Question For Touchstone About the Resurrection

[Touchstone]

For “The Catholic”…

"Ok, this is really poor:

(snipe my comments)

LOL, whoah is me I guess it is only my Faith then which causes me to see these things as highly credible peices of imformation. I don’t think it’s “really poor” at all. Obviously you’ve blown me to dust in this , but I do not see it as that. I am very impressed by the evidence for the Resurrection and I don’t think Jesus became a legendization. You appear very . . . eager, if not desperate to prove the realm of the Spirit just by no means *cannot *be real, so you, like many, no matter how much evidence there is in favor of the Faith, it all can simply be explained away. I guess it comes down to let he who has eyes to see.

That may be the case. After being a Christian for more than 30 years, I found it very difficult to find some basis for assigning coherent meaning to “real” for spiritual things, or the supernatural. Maybe that has to be split out into a different thread, but as a devout Christian heavily active in a gung-ho Christian homeschooling group and church, and one looking at a major, life-wrecking crisis (loss of marriage, friends, family relationships, etc.), it was something of a major panic to realize I was unable to build a coherent bridge between “spiritual” and “real”. With all that one the line, much of it still on the line and in jeopardy, I remain stumped, and not for the lack of looking. For quite a while it was priority number one, to save a faith that was in danger of collapse, and all the pain and alienation that would come from that.

I would say I’ve “seen” with those eyes, and over decades, in a fully engaged (if Protestant/fundamentalist, which is an additional problem) way. I understand what you are saying, understand that perspective. Ultimately, though, I am unable to differentiate “seeing” from “imagining I’m seeing” in that mode. If you have a way to avoid that ambiguity, you are one up on me.

(snip my comments)

Again, too many miracles–must ALL be false

The point of those comments is not to suggest that they are all false. I don’t need them to be all false for my point to have force. Rather, the different accounts just need to be similar in terms of their evidential and testimonial support to create a conflict: why do I believe these and not those? Once the groundwork for caprice is laid, the apparent explanation of “brand names” as the basis for accepting miracles shifts the ground. Now, miracles aren’t accepted as miracles based on their own merits, but on the brand names adorning them.

These stories, such as Paris vs. Menelaus, do not hold up against the first 4 “proofs” or credible accounts of the Resurrection I listed, not to mention the following Epistles, the conversion of St. Paul, the testimony of women, and letters of the New Testament, to the spread of Christianity, and the influence of the Church Fathers.

I don’t know why Touchstone, but this has just never really bothered me. The roots of Christianity appear so dramatically different than the mythologies you’re listing, I’d still say that–DID say that before even being a Christian. I guess I just don’t buy into the “too many miracle stories and too many religions means ALL is false” hypothesis.

OK. I understand. If you talk to people who are not invested in any of them, though, historians who aren’t committed to any of the miraculous accounts, or the religions or ideologies they support, what do you think they would say about the uniqueness of the Christian claims? Do you think they find the Christian claims uniquely credible, as you would, if you were not Christian. In my reading, and my experience (being fortunate enough to have access to a couple of “religiously uncommitted” experts on this who will field the occasional question from me), that’s not the case. Christian claims just blend in to the pack, it seems. If you disagree, maybe there’s a way to put some objective testing to that question. That won’t settle anything, but I suspect it may be a kind of caution, or alert that you are indulging in some “confirmation bias” here, seeing Christian claims as more credible because you (subconsciously) want to. In my case, I’m convinced that was my modus operandus, I’m sad to say. That’s why I’m more careful not to mix in outside and non-invested expertise into my judgement than I was before.

As Richard Feynman was quick to point out, “the easiest person to fool is yourself”. That’s a caution I’ve tried to take more and more seriously, the older (and hopefully wiser) I get.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

"By ‘hearsay’, I mean that we only have the testimony of individuals, and individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome and reception of the story. If you ask any litigator how valuable that kind of testimony is in a court of law, you’ll get a clear confirmation of my objection. Talk is cheap, and talk from parties with conflicts of interest is really problematic. In the case of the Jesus cult, we have a group of followers steeped in a desperate, apocalyptic mindset. This is a very shaky foundation for just slightly controversial claims. For something as fantastic as coming back to life after three days dead, it’s just about worthless as a matter of objective history. Think of what we grant to the accounts of other miraculous claims from Hindu or Greek history/myths. Those come also via hearsay, hearsay discounted by vested interests."

Then by “hearsay” you include the wittness who claimed to see Christ Resurrected. Again, I don’t see any comparison with Christianity and other religions such as Hindus or Greeks. Christianity, all together, seems quite logical and “down to earth” to me. And again, I don’t deny every other miracle or supernatural event in other religions. I think, and have always thought that there are, many in fact. but it doesn’t put a bruise on my soul.

In court this talk would be nonesense? Well, today, yes of course. If it really happened, then back then no. But we have no way of judging that do we? This is where Faith comes in, and I don’t mean empty blind faith, but Faith with so many things in favor of it as I have already listed.

I feel . . . sorry for you. I’m sorry, I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I do. I feel a sif my brother in the Lord has gone astray, and I want to get on my knees before you and weep for you. Strange I know, but it’s what the Spirit has filled me with. I will pray for you my fallen away brother, and maybe one day you will return to the Truth.

Let me say, here, that I am not at all offended, and sincerely appreciate the concern and care – love, even – you are willing to extend here. I don’t take that lightly, nor do I think comments like this come from anywhere but the best, earnest intentions. I hope you feel free to speak plainly and frankly with me, even and especially when it’s hard things to hear. As you can probably anticipate from our discussions this far, I do expect you to back up what your saying in a thoughtful way, but while I believe in no God or gods, I fully understand and acknowledge the “evangelist” concern for me, my life on earth, and (what you believe to be) my eternal soul.

Sometimes, emotional appeals are used to bog the conversation down, but earnest declarations like this I will simply accept with an earnest “thank you” in reply.

P.S. I just wanted to end saying "Christianity is quite distinct in that it rose from a Jewish background, which is monotheistic, and it centers around a historical figure who was put to death in a barbaric manner, which is attested in both Christian and non-Christian sources. I believe that the accounts about Jesus in the pages of the New Testament weren’t distilled from fanciful stories about mythological deities. St. Peter wasn’t reprting rumors or speculation, and he certainly wasn’t trusting his future to the likes of Zeus or Osiris. He was only interested in the real Jesus, which he himself, along with so many others witnessed."

May God bless you hugs

I agree that Christianity is unique in that regard. Evidentially, I maintain that it is extremely weak, but there’s no getting around the assessment that Jesus, whatever you make of him (Richard Carrier doesn’t think he even existed, for example), is a “one of a kind” character.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

**"But now that you are willing to walk out on that plank, we’re not nearly finished. We factored in Islam. Next up, Siddhartha Gautama, the Bhudda. 400 million adherents worldwide, predates Jesus by 600 years, and not even one all-powerful god, merciful or no. I await the application of the “lowest common denominator argument” to the new set {Christianity, Islam, Buddhism}. Maybe Hindu is next up after Buddhism, eh? 900 million Hindus can’t be wrong, or all wrong, anyway!

Do you see where this bit of cleverness leads?"**

Oh dear LORD gazes up to Heaven–AHH how could I do that, He’s not really scientifically up You are REALLY obsessed with the mutli-miracle/religion hypothesis, wow.

YThis is not a mock, in fact I like and respect you Touchstone, but do you think these things have never been talked/debated/argued about by christians before hand? Do you include yourself as one of the “brains” who gets to “think” and all us old fashioned do-whatever-people-tell-us’ers are ignorant?

No, I’m aware that Christians are aware. As a Christian, I was aware of this kind of dialectic. It was a losing proposition for Christianity then, as it is now. It was a line of reasoning I strongly discouraged as an evangelistic, apologetically-minded Christian.

I don’t know why that argument gets put forward. It’s not my place to say, or to guess. But that’s where that line of reasoning leads.

As it happens, I just don’t think much about the “competing religions/competing miracles” problem very much. I think it comes to the fore as a very effective defeater when the idea that Christianity (or any other religion) is “too big to be false” is advanced. I think that’s come up here, and if so, well, there you go. I don’t get the “Christianity is too big and too old to be false” argument put to me, often.

-TS

 

[RobbyS]

Right, and an elementary part of that scrutiny is the test for plausibility. In the Iliad, we find Paris in a duel with Menalaus, and just as Menelaus is moving in for the kill, the goddess Aphrodite intervenes with a miraculous “save” of Paris, spiriting him away to safety just in the nick of time. What do we do with this? Do we throw out the whole story because the goddess Aphrodite and her miraculous intervention was invoked? No, because other parts of the story are eminently plausible, and at least in modern times, we have some significant archaeological evidence that corroborates at least some basics of the narrative – the existence of Troy, for example, which was long thought to be more legend as a place, than fact.

But any historical scrutiny implies a thorough scan of the narrative for plausibility, basic coherence with our understaind of physical law and natural constraints. And on this point, the Resurrection fails, and fails spectacularly.
I agree. I think the existence of Jesus, the man, and his crufixion for sedition agains the state by the Romans is quite uncontroversial as a matter of history. It’s wholly plausible, and the witnesses we have are sufficient to have us conclude Jesus was probably a historical figure, was probably executed, and almost certainly killed by the Roman crucifixion. There’s just not a very high plausibility bar there to clear – all those historical elements do not stretch our credulity far at all.
Agree. The cruelty and sadism of the practice, as horrifying as it is, isn’t just plausible, it’s quite predictable given the circumstance and setting. The Romans, like so many other empires, knew the value of terror, and rule by fear. Even in modern times, we see that psychology at work – whole segments of a village hanged, and left hanging by Nazis, or closed in a church and burned alive as a message of terror to suppress rebellion and to assure obeisance. The more violent and horrifying, the better, for the monsters bent on using that psyschology toward their own ends.

Right. I don’t have any time for the idea that the crucifixion, if there was one, was ineffective. I’ll even go one step further, and say that all of that history, gory as it is, creates trouble for the whole idea of Jesus’ burial in any tomb at all, or interment anywhere immediately or under “merciful” terms. The whole point of crucifixion was terrorizing humiliation of the criminal, a vivid, horrifying display of the fate of any who sought to undermine Roman authority. So, not only is it awkward to suppose that they were not successful in killing him, it’s awkward to think they let his body be taken down, washed and placed in a tomb, arranged by some Joseph of Arimathea or no. The natural extension of the crucifixion is dumping the body in a common burial site, or really just a dump, out at the edge of town, where the criminal’s body lay, decomposing in shame and humiliation, food for stray dogs.

One of the weak joints of the story is the sudden adoption of “sportsmanship” on the part of the Romans once the coup de grace was delivered to the convict.

In any case, you can rest with that issue in talking to me. I’m fine affirming that any crucifixion of Jesus was thoroughly effective in killing him.

Yep, we’re in accord on this.

-Touchstone

I just read this: I see you follow Crossan’s speculation about the disposal of the body. Since we are speculating, let me offer the suggestion that Jesus had a much wider following in Jerusalem than we are inclined to think. So the hurry to get rid of him as quickly as possible. Pilate had been caught between a rock and a hard place. Realizing that he had been “used” by the high priest, and made aware by Joseph and Nicodemus that important people in the city were not pleased by the course of events, he made the gesture of handing the body over to them. They would also keep his followers from making off with the body and causing a big scene. The tomb might become a shrine, a headache to the Jewish leaders, but to the Romans a dead prophet was nothing to worry about.

 

[RobbyS]

No, I’m aware that Christians are aware. As a Christian, I was aware of this kind of dialectic. It was a losing proposition for Christianity then, as it is now. It was a line of reasoning I strongly discouraged as an evangelistic, apologetically-minded Christian.

I don’t know why that argument gets put forward. It’s not my place to say, or to guess. But that’s where that line of reasoning leads.

As it happens, I just don’t think much about the “competing religions/competing miracles” problem very much. I think it comes to the fore as a very effective defeater when the idea that Christianity (or any other religion) is “too big to be false” is advanced. I think that’s come up here, and if so, well, there you go. I don’t get the “Christianity is too big and too old to be false” argument put to me, often.

-TS

Not sure where the comparative religion thing goes. Except for Islam, Christianity is the most concrete and unmystical. Since you are tralking about “history,” these are the only two of the “major” faiths whose founders are as fixed in time as Caesar or Justinian. And unlike the New Testament, the Koran does not take the form of historical narrative, either by ancient or modern standards.

 

[Touchstone]

I just read this: I see you follow Crossan’s speculation about the disposal of the body.

Not sure what you mean by “follow”, but I would say that while I’m aware of the idea, that would not be my guess as to what actually happened. My point in bringing it up was that even as it is, less commendable than other alternatives, it remains way, way, way, way more plausible than “Jesus was brought back to life after being dead three days”. The list of “more plausibles” is quite a long one, even though some of them are burdened with significant difficulties of their own.

Since we are speculating, let me offer the suggestion that Jesus had a much wider following in Jerusalem than we are inclined to think. So the hurry to get rid of him as quickly as possible.

OK, that’s something to consider. Who wide do we think the following is? You might be right, because my understanding (taking the plausible parts of the story at face value) is that while Jesus’ support base on Palm Sunday was quite large as he entered into Jerusalem, once the crowd realized that Jesus wasn’t going to be a political/military messiah, and that the “kingdom” Jesus was talking about was a spiritual one, they turned on him *en masse. *See, for example, the hostile crowd the jewish leaders where able to whip into a frenzy demanding that Pilate kill Jesus. I don’t suppose that Jesus’ followers were reduced to just the disciples (and even in that group, abandonment, from Judas, who apparently turned on Jesus for the very same reasons as the people of Jerusalem), but my impression is that the large majority became disillusioned, and abandoned the Jesus cult, once it was apparent that this was not the ascendant (political) Messiah.

But maybe that’s wrong. If it is, can you tell me what it’s wrong? Or maybe you are just suggesting that the “remnant” of those who didn’t turn on Jesus was larger than we think? If so, I guess it might be, although I’m not sure how big we suppose that group was as a baseline.

Pilate had been caught between a rock and a hard place. Realizing that he had been “used” by the high priest, and made aware by Joseph and Nicodemus that important people in the city were not pleased by the course of events, he made the gesture of handing the body over to them.

OK, I can see that logic. That makes sense as an explanation.

They would also keep his followers from making off with the body and causing a big scene.

Yes, this makes sense too. I think it’s plausible to think that the Roman shot-callers were sophisticated enough to think about “pre-empting conspiracy theories”, and taking steps specifically to forestall attempts to steal the body as the predicate for further insurrectionist zeal. But I think it’s more simple to understand that the Romans as a terror machine, an arrogant terror machine, wasted little time in worrying about such nuances, and just put Jesus “through the grinder”, grisly as that is. And by that, I mean, the full humiliation treatment. It’s a choice between reasonable options, I’ll grant (and there are likely other alternatives to consider).

There’s an interesting twist on that, though, if you think about it: that the Romans would anticipate body theft and conspiracy theories about (missing) executed leaders is actually quite problematic for Christian claims. If the Romans were concerned about that, it suggests that precedent existed for that, which made it a threat to ward off. Paradoxically, if there was that expectation, that precedent, if “stealing the body and creating a legend” was a threat on the Roman radar, this lends credence to the idea that THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED, despite Roman preventative measures.

Think of it the other way: often, the apologists retort is “why would the Jews do that, steal the body, make up stories or legends??” A fair question. But if we suppose the Romans were worried about just that, the unbeliever has a built-in comeback: Well, obviously, then, the Roman officials were worried about it, so it must have been an aniticipated risk, something that was at risk of happening!

The tomb might become a shrine, a headache to the Jewish leaders, but to the Romans a dead prophet was nothing to worry about.

Well, they certainly were mistaken in thinking that weren’t they, Resurrection or no! Three centuries later, the Emperor was a Christian. The cult of that killed prophet came to rule the greatest empire the world has ever known.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Not sure where the comparative religion thing goes. Except for Islam, Christianity is the most concrete and unmystical. Since you are tralking about “history,” these are the only two of the “major” faiths whose founders are as fixed in time as Caesar or Justinian. And unlike the New Testament, the Koran does not take the form of historical narrative, either by ancient or modern standards.

The Qur’an is the “words of God” revealed to Mohammed (or so the claim goes). But the hadith, which in many ways carry the weight and authority of scripture, comparable to the Bible in Christianity, at least for Sunni Muslims (who follow the “sunna” per the hadith).

So I think you have a good point, as far as that goes, but the Qur’an is not the sum of the story, not nearly. The “historical narrative” is there, and sacred, and authoritative, but exists in the hadith. In one story from the hadith, here as I’m thinking about it, Mohammed “splits the moon”, in (obviously) miraculous fashion during his struggle against the Quraysh, as a sign of Allah’s power and of Mohammed’s authority as Allah’s messenger. That’s quite a miracle, I’d say, and is presented as “sacred history” in the hadith – it’s in al-Bukari, but it’s too late and I’m too lazy to go look it up just now.

Additionally, that miracle is reported to have been witnessed and attested to by an Indian king at the time (again, I’ll Google it if you can’t find it or are doubtful about this tomorrow). Infidel, far-away corroboration of Mohammed splitting the moon in half!

As history! Sacred history.

I guess Mohammed put the moon back together when he was done with the miracle.

Anyway, if you take into account the hadith, and you can hardly appraise Islam without it, you find a whole lot of sacred history, complete with miracles.

-Touchstone

 

[RobbyS]

Not sure what you mean by “follow”, but I would say that while I’m aware of the idea, that would not be my guess as to what actually happened. My point in bringing it up was that even as it is, less commendable than other alternatives, it remains way, way, way, way more plausible than “Jesus was brought back to life after being dead three days”. The list of “more plausibles” is quite a long one, even though some of them are burdened with significant difficulties of their own.

OK, that’s something to consider. Who wide do we think the following is? You might be right, because my understanding (taking the plausible parts of the story at face value) is that while Jesus’ support base on Palm Sunday was quite large as he entered into Jerusalem, once the crowd realized that Jesus wasn’t going to be a political/military messiah, and that the “kingdom” Jesus was talking about was a spiritual one, they turned on him *en masse. *See, for example, the hostile crowd the jewish leaders where able to whip into a frenzy demanding that Pilate kill Jesus. I don’t suppose that Jesus’ followers were reduced to just the disciples (and even in that group, abandonment, from Judas, who apparently turned on Jesus for the very same reasons as the people of Jerusalem), but my impression is that the large majority became disillusioned, and abandoned the Jesus cult, once it was apparent that this was not the ascendant (political) Messiah.

But maybe that’s wrong. If it is, can you tell me what it’s wrong? Or maybe you are just suggesting that the “remnant” of those who didn’t turn on Jesus was larger than we think? If so, I guess it might be, although I’m not sure how big we suppose that group was as a baseline.

OK, I can see that logic. That makes sense as an explanation.

Yes, this makes sense too. I think it’s plausible to think that the Roman shot-callers were sophisticated enough to think about “pre-empting conspiracy theories”, and taking steps specifically to forestall attempts to steal the body as the predicate for further insurrectionist zeal. But I think it’s more simple to understand that the Romans as a terror machine, an arrogant terror machine, wasted little time in worrying about such nuances, and just put Jesus “through the grinder”, grisly as that is. And by that, I mean, the full humiliation treatment. It’s a choice between reasonable options, I’ll grant (and there are likely other alternatives to consider).

There’s an interesting twist on that, though, if you think about it: that the Romans would anticipate body theft and conspiracy theories about (missing) executed leaders is actually quite problematic for Christian claims. If the Romans were concerned about that, it suggests that precedent existed for that, which made it a threat to ward off. Paradoxically, if there was that expectation, that precedent, if “stealing the body and creating a legend” was a threat on the Roman radar, this lends credence to the idea that THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED, despite Roman preventative measures.

Think of it the other way: often, the apologists retort is “why would the Jews do that, steal the body, make up stories or legends??” A fair question. But if we suppose the Romans were worried about just that, the unbeliever has a built-in comeback: Well, obviously, then, the Roman officials were worried about it, so it must have been an aniticipated risk, something that was at risk of happening!

Well, they certainly were mistaken in thinking that weren’t they, Resurrection or no! Three centuries later, the Emperor was a Christian. The cult of that killed prophet came to rule the greatest empire the world has ever known.

-TS

No, I am just speculating based on my reading of John. I think the gospel describes a
classic case of decapitation. The leader is not taken in the house where the last supper is held, but in an isolated place and by a LARGE number of troops, enough to overcome the small group around. Jesus is “fingered” by one of his leading disciples. He is taken to a rump meeting of the Sanhedrin and then to Pilate’s court. If Roman soldiers were involved in the capture, Pilate may have been led to believe that Jesus was a dangerous insurrectionist. When he sees Jesus, he realizes that this man was nothing of the sort.
The story in another gospel tells that his wife has warned him that this is not the case. And so he thinks to get the matter behind him by letting Jesus go. But the high priest wo’t let him get away with that. And he has “packed” the court with his own supporters. So Pilate gives in and by none, within no more than 12-15 hours after his capture

, Jesus is on the cross. This is to placate the Jewish leaders but also to keep any opposition from forming, as it has on previous occasions. he knows that the chief disciples have scattered, but who knows what these crazy people will do? He has the force to do anything he wishes, but why risk causing trouble for himself to save some holy man?

As to the number of Jesus’ following. Let me speculate this: that the number baptized
on pentecost is said to have been several thousand. Assuming this is not a pious exaggeration, assuming as accurate that Paul’s report that “500 hundred” at one time had seen Jesus alive, that the “sightings” included many more than just the inner-circle, then thise baptized were people who already believed and accepted Peter’s words as simply confirmation. Five thousand is not a small number in a city the size of Jerusalem in that day. And Acts said that many priests were among the number of his followers.

 

[The_Catholic]

“Well, they certainly were mistaken in thinking that weren’t they, Resurrection or no! Three centuries later, the Emperor was a Christian. The cult of that killed prophet came to rule the greatest empire the world has ever known.”

sighs

 

[The_Catholic]

No, I am just speculating based on my reading of John. I think the gospel describes a
classic case of decapitation. The leader is not taken in the house where the last supper is held, but in an isolated place and by a LARGE number of troops, enough to overcome the small group around. Jesus is “fingered” by one of his leading disciples. He is taken to a rump meeting of the Sanhedrin and then to Pilate’s court. If Roman soldiers were involved in the capture, Pilate may have been led to believe that Jesus was a dangerous insurrectionist. When he sees Jesus, he realizes that this man was nothing of the sort.
The story in another gospel tells that his wife has warned him that this is not the case. And so he thinks to get the matter behind him by letting Jesus go. But the high priest wo’t let him get away with that. And he has “packed” the court with his own supporters. So Pilate gives in and by none, within no more than 12-15 hours after his capture

, Jesus is on the cross. This is to placate the Jewish leaders but also to keep any opposition from forming, as it has on previous occasions. he knows that the chief disciples have scattered, but who knows what these crazy people will do? He has the force to do anything he wishes, but why risk causing trouble for himself to save some holy man?

As to the number of Jesus’ following. Let me speculate this: that the number baptized
on pentecost is said to have been several thousand. Assuming this is not a pious exaggeration, assuming as accurate that Paul’s report that “500 hundred” at one time had seen Jesus alive, that the “sightings” included many more than just the inner-circle, then thise baptized were people who already believed and accepted Peter’s words as simply confirmation. Five thousand is not a small number in a city the size of Jerusalem in that day. And Acts said that many priests were among the number of his followers.

Good points.

 

[Touchstone]

“Well, they certainly were mistaken in thinking that weren’t they, Resurrection or no! Three centuries later, the Emperor was a Christian. The cult of that killed prophet came to rule the greatest empire the world has ever known.”

sighs

Hey, just in case you are raising your hackles at the term “cult” or “Jesus cult”, don’t. I know that many evangelicals use this as a term of disparagement, but here, it’s just a function term of art. When speaking of the “Jesus cult” as a matter of historical analysis, there’s nothing perjorative about it. See, for example, a link like this to an abstract for a paper on the “First Churches of the Jesus Cult”. In historical terms, the cult of Jesus describes the movement, and applies just as well whether you think Jesus was God-in-the-flesh, or not.

As or a “killed prophet”, that’s a description we can both agree on, I think? Obviously you think Jesus was more than that, but I think you would agree he was at least that.

If I misread your sigh, apologies.

-TS

 

[The_Catholic]

Hey, just in case you are raising your hackles at the term “cult” or “Jesus cult”, don’t. I know that many evangelicals use this as a term of disparagement, but here, it’s just a function term of art. When speaking of the “Jesus cult” as a matter of historical analysis, there’s nothing perjorative about it. See, for example, a link like this to an abstract for a paper on the “First Churches of the Jesus Cult”. In historical terms, the cult of Jesus describes the movement, and applies just as well whether you think Jesus was God-in-the-flesh, or not.

As or a “killed prophet”, that’s a description we can both agree on, I think? Obviously you think Jesus was more than that, but I think you would agree he was at least that.

If I misread your sigh, apologies.

-TS

I know, my thoughts though were directed at something else, best not to bother you with it. Sorry, humbles himself

 

[The_Catholic]

“**From an atheist standpoint, the “competition” between competing miracles under different brand names doesn’t dispel miracles as a category; atheists generally reject those claims on a “standalone”, materialist basis. But for the Christian, or Mormon, or Muslim, the similarities are dislocating, when looked at objectively. Some of those miracles may be real, but there’s no way to tell based on the evidence. On an evidential basis, there’s a disturbing parity at work, which makes the support for any particular “brand name” of miracles appear to be capricious.
Well, OK, let’s press that. Do you believe Mohammed got transported to al Quds by Jabreel, then up to Heaven to meet God in 619CE? If not, why not? Or how about the miraculous translation of the Golden Plates by Joseph Smith, Jr.? If you want to skip the debate for another thread, fine, but how say you on those” **

**"Hmmm, my belief in miracles X, Y, and Z seems arbitrary when juxtaposed against my disbelief in these other miracles *A, B and C. *What distinguishes my support for *X, Y, and Z *seems to be their religious affiliation of the miracle, versus that of miracles A, B, and C. That suggests that I’m judging miracles according to the brand name, rather than the evidence."

Perhaps if Christians, maybe, stopped trying to prove so hardly that Christianity is completely different from any other religion, or when all the arguments are put into place Christianity easily comes out on top, and instead spread the Faith by our actions, well then maybe the Church would grow faster. All these debates, I gather, do not convince either side regularly on who “may” stand correct and who “may” not. Basically, they’re defenses, and I do think they are necessary, but in the end, there is no “full proof” argument. One side sees it this way, the other sees it that way.

I’ve never talked with an atheist (I still consider you my brother because of your baptism ) like you. The ones I deal with argue for the non-existense of Jesus or that Jesus Christ is no different than Mithra-Mithras, Attis, Osiris, etc. But your denial of Christianity comes from there existing numerous faiths and miracle stories and how can we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that only those of the Christians are real, while **all **others false? For the Christian to accept this, is it not overly strict bias? In some cases, I’m sure it is, but there are many things to consider. (Oh and by the way, I completely understand your lack of Faith because of this. Your mind is quenched by this idea, and your salvation, I think, would come down to you standing before God, finally seeing that He is real, and whether you would still reject Him or not. If you would then it’s evident that pride is playing a hand. If not, and would rejoice, feeling cleansed from all the accusations and argumentations brought up against the Faith which seemed convincing to you on earth, well then praise God!!)

I don’t know that what I believe is the ultimate Truth. I don’t know if Christ really existed. I don’t know whether us Christians (and for that matter all religions) are wrong, and you atheists are right. I don’t know that, but I do believe in my Faith. Not blindly, no. I just didn’t read the Bible at one point and take a leap of Faith, and that’s all there was to it, (if for some that’s all it took, then awesome, though in my case I searched for answers, because Touchstone, I was an atheist before becoming a Protestant and then Catholic).

So for me, what drives my Faith? Well ultimately I believe it’s the Spirit. I just cannot turn away from Him. I’ve tried before, because of certain unGodly sins, part of me wanted out, then depression hit me like a ton of bricks. Wherever I turned, He stepped in my way, where I tried to escape He found me, and like a caveman dragging his wife back to the hut (hehe) he clunked me on the head by his love and dragged me back to my Faith. Immediately the depression ceased. Maybe it’s all in my head, but then, that’s a great cure for depression wouldn’t you think?

 

[The_Catholic]

Testimonies like mine can be found in non-Christian Faiths, yes I know, and do I think they are valid?** Absoluetly YES!!** I believe that’s the Spirit, even there, working in them. There are many non-Christians who live better Christian lives than those of some “Christians” and I in fact very much so believe many non-Christians will be with God eternally. I believe they are saved in the same manner, by the blood of Christ, only they never heard the Gospel or they were included in the Invincible Ignorance doctrine. I know many Christians, especially Protestants, love to attack me over this, (all of those faithful monks, all those Buddhists, all those Amish of Lancaster county, they live with such peace in their hearts, but too bad they’re going to burn forever and ever because they failed in God’s “guessing game” of choosing the right path), but hey, I cannot see God casting those into hell who in their heart of hearts lived righteously as Christ called His followers to live. Nearly the entire Sermon on the Mount was about *practical *ways of living, not theological.

The next question can be brought up then, am I simply choosing one religion out of many to believe the Truth? I think it’s valid to say no, I am not. Protestantism almost shattered my belief in God (I’m not putting down Protestants, just saying to me the whole “system” doesn’t flow well with Orthodox Christianity). Left to stay a Protestant, I would’ve returned to my atheism, or agnostic. When you look back into Church history, reading the writings of the Fathers, you don’t find writings that sound similar to Billy Graham, Ravi Zacharias, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Wesley, etc., rather, what you find are very “Catholic” sounding doctrines and practices, as well as Greek Orthodox, similar enough to Catholicism. Over all, there is something about Orthodox Christianity that stands out above modern day Evangelicals and Protestantism. If I am going to believe in the authenticity of Christianity, it’s going to be in the Catholic Church, otherwise my agnosticism will return. “Catholicism” among all the 30,000 sects of Christianity makes the most “logical” sense to me.

So do I think the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed in the cave? No. Do I think some kind of being appeared? Yes. I wouldn’t be surprised either if he actually took his “magical” horse ride. I also except the supernatural visions and events of Joseph Smith, the unapproved apparitions of Mary, and other visions Christians claim to have had where “God” or the “Angels” revealed to them the falsehood of the Trinity and/or Orthodox Christianity. But I do not think they are Heavenly visions, rather, from the Fallen Ones in attempts to scatter, sift, and confuse humanity from the Truth that was “once for all delivered to the saints.”

I accept Orthodox Christianity as being the fulfillment of the Jewish Covenant, and therefore, yes, I believe that the religions among “Christianity” that have sprung about unorthodox in style, along with Mohammed’s revelation about the denial of the Christ regarding His nature, as well as those of Joseph Smith and numerous others, originate from the “minds” of the Fallen Ones.

 

[The_Catholic]

It’s either Orthodox Christianity fulfilled from the Old Covenant of the Hebrew Scriptures, or agnosticism. Prove Catholicism wrong and my Faith will blow away. That’s how I feel about Orthodox Christianity. It makes “logical” sense in terms of “Christianity.”

I know this may sound quite bias. Though I was at one time very anti-Catholic and it was my perverse bias then that kept me from denying what the early Church was really like. I honestly believe I came to my conclusion in the most “logical” way. People sometimes abandon the Church because they do not like all the “rules and regulations” of it, supposedly, or that they just cannot “feel” anything from Her. Well, to each his own, I’m not going to persecute them. But for me, the Catholic Church is the fullness of Faith, She IS Christianity!

That is why I deny all visions from other sects of Christianity being from God, (or visions that speak falsehood of Christianity, like Mohammed’s “Gabriel,” [also, I once listened to a story about a woman who was highly into New Age beliefs and claimed to have had ongoing conversations and visions with dead spirits. Then, when one of her friends began speaking to her about Jesus, she became interested and decided to tell her “dead spirit” companion about Him. When she did, the “spirit” grew angry and told her to cast away this “Jesus.” The more and more she grew inspired of Him the more and more irritated this “spirit” grew until the lady had to cast it away in the name of Christ. Did she make this up? Perhaps, but call me gullible, because I do believe her story, I do think she saw a “spirit,” one of the Fallen] ).

Were I simply a Methodist, or Calvinist, or belonged to the Christian Missionary Alliance Church, and picked and chose which parts of the Faith I wanted to be true, then I would say I was being deceived and “illogical.” Christianity began with Christ, He founded His Bride, and the gates of Hell have not overtaken Her, She lives today, in an unbroken line of succession that traces back to St. Peter himself–the very first time I discovered the sucession of the Popes impressed the hell outt’a me

And so what about other suppose visions or stories or “mythologies?” First, even among ancient pagan beliefs (which some today still claim to have, and speak with spirits, believing them to be ghosts) I accept as supernatural, good or evil? I don’t know. But, I just cannot see any parallel in Zeus (or any mythological characters) to Christ. Perhaps you can, I do not. The Christ of the New Testament appears historical, and those which had recently followed after this “Jesus cult,” such as St. Peter, St. James, St. Paul and three mass groups of Jews really did seem to believe to have seen him Resurrected and pushed on with this new Faith–where the Resurrection remained the most important aspect–which the Romans AND Jews could have easily ended by putting the body on display. And this right here Touchstone, backfires against “why would they have put his body in a tomb when rather leave it to the dogs?” The Resurrection WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCTRINE or proof about who Jesus was. Displaying His rotten body would have stopped the new arisen cult in it’s tracks.

 

[The_Catholic]

I still find it convincing too that Saul converted after claiming to have seen the “risen Christ,” and wrote Epistle after Epistle on the new Faith, even communing with St. Peter, who knew Christ personally. And again, the testimony of WOMEN, (no pun intended dear beautiful ladies out there ) Why in the WORLD would one attempt to legendize an individual–the most important part of it all–the Resurrection, by claiming that women were the first to discover his vacant grave, for women were lowly esteemed sadly, and their testimony considered questionable. If the Apostles (or another) had felt the freedom to make this up, they would not have hurt their credibility by saying in all four Gospels that women discovered the empty tomb first. I believe the “inventer” would surely rather have claimed that St. Peter, St. John or Joseph of Arimathea were the first to find the tomb.

I sincerely do not think that the Apostles would have given up their lives for a known lie. I think it’s more logical to say that they experienced massive hallucinations, or in fact witnessed the Risen Christ.

I know cases are brought up all the time against these “facts.” Some phychoanalyze St. Paul, others bring up charges like you, that Jesus and His miracles are just one legend among many. Perhaps you are right, perhaps He did get legendized. But I just cannot believe that. Because of the Gospels, the non-Christian sources, the spreading of the early Church for the first 300 years by love, the authenticity of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the sucession of the Popes, archeology evidence of both the Old Testament and New Testament, how the universe had a beginning, just like Genesis says–ALL these factors give me great hope that Orthodox Christianity is the Truth. Do I know that? No! Do I realize accusations are brought up against every single one of these charges, like you have done? Well, obviously yes, and I agree the debates are good and worth talking about. But the Resurrection “proofs” I have listed are convincing enough for me.

In the end, He has to give us Faith, none of this debating will ever do a thing, the Spirit has to fill our hearts in order for us to have true Faith, and then we are to work with Him.

I admit, again, that Christianity may very well be wrong, and that the miracle stories are just “one of many,” but I just can’t accept that because I find more favor toward the otherside. I can’t know what is the truth, but I can have Faith.

I’ve said what I’ve had to say, I am not going to respond anymore, I’m done. I know this could go on A LONG time, as these debates usually do, and I don’t feel like stressing over it each day I awake for work

I am perfectly aware that you and many others can bring up charges for all my claims, perfectly aware, and they made be all made up claims indeed, I’m just not convinced.

Dear Touchstone, if you ever want to talk about anything, simply PM me. That would be descent. But I don’t think I can handle such posts which will probably be cast against these lasts posts of mine, from atheists and Protestants I gather I’m a submissive soul and don’t care for the domination that others love to bestow upon some in these forums

God bless you . . . brother. I wish all atheists were as nice and respectful as YOU

P.S. For a good read, Touchstone, check out “THE JESUS LEGEND: A CASE FOR THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE SYNOPTIC JESUS TRADITION” by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd
hugs and abandons the dreadful keyboard for a time

 

[Touchstone]

Perhaps if Christians, maybe, stopped trying to prove so hardly that Christianity is completely different from any other religion, or when all the arguments are put into place Christianity easily comes out on top, and instead spread the Faith by our actions, well then maybe the Church would grow faster. All these debates, I gather, do not convince either side regularly on who “may” stand correct and who “may” not. Basically, they’re defenses, and I do think they are necessary, but in the end, there is no “full proof” argument. One side sees it this way, the other sees it that way.

Yes. Just pointing out here (again) that who is correct on the miracles, if anyone, is not the forceful consideration. It’s the fact that they have some rough level of parity that should be concerning. Not because it makes Catholic miracles false, but because whoever’s right (if any), the bogus miracles and bogus claims are hard to distinguish from the true ones.

But, that said, I’m already being to regret pressing this so hard, as I’m apparently giving you the wrong impression. The “comparative miracles and claims” question is interesting, but not foundational to my abandoning Christianity. Even as a Christian, I never supposed that Christianity was any more “true” because of it’s huge subscriber base. So I just never used that argument, and the retorts then just weren’t an issue.

I did ascribe some substantial weight to the historicity of the Resurrection – when I was young, guys like Josh MacDowell seemed quite convincing, and later (gulp!) William Lane Craig made my eyes spin around; I bought the “Craigisms” (he wasn’t the only one, but you get my drift). I’ve abandoned that, and I think for very solid reasons, but even that was just a piece of the puzzle.

I’ve never talked with an atheist (I still consider you my brother because of your baptism ) like you. The ones I deal with argue for the non-existense of Jesus or that Jesus Christ is no different than Mithra-Mithras, Attis, Osiris, etc. But your denial of Christianity comes from there existing numerous faiths and miracle stories and how can we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that only those of the Christians are real, while **all **others false?
This is the proof I’ve pushed this too far in terms of my polemic. I stand by what I’ve said, and maintain that the comparative claims of other religions represent a highly destablizing picture of human religion for a Catholic, or a Muslim for that matter. But here, I think I’ve definitely given you the wrong impression about what my “hang ups” or “key issues” are in terms of atheims and faith. If you could “wipe this problem aside”, I can tell you I think I’d be no closer to returning to Christianity at all. I don’t want to hijack the thread topic too far, but I will say this to give you some point of reference: if I was presented with overwhelming evidence that Yahweh did in fact exist and right in line with the orthodox Christian accounts of God and man, I would be determined to accept the truth on that evidence – God is real, etc. – but I think my conscience would demand that I refuse to worship that God. The problem for me is fundamentally that I don’t think God or any gods exist. That is the primary conviction. But beyond that, if the OT/NT God is what the Bible says, I’m convinced I’d be immoral to support the Christian view and teaching.

That may open up a whole 'nother can of worms. Not my intent, but just by way of being transparent, I think it’s worth getting that out there, to give you a frame of reference. The historicity of the Resurrection is a problem, for sure, but just a piece of the puzzle, a smallish piece.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

For the Christian to accept this, is it not overly strict bias? In some cases, I’m sure it is, but there are many things to consider. (Oh and by the way, I completely understand your lack of Faith because of this. Your mind is quenched by this idea, and your salvation, I think, would come down to you standing before God, finally seeing that He is real, and whether you would still reject Him or not. If you would then it’s evident that pride is playing a hand. If not, and would rejoice, feeling cleansed from all the accusations and argumentations brought up against the Faith which seemed convincing to you on earth, well then praise God!!)

I’m much more an apostate than you think, I’m afraid. As I said above, if overwhelming evidence of the Resurrection were presented to me, I claim to be committed to accepting it for the evidence it is, and the implications it makes. But even then, my reaction is that would not be sufficient to cause me to return to Christianity. There are another set of problems to deal with even if Jesus is God. Again, not trying to widen the scope here that far, just trying to disabuse you of mistaken impressions I’ve apparently caused.

I don’t know that what I believe is the ultimate Truth. I don’t know if Christ really existed. I don’t know whether us Christians (and for that matter all religions) are wrong, and you atheists are right. I don’t know that, but I do believe in my Faith. Not blindly, no. I just didn’t read the Bible at one point and take a leap of Faith, and that’s all there was to it, (if for some that’s all it took, then awesome, though in my case I searched for answers, because Touchstone, I was an atheist before becoming a Protestant and then Catholic).

I understand. I don’t think you will find me suggesting your faith is blind. Faith is a choice, and choosing faith doesn’t require that one abandon reason. Rather, I think it just ends up playing second fiddle to other things. As autonomous individuals, we choose what we choose, and there’s no ‘law’ forcing Reason to sit in the first chair.

So for me, what drives my Faith? Well ultimately I believe it’s the Spirit. I just cannot turn away from Him. I’ve tried before, because of certain unGodly sins, part of me wanted out, then depression hit me like a ton of bricks.

If I recall, the RCC holds that “whoever goes against his conscience condemns himself”. I think that’s a pretty solid insight. And for what it’s worth – and I’m NOT talking about you here – I’ve met Christians who I think are probably better off being Christians, even if Christianity is a complete hoax. That’s a fairly condescending assessment, I realize, but that aside, there are countless cases of Christians who came to Christ in a crisis, and have used that decision to change things in their lives, and for the better often enough. That’s not something to dismiss lightly.

Wherever I turned, He stepped in my way, where I tried to escape He found me, and like a caveman dragging his wife back to the hut (hehe) he clunked me on the head by his love and dragged me back to my Faith. Immediately the depression ceased. Maybe it’s all in my head, but then, that’s a great cure for depression wouldn’t you think?

Hey, if it works, it works. Really, I’m the last guy to complain about empirical success. I have close relatives who “found Christ” and by all accounts, their lives are changed for the better. No doubt they have different explanations for why that is than I do, but there’s no arguing with the results. Good on ya for making choices in your life that lead to health, productivity, freedom, satisifaction, generosity, justice, mercy and love. If you’re moving toward those, then you aren’t going to find much finger pointing from me.

-Touchstone

 

[RobbyS]

I’m much more an apostate than you think, I’m afraid. As I said above, if overwhelming evidence of the Resurrection were presented to me, I claim to be committed to accepting it for the evidence it is, and the implications it makes. But even then, my reaction is that would not be sufficient to cause me to return to Christianity. There are another set of problems to deal with even if Jesus is God. Again, not trying to widen the scope here that far, just trying to disabuse you of mistaken impressions I’ve apparently caused.
I understand. I don’t think you will find me suggesting your faith is blind. Faith is a choice, and choosing faith doesn’t require that one abandon reason. Rather, I think it just ends up playing second fiddle to other things. As autonomous individuals, we choose what we choose, and there’s no ‘law’ forcing Reason to sit in the first chair.
If I recall, the RCC holds that “whoever goes against his conscience condemns himself”. I think that’s a pretty solid insight. And for what it’s worth – and I’m NOT talking about you here – I’ve met Christians who I think are probably better off being Christians, even if Christianity is a complete hoax. That’s a fairly condescending assessment, I realize, but that aside, there are countless cases of Christians who came to Christ in a crisis, and have used that decision to change things in their lives, and for the better often enough. That’s not something to dismiss lightly.

Hey, if it works, it works. Really, I’m the last guy to complain about empirical success. I have close relatives who “found Christ” and by all accounts, their lives are changed for the better. No doubt they have different explanations for why that is than I do, but there’s no arguing with the results. Good on ya for making choices in your life that lead to health, productivity, freedom, satisifaction, generosity, justice, mercy and love. If you’re moving toward those, then you aren’t going to find much finger pointing from me.

-Touchstone

From my perspective, of course, such choices are a simple recognition of reality. Even the pragmatist knows that principles are everything, and he longs for them as much as any other man. There is–as Kant implied–something that directs practical reason.

 

[Touchstone]

Testimonies like mine can be found in non-Christian Faiths, yes I know, and do I think they are valid?** Absoluetly YES!!** I believe that’s the Spirit, even there, working in them. There are many non-Christians who live better Christian lives than those of some “Christians” and I in fact very much so believe many non-Christians will be with God eternally. I believe they are saved in the same manner, by the blood of Christ, only they never heard the Gospel or they were included in the Invincible Ignorance doctrine. I know many Christians, especially Protestants, love to attack me over this, (all of those faithful monks, all those Buddhists, all those Amish of Lancaster county, they live with such peace in their hearts, but too bad they’re going to burn forever and ever because they failed in God’s “guessing game” of choosing the right path), but hey, I cannot see God casting those into hell who in their heart of hearts lived righteously as Christ called His followers to live. Nearly the entire Sermon on the Mount was about *practical *ways of living, not theological.

Yes, I get that. I don’t know if you are a C.S. Lewis fan, but having six kids, The Chronicles of Narnia are always around, on the coffee table, now on the movie screens, and of course, in dinner conversations. This is from the Last Battle, and captures something of the idea I’m thinking of here:

In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was lke pure gold and the brightness of his eyes, like gold that is liquid in the furnace…. In Beauty he surpassed all that is in the world, even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this the of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him.

**Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be [king] of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, “Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said that thou and Tash are one?” The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. **

Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it no, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash who he serves and by Tash his deed accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yes I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

I don’t believe any God or gods exist, and I don’t believe that “supernatural” is anything better than thoroughly incoherent as a concept. I am an atheist because I believe that is what an earnest, passionate desire for the truth commends. I say what I mean, and mean what I say, because that is what I expect from others, and what I expect in terms of honesty and clarity from myself. I work hard to create, to provide, and support a family because I am able, and because hard work and achievement represent a celebration and exaltation of what is good about the fleeting moments we have to live and choose. I seek justice and mercy, and value loyalty and loving friendship because these are the raw materials of the world I would like to live in, and have my children inherit, and their children after them.

There is no “Aslan”, in my view. Nor is there any “Tash”, for that matter, so far as I can see. And if I’m mistaken, and there is a God, I’m not so presumptuous to think I have any fate coming to me other than that of an enemy of God. I’ve made my choice and will own the consequences, come what may. The virtues and ideals I seek are desirable in their own right, not because they are the demands of any God or gods, but if there is a God who thinks like Aslan, I can think that I will have been at least a “good soldier” in service of the principles and ideals my conscience exalted.

If there is a God, and Lewis’ passage above captures a bit of God’s… universalism, then I think God will be better God than most Christians give him credit for (this passage from Lewis gives many Christians a rash, if you aren’t aware). I would hope any who examined my life would say I lived a principled, disciplined, conscientious life. But I am under no illusions about being “righteous” in any Christian sense of the term. I don’t believe God even exists. Even if he exists, I do not love God, or submit to his authority. I prize virtue (achieving goals at your own expense, through industry and perseverance) and detest vice (achieving one’s goals at the (exploitive) expense of others), but “righteousness” surely demands more than that, on Christian teaching. Man must acknowledge God as sovereign, repent of sin, and throw himself at his mercy in making all efforts to follow God’s will henceforth to be saved, to be justified through the atonement of Christ’s sacrifice. That’s an “epic fail” for me, if that’s how it really goes down, no getting around it.

-Touchstone