating and recycling themselves to a cosmological equivalent of murder.

Well, we have to have some definition of good and evil in order for the terms to have meaning. I think that defining good and evil as making things better or worse is a reasonable definition. Of course there are tons of disputes over what makes things better and what makes things worse. This definition seems compatible with pretty much any religious beliefs.

In order for an action to be good or evil, you need to have some agent doing it. You can’t say the stars are evil, or hurricanes are evil (though you could say that God is evil for allowing hurricanes if they make things worse overall).

What is clear is that natural law is built into every aspect of the universe and to break the natural law is decidedly “bad” since it goes against the natural order. Homosexuality would be one such disordered condition since it is not constructive nor unitive. How would an atheist apply a moral code to disordered expressions of human emotions ot would you all just let nature take care of the consequences (STDs HIV etc.)?

I disagree that homosexuality is immoral, but that’s a debate for another day. Not all atheists agree on which moral system is correct, since atheism does not specify a specific morality. Also, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “apply a moral code to disordered expressions of human emotions ot would you all just let nature take care of the consequences.”

This is a non-sequitur. You have not defined evil so can’t equate it with pain and suffering. Is the small pain associate with cutting new teeth as evil as the pain of child birth? Is all evil equivalent? Is making less than optimum decisions evil or need we only concern ourselves with our own lifetimes and personal consequences? To develop a taxonomy of evil I think you will find that you have to develop a philosophy that will step into religious belief or idealism that is not formally defined in the current natural order. Feel like playing the role of a secular Moses to be a law giver?

You’re right; I do not claim to know for sure what is good and what is evil in every circumstance. I certainly think that inflicting a mild amount of pain on someone for no reason is evil, but much less evil than cutting off their arm for example. As I have said before, I am currently looking into a couple different types of utilitarianism to see if any of them make sense. Atheism has no law giver, nor does it need one. I am a moderate realist, as mentioned earlier, and I do not think that there needs to be some big book in the sky, or some realm, in which universals like redness, beauty, and evil exist. I merely think that redness, beauty, and evil are properties of individual things or actions in our world. I think that it is a major assumption that there could not be properties like color unless there was a God. Similarly, I do not see why good and evil could not exist without God. However, just because good and evil exist does not mean that we can always know which is which. But this can also be a problem for religious people. Unless you have absolute certainty that your religion is correct, you have a similar problem. Also, there are some moral dilemmas in which it is unclear what would be good according to Catholicism. The pope does not rule infallibly on every issue, and there are some situations where it is unclear which action is good. So we are really in the same boat. If an atheist feels certain that a specific moral system is true and that system provides him guidance in some circumstances, but not in others, it’s similar to someone who thinks that a specific religion’s conception of morality is true and that it provides guidance in some, but not all, circumstances.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Perhaps there have been a few rare cases of this in modern history. But I suspect that there are a lot more who have killed themselves for lacking any sense of purpose in a Godless society where there is not much reason to exist except to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Even if the cases are rare, they demonstrate a very important point. We have no way of knowing if what they did was good or evil. And if God tells you to commit genocide, it seems like you should do it (based on what you believe). I’m sure there have been people who killed themselves who might not have done so if they had believed in God. However, you cannot blame all types of atheism for this any more than you can blame all religions for religious suicide cults. Some stances on morality and meaning, such as nihilism, could lead one to suicide, but there are plenty of atheists who love life. And even if atheism did lead to more people committing suicide across the board, this would be no evidence of whether or not it was true.

So you don’t want to believe in God because you are afraid that people will abuse that belief? Would you propose outlawing religious belief to put your fears to rest if we had it your way and we all became atheists?

No, I don’t believe in God because I don’t think there’s any good reason to think he exists. I don’t think I ever said I thought it would be better if we all became atheists. I certainly don’t think it should be outlawed. Even if we were just talking about converting everyone voluntarily, some people have come to rely a great deal on their faith and for such people it may be better for them to keep their belief, even if it is false.

Your logic pains me and that is “bad” to me. If God permits both good and evil it is a non-sequitur to assume from transparent cause and effect that these concepts can exist independent of God. Perhaps God simply does not want to be compelled to respond to sinners nor saints in the temporal terms that THEY would demand and expect. Children do that all the time with their parents - either brown nose or cut up to get attention. I doubt a sovereign God would want to subject himself to too much of that sort of yoyo game. So don’t confuse what is seemingly transparent cause and effect for equivalence with “no consequence” (good or bad) just because the effect is grounded outside your sensory bandwith of perception.

Well I obviously did not fully flush out the argument. I will try to explain it better, but if you’re really interested, I recommend you read up on the Euthyphro dilemma, assuming you haven’t already. From your perspective, good and evil definitely exist. Either God created them or he did not. If he did not, then they can exist without being created. So if the universe can exist without God, then so can morality. I didn’t get some of what you were saying in this paragraph, but if you could clarify it a little, I’ll try to address it.

Ok good - we have a minimal basis for further dialog.

But how long do we wait around to see if anything contradicts our ideas or do we just put up a perimeter wall of assumptions on everything we do to protect ourselves from being legally culpable for our own incompetence? Hmm, I just broached a concept of “punishment”. Who gets to to judge and who gets to paddle the offenders and how hard?

I think we should always act upon the best information we have at the time. We can constantly revise our assumptions as we learn more. And yes, I do not believe that we will be punished after we die for any evil deeds that we do. Many may want Hitler to be rotting in hell right now, just like many people want there to be an all-powerful being that loves them, but the truth isn’t always what we want it to be.

 

[wasmit]

I did not want to display the argument unless you were still around and expressed an interest.

Here is the first one:

Hundreds of years befire the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans, Genesis 3 foreshadows the crucifixion…

God says to the Satan serpent, “15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head [when the cross pierces the dust at ‘Skull Place,’ get it?], while you strike at his heel [when the nails pierce his feet, get it?].” Genesis 3:15.

It seems highly unlikely that this could have occurred in the Jewish books of the Bible unless there is a God.

this section:

"And I will put enmity between thee(1) and the woman(2), and between thy seed(3) and her seed(4); it shall bruise thy head(5), and thou shalt bruise his heel(6). "

actually refers to

(1) menelaus king of sparta
(2) Helen of troy (Menelaus’ wife), the face that lauched 1000 ships.
(3) achaeans/greeks/spartans
(4) trojans/persians
(5) Troy being sacked through “(name removed by moderator)enetrable” walls.
(6) Achilles being shot with a poison arrow in his heel.

As you can see, my interpretation is far more accurate and reliable than yours.

It seems highly unlikely that this could have occurred in the Jewish books of the Bible unless the Greek Gods are real.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

this section:

"And I will put enmity between thee(1) and the woman(2), and between thy seed(3) and her seed(4); it shall bruise thy head(5), and thou shalt bruise his heel(6). "

actually refers to

(1) menelaus king of sparta
(2) Helen of troy (Menelaus’ wife), the face that lauched 1000 ships.
(3) achaeans/greeks/spartans
(4) trojans/persians
(5) Troy being sacked through “(name removed by moderator)enetrable” walls.
(6) Achilles being shot with a poison arrow in his heel.

As you can see, my interpretation is far more accurate and reliable than yours.

It seems highly unlikely that this could have occurred in the Jewish books of the Bible unless the Greek Gods are real.

I only revealed a part of the interpretation. It goes on. It also foreshadows the sweating in the Garden of Gethsemane, the crown of thorns, and the Eucharistic bread.

 

[wasmit]

Hi, EvilAtheist.

Even if one maintains that the crudifixion did not take place, an honest skeptic still has to answer to himself (not to me or anyone else here) why the Jewish books of the OT foreshadow a crucifixion-like event again and again and again and again and again, even if you have doubts about Roman history. (And don’t. They have unearthed crucifixion victims from graves in Jerusalem dating to the Roman period.)

Here is another one. I am going to skip over to one of the more obvious crucifixion foreshagowings…

8 At Rephidim, Amalek came and waged war against Israel.
9 Moses, therefore, said to Joshua, “Pick out certain men, and tomorrow go out and engage Amalek in battle. I will be standing on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.”
10 So Joshua did as Moses told him: he engaged Amalek in battle after Moses had climbed to the top of the hill with Aaron and Hur.
11 As long as Moses kept his hands raised up, Israel had the better of the fight, but when he let his hands rest, Amalek had the better of the fight.
12 Moses’ hands, however, grew tired; so they put a rock in place for him to sit on. Meanwhile Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other, so that his hands remained steady till sunset.
13 And Joshua mowed down Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. Exodus 17:8-13.

Okay, it is clear from the text that Moses is on top of a hill, between two men, while Moses hold a stick up high over his head with two hands, not one. One of the things not obvious in the English translation is that the hill is called a roshe, one of the Hebrew terms for the head of an animal or human.

So, you have a man standing on a “head place,” so to speak, hands over his head on wood, between two men, and from this the power of God issues to defeat a kind of “evil”…
wcg.org/lit/bible/law/art/etwog35.jpg

…instead of Christ on Skull Place hands over his head on wood, between two thieves, and from this the power of God issues to defeat evil…
possessthevision.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crucifixion.jpg

You’re drawing a laughably long bow.

This passage could just as easily “predict” the trojan war, where the greeks would never lose as long as achilles was on the battle field.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is it possible for a single “Truth,” whether Catholic tradition, atheism, or another religion be actually proven. I just want to hear examples. Also, if you can prove that proof is possible that would be equally appreciated and probably more respected.

(I am going to try to disprove all of these proofs, not because I think they are wrong, but because I think it helps me understand the issue better, and I think it is good sport, brain teasers you know).

i can prove the rational existence of the non-physical, thats the first step to proof of G-d. to wit.

premise

there is no physical process for self causation, if something does not exist, it cannot act to cause its own existence.

conclusion

by process of elimination, the origins of the physical universe can only be explained by non-physical processes.

there is proof that things exist that are not physical.

that said, i think proof is entirely possible.

 

[CentralFLJames]

i can prove the rational existence of the non-physical, thats the first step to proof of G-d. to wit.

premise

there is no physical process for self causation, if something does not exist, it cannot act to cause its own existence.

conclusion

by process of elimination, the origins of the physical universe can only be explained by non-physical processes.

there is proof that things exist that are not physical.

that said, i think proof is entirely possible.

I think I have bad news and good news. The bad news is I think it has an arbitrary assumption in a preference for the physical domain. The good news is I think if that assumption is eliminated then it proves God exists.

So, playing devil’s advocate we could assert that self causation does not necessitate a physical process if the nature of self has a non-physical dimension (e.g. we have a duality of natures - spiritual and physical). Ergo, it is therefor entirely possible that a spiritual process exists for self causation. The consequence of this assertion is that it taken with your proof essentially proves God or else an innate ability for each human or material think to spontaneously self-create.



James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I have bad news and good news. The bad news is I think it has an arbitrary assumption in a preference for the physical domain. The good news is I think if that assumption is eliminated then it proves God exists.

So, playing devil’s advocate we could assert that self causation does not necessitate a physical process if the nature of self has a non-physical dimension (e.g. we have a duality of natures - spiritual and physical). Ergo, it is therefor entirely possible that a spiritual process exists for self causation. The consequence of this assertion is that it taken with your proof essentially proves God or else an innate ability for each human or material think to spontaneously self-create.



James

indeed a non-physical origin is the only possible explanation. i think that there are certain truths that seem so obvious, but are subtler than we collectively realize. e.g. causation and its implications concerning theism

that implication of course being that theism is an entirely rational position to hold, it is atheism that lacks substance and foundation.

as to the physical preference, it must, the audience understands the world in those terms.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

indeed a non-physical origin is the only possible explanation.

I don’t think you’ve shown this to be so, either in this thread or in the one you created. Since you are making a similar argument in that thread, I suggest that we discuss this over there.

 

[cranster]

You’re making a big assumption in saying that there was an empty tomb. Biblical scholars are very divided about whether or not there was an empty tomb. I do not think there is any real evidence that the tomb was empty. You make a valid point about showing people the body, but I see a few problems with this. One possible objection is that the Jews did not know where Jesus was buried and therefore could not have done this. Another is that you are making the assumption that as soon as Jesus died, the Jews would immediately try to show everyone his body. It seems far more realistic that they would have no reason to think it was even worth their time until months later when the apostles really began to spread stories of the resurrection and began to win larger groups of converts. .

You are likewise making a very large assumption that the Jews thought it a waste of time to ensure the integrity of the body’s location at every moment following death. They knew He said that He was going to rise on the 3rd day after His death, that’s why they asked Pilate to place a guard at the tomb. Precisely to prevent His disciples from stealing it, so the claim of resurrection could not be made. Decay should not have been an issue because they could easily have said we’ve had a watch on the body every moment since death, and here it lay. He did not rise, it was all a lie. End of Christianity.

11 of Jesus closest associates submitted themselves to brutal torture and murder because of their belief in the resurrection. Please explain how a person could do that based on a lie. How could 1 person die for a lie let alone 11?

The earliest Church was imprisoned, beaten and, or executed. There were neither material, nor status gain for the earliest followers. The only thing they could rationally expect from either the Romans or the Jews was torture and death based on spreading this new religion. In that light which was reality at the time give a cogent explanation of the rise of Christianity if it was based on a lie.

 

[wasmit]

11 of Jesus closest associates submitted themselves to brutal torture and murder because of their belief in the resurrection. Please explain how a person could do that based on a lie. How could 1 person die for a lie let alone 11?

The earliest Church was imprisoned, beaten and, or executed. There were neither material, nor status gain for the earliest followers. The only thing they could rationally expect from either the Romans or the Jews was torture and death based on spreading this new religion. In that light which was reality at the time give a cogent explanation of the rise of Christianity if it was based on a lie.

how do you know that any of these 11 people you mention were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed” ? For example, in the great fire of rome in 64, it seems likely that Nero used the christians as scapegoats to appease the populace, and killed the christians while ignoring their words.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

how do you know that any of these 11 people you mention were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed” ? For example, in the great fire of rome in 64, it seems likely that Nero used the christians as scapegoats to appease the populace, and killed the christians while ignoring their words.

they could simply deny being Christains, they lived like that for decades. they didnt have to suffer for years, lead lives of scorn deprivation and torture, they chose to.

 

[wasmit]

they could simply deny being Christains, they lived like that for decades. they didnt have to suffer for years, lead lives of scorn deprivation and torture, they chose to.

how do you know that any of these 11 people you mention were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed” ?

 

[cranster]

how do you know that any of these 11 people you mention were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed” ? For example, in the great fire of rome in 64, it seems likely that Nero used the christians as scapegoats to appease the populace, and killed the christians while ignoring their words.

I didn’t say they were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed”, but now that you mention it. This is taken from religion facts.

In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, “for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished.” However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as “unworthy of our times,” and if they recanted and “worshipped our gods,” they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished.

Here is an account of the martyrdom of Saint Cyprian,

The Act of Martyrdom of St. Cyprian

In Carthage; exile, 257 AD; death, 258 AD

On the morning of September 14 a large crowd gathered at Sesti by order of proconsul Galerius Maximus. And the same proconsul Galerius Maximus ordered that Cyprian should be brought to the hearing which he conducted on that same day in the Sauciolus Hall.

St. Cyprian

When Bishop Cyprian stood before him, the proconsul said to him, “Are you Tascius Ciprianus?”

Bishop Cyprian answered, “Yes, I am.”

Proconsul Galerius Maximus said, “Are you the one who has presented himself as the leader of a sacrilegious sect?”

Bishop Cyprian answered, “I am.”

Galerius Maximus said, “The most holy emperors bid you to sacrifice.”

Bishop Cyprian said, “I will not do it.”

Proconsul Galerius Maximus said, “Think it over.”

Bishop Cyprian said, “Do what you have been ordered to do. In such a just cause there is nothing to think over.”

Galerius Maximus, after conferring with the college of magistrates, with difficulty and unwillingly pronounced this sentence: "You have long lived sacrilegiously and have gathered many in your criminal sect, and set yourself up as an enemy of the Roman gods and of their religious rites. The pious and most holy Augusti emperors Valerian and Gallienus, and Valerian most noble Caesar, failed to bring you back to the observance of their religious ceremonies.

“Therefore, since you have been seen to be the instigator of the worst of crimes, we shall make an example of you before those whom you have associated with yourself in these wicked actions. The respect for the law will be sanctioned by your blood.” Having said this he read out in a loud voice from a tablet the decree: “I order that Tascius Ciprianus be punished by being beheaded”.

Bishop Cyprian said: ‘Thanks be to God’.

Emperor Valeriano
Following the sentence, the crowd of Christian brethren said, “We want to be beheaded with him.” At this there was great agitation among the brethren and a large crowd followed him. Thus Cyprian was led into the countryside of Sesti, and there he took off his cloak and hood, knelt on the ground and prostrated himself in prayer to the Lord. He then removed his dalmatic and gave it to the deacons, leaving himself only in his linen garment, and so waited for the executioner.

When the latter arrived, the bishop ordered his own followers to give the executioner twenty-five gold pieces. Meanwhile his brethren held out pieces of cloth and handkerchiefs to receive the blood as relics. Then the great Cyprian with his own hands bandaged his eyes, but since he could not tie the corners of the handkerchief, presbyter Julian and subdeacon Julian went to help him.

Thus bishop Cyprian was martyred and his body, because of the curiosity of the pagans, was placed in a place nearby where it was hidden from their indiscreet eyes. It was then carried away at night with lighted flares and torches and accompanied as far as the cemetery of procurator Macrobius Candidianus, which is in the ‘Huts’ Road near the Baths. A few days later, proconsul Galerius Maximus died.

 

[cranster]

There clearly was something extraordinarily profound that happened 2000 years ago during the last 3 years of a man who died a criminals death to cause people to be willing to die for him. It was either extremely bizarrely the greatest lie ever told for which people were unconscionably willing to die for. Or He did indeed rise from the dead indicating He’s nothing less than God! To me it’s too much of a stretch that so many people would willingly die for a lie, but rather applying Ocham’s razor the simplest explanation is that these people in truth believed He did rise from the dead. That explanation is the only thing that can give the necessary weight of martyrdom validity.

To sustain that growth to the present there necessarily must have been something that happened in people’s lives over the centuries for “The Way” to grow into by far the largest religion in the world, or it surely would have died out many centuries ago.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

how do you know that any of these 11 people you mention were made the offer “recant and be set free, or be killed” ?

i dont, the point i am trying to make is that they had an oppurtunity every day to wake up say the heck with this and walk off, but they didnt, they continued to work. they knew Christains were killed, they knew the risks, they were imprisoned, tortured, beaten, left for dead etc. but they did not quit.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You are likewise making a very large assumption that the Jews thought it a waste of time to ensure the integrity of the body’s location at every moment following death. They knew He said that He was going to rise on the 3rd day after His death, that’s why they asked Pilate to place a guard at the tomb. Precisely to prevent His disciples from stealing it, so the claim of resurrection could not be made.

I have a number of problems with this. First of all, I don’t recall making that assumption. I do not claim to know what happened, and was merely presenting alternative theories. Second of all, what evidence is there of the things you just presented as fact? Given the many inconsistencies between the resurrection accounts in the various Gospels, pretty much the only things I think we have halfway decent evidence of is that Pilate had Jesus crucified and some of the disciples thought that Jesus had appeared to them.

So I think you are making some big assumptions. But even if what you said is all true, I don’t see how that shows that there was an empty tomb. Let’s say they made sure the tomb was well guarded and that after Jesus’ burial his disciples had dreams and visions of Jesus. I don’t think we have any reason to assume that they would definitely rush to the tomb to see if Jesus’ body was still there. From hearing accounts of religious experiences of various religions, people are sometimes so certain that they experienced something real that they feel no need to test it and no amount of evidence can dissuade them. If they felt confident that Jesus had appeared to them, they would not have needed to check the tomb (or may have been afraid to check and find that Jesus’ body was still there). And how are we sure that the Jews knew that the disciples thought Jesus had been resurrected before the disciples began spreading that story months later? Even if they did, what would they have done? Even if they considered Christianity a huge thread at that point, I am not sure that there is any way they could have squelched it. They could not have forced the disciples to go to the tomb if they did not want to. I also do not think that spreading rumors that Jesus’ body was still there would have necessarily shaken the disciples’ faith, nor would taking Jesus’ body to the disciples because they may have refused to look at it or may have believed that it was someone else that had been made to look like Jesus.

Decay should not have been an issue because they could easily have said we’ve had a watch on the body every moment since death, and here it lay. He did not rise, it was all a lie. End of Christianity.

Here you seem to be making an assumption that is almost certainly false. You assume that everyone would have taken the word of the Jews. There would be no more evidence left that the body was that of Jesus. But for those who had been convinced by the disciples’ stories of appearances, such a statement by the Jews would be very unconvincing. Clearly the Jews would have had an interest in saying that Jesus was still dead regardless of whether he was resurrected. So I do not think that everyone would suddenly abandon Christianity just because the Jews claimed that it was false.