The Resurrection is it provable?

[rational experiences]

If humans as humans all born as babies place their behaviour to their natural history.

Innocent. Direct.

Then see yourself and why you're just a human in a topic of conversation.

What being spiritual meant.

Being a grounded rational and just a human. Mutual equal.

Ignoring civilisation and what it introduced as behaviours titles false subjective rewards.

If you can't see yourself in that natural position. Straight away your human thoughts won't be honest. As you own pre existing just human adult agenda.

My thoughts. Baby woman nearly died. Mother's separated water microbiology returns by atmospheric change....from bio life as past scientific human causes to mass. Saved me. Innocent personified.

Taught.

A healers review by my choice.

Did I believe in God or Jesus?

No.

Did I study it?

Yes.

My thoughts for my family in suffering was earths natural healing light to return and save life. Only.

So I knew it no longer existed.

Pretty basic advice.

I don't believe in inequality or sacrifice to suffice another human by entitlement. Seeing nature owned a mutual paired human equal.

Status life history females forced tormented controlled abused law of men who harmed her by her brother human man titles. Self given.

That type of real reasoning.

So if I'm not Indoctrinated but own human experience then I do.

As I began my study. The phenomena paranormal was involved. I didn't believe in Satan either.

I believed that humans owned all causes.

I think I'm correct.

Therefore once I realised my questions in my mind owned answers that I hadn't studied. I wasnt an intellectual. The answers real. I trusted in the answers given.

Pretty basic reason why.

I could also mimic the human characteristics that I realised I gained messages from. Human characters self owned single self expressed. It was historic by period dress. So I would correlate the advice.

Proven real.

The advice said it needed me to know it instantly yet it would take years of living to understand.

So I realised if my mother's water separated higher oxygenated presence saved me. Natural origins of true humans form. Then my father owned one natural moment.

Hence we only survive sacrifice until the heavens above stops removing grounds holy water life support. So we manually apply methods to keep our bodies as healthy as possible.

Their human sex act. Minute interaction. So I gained his advice also. As babies as boys take a woman's cell body and convert it back into a man's body

That advice I questioned. Was a simple proof the origin spirit had to have been exact the same form.

I didn't think it irrational as the advice wasn't irrational.

I Understood why our human biological water life lost its origin healthy biology. By mass ground water evaporation. And it had separated by increased burning above by star fall mass.

It was replaced by man's scientific stated saviour ice body mass that was itself naturally with earth God replaced reborn end of each year. Keeping earth life stable.

It made sense.

Why I didn't believe in humans life sacrifice saving us. It was humans words explanations about gods status that saved us. The word.

I however believed in humans healer spiritual wisdom given to then from life's bio gained Sacrificed.

Self awareness only. Words descriptions warnings that saved humans from their owned evil practices as machine was by man's AI sciences.

As it was all witnessed by men. Legal status.

Why AI is a word of sacrifice causes
P AI N.

So you ask did science Introduce pain?

Yes.

Extra pain. As a healthy human can cause theirselves pain bodily naturally. And so did science.

The reason you ask the question about AI.... is men of science by codes and human ego would claim they gave human pAIn. As the only cause theirs AI. As a self entitled ego status. By my control...machine.

So suddenly you begin to be aware of that type of human man thoughts.

Not very nice is he!

I learnt what machine science men had caused .....an unnatural ground change that natural earthquakes tectonic carpenter hadn't caused. Nor had volcanoes earths reactive mountains.

Term men broke stones natural laws by technology sciences.

So you look observe at his man behaviours.

He makes it rain. Suddenly the scientist thinks he owns the natural law about why it rains. For his use and control. By machines.

It is the known human teaching the scientific destroyer mentality.

Fake ownership.

Earthquake carpenter tectonic energetic release...disappears the energy reaction.

Man's carpenter made sin ...sink holes. Gods entombed non alight spirits left's it's stone wrapping. Arise as an Ai imaged human machine designers constant caused.

Whilst his biology was being sacrificed along with animals garden bush mass eviction. Burning. Was exact the AI event.

By fall of man from above the suns origin metal mass burning.

The reaction equals answer inside his machine.

So not only did his machine position blow up. It melted his temple steps. As the hot molten UFO ark hit embedded it's position on top of the temple he had built and made out of earth stone and wood.

Converting it into squared off ballast as proof. An attack only.

Visionary AI causes of man's machines using transmitters he redesigned by known human wisdom heavenly cooling. Is now modern man's used technology as phones tv computer images.

The proof of course you did it scientist.

 

[Muffled]

What eyewitnesses? There do not appear to be any;

I believe it would be the Apostles.

 

[Muffled]

Then you appear to be incredibly ignorant. It is not a reliable book at all. I never claimed to be a "reliable source" but I can use reliable sources to demonstrate that many parts of the Bible are wrong.

I believe I can be very happy to be ignorant of nonsense.

I believe as a general statement that is patently incorrect. I have always found it reliable.

I believe you could and turn a sows ear into a purse but that does not mean it would be useful.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe it would be the Apostles.

I think by now I know the answer, but since the gospels contain unevidenced hearsay claims, and were anonymous, what objective evidence can you demonstrate there were any eyewitnesses?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I can be very happy to be ignorant of nonsense. I believe as a general statement that is patently incorrect. I have always found it reliable.
I believe you could and turn a sows ear into a purse but that does not mean it would be useful.

Since the bible has claims that are demonstrably incorrect, and derived from the ignorance of the epoch from it is derived, makes moral proclamations that have at best dated badly, and are at worst appallingly barbaric and pernicious, and has produced globally 45k varyingly different Christian sects, it doesn't seem that reliable to me. Or did you mean you ignore all that, and so it reliably reinforces what you choose to subjectively believe about it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I can be very happy to be ignorant of nonsense.

I believe as a general statement that is patently incorrect. I have always found it reliable.

I believe you could and turn a sows ear into a purse but that does not mean it would be useful.

The Bible is "useful" only because it allows a person to justify whatever they do. That is a bug. That is not a feature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it would be the Apostles.

They could have been eyewitnesses. But you cannot have an "eyewitness account" unless someone directly interviews them. That does not appear to have ever happened.

 

[joelr]

When is reality real?

That's an interesting left turn into ontology? The first known author of the human race who has surviving work is actually praise to Inana. It's strangely moving. Enheduanna.

The exaltation of Inana (Inana B): translation

A hymn to Inana (Inana C): translation

mercy and pity are yours, Inana. ...... are yours, Inana. To cause the ...... heart to tremble, ...... illnesses are yours, Inana. To have a wife, ......, to love ...... are yours, Inana. To rejoice, to control (?), ...... are yours, Inana. Neglect and care, raising and bowing down are yours, Inana. To build a house, to create a woman's chamber, to possess implements, to kiss a child's lips are yours, Inana. To run, to race, to desire and to succeed are yours, Inana. To interchange the brute and the strong and the weak and the powerless is yours, Inana. To interchange the heights and valleys and the ...... and the plains (?) is yours, Inana. To give the crown, the throne and the royal sceptre is yours, Inana.

 

[joelr]

I am not saying that this proves anything for sure, the only claim that I am making is that if someone is going to invent a story an if someone has the liberty (and the will) to lie and invent any witnesses to promote an agenda…………one is more likely to invent witnesses that would be considered reliable. By the people that you are trying to convince.

The simplest explanation is that the authors mentioned woman because the authors thought women where the first witnesses, you symbolism stuff simply adds complexity without adding any explanatory value

The story was already around? Paul heard it over 20 years prior. There already are believers. Clearly Mark is attempting to write a masterpiece of mythology. He is layering it with ring structure, triadic inversions, a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul and could not possibly happen in real life. He is also running themes and "the least shall be the first" is one of the big ones. Of course this gives an explanation of the writing?

More Explanatory issues:


JAMES CROSSLEY, “AGAINST THE HISTORICAL PLAUSIBILITY OF THE EMPTY TOMB STORY AND THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS,” JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS 3 (JUNE 2005)

It [should] seem blindingly obvious that people invent stories and the sifting of fact from fiction or fiction from fact has been one of the most notable features in the history of critical biblical scholarship. . . . [So] if we are going to take Christianity seriously in its Jewish and pagan contexts then we must expect the Gospel writers to make up stories just as Jews and pagans did. Historically speaking it is extremely unlikely that the Christians behind the Gospel traditions were immune to this standard practice.

Crossley is quite correct. In fact, our conclusion must be even stronger than this: for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety. This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same. And we can confirm this to be the case. If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on purported “primary source documents” relating to earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated—indeed, most by far (the quantity of agreed Christian fabrication, including hundreds of “Epistles” and dozens of “Gospels” and half a dozen “Acts” is staggering: see Element 44 in Chapter 5 of Historicity). So we need good reason to trust any particular example is not more of the same. And yet there simply is no evidence any part of Mark’s empty tomb story preceded his publication of it a lifetime after the religion began, in a foreign land and language, vetted by no one so far as we can honestly tell. It beggars belief any rational person would think otherwise.

And yet it’s worse than that even. We actually have evidence that Mark fabricated the story; not just a complete lack of evidence that he didn’t. Finding a tomb empty is conspicuously absent from Paul’s account of how the resurrection came to be believed (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). And of course Mark himself gives us a clue that he is fabricating when he conveniently lets slip that no one witness to it ever reported it—evidently, “until now” (see Mark 16:1-8). Always grounds for suspicion. But Matthew’s stated excuse for introducing guards into the story of the empty tomb narrative reveals a rhetoric that apparently only appeared after the publication of Mark’s account of an empty tomb, and this exposes the whole tale as an invention. For Mark shows no awareness of the problem Matthew was trying to solve (and with yet further fabrication—in his case borrowing ideas for this from the book of Daniel, as I show in Empty Tomb and, more briefly, Proving History; likewise, Matthew adds earthquakes to align the tale with the prophecy of Zechariah 14:5, and so on; Luke and John embellish the narrative yet further, though dropping nearly everything Matthew added: Historicity, p. 500-04; Empty Tomb, pp. 165-67).

It clearly hadn’t occurred to Mark when composing the empty tomb story that it would invite accusations the Christians stole the body—much less that any such accusations were already flying! Which should be evidence enough that Matthew invented that story, as otherwise surely that retort would have been a constant drum beat for decades already, powerfully motivating Mark to answer or resolve it—if his sources already hadn’t, and they most likely would have, and therefore so would he. If he was using sources at all. There can therefore have been no such accusation of theft by the time Mark wrote. The full weight of every probability is against it. Mark simply didn’t anticipate how his enemies would respond to his story. But this also means Mark must have invented the whole empty tomb story—precisely because no polemic against it had arisen by the time Mark published it. That a polemic against the tale only arose after Mark published it, evinces the fact that Mark is the first to have told it.

On top of that, is the fact that the earliest Christian history shows no knowledge of there having been any empty tomb story at any point in the religion’s first three decades. Though claiming the body was gone would peg Christians as suspects in a capital crime of grave robbery, an obvious boon their enemies would not fail to exploit, and though the book of Acts records case after case of Christians being interrogated at trial before both Jews and Romans on other offenses (e.g. Acts 4, 5, 6–7, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26), never once in this entire history of the church are they ever suspected of or questioned about grave robbery. It’s as if there was no missing body to investigate; no empty tomb known to the authorities. Which means the Christians can’t really have been pointing to one. If they had, they would have been questioned about it—and possibly convicted for it, innocent or not. Yet Acts shows there were no disputes at all regarding what happened to the body, not even false accusations of theft, or even questions or expressions of amazement.

Worse than that, the Romans would have had an even more urgent worry than body-snatching: the Christians were supposedly preaching that Jesus had escaped his execution, was seen rallying his followers, and then disappeared. Pilate and the Sanhedrin would not likely believe claims of his resurrection or ascension (and there is no evidence they did), but if the tomb was empty and Christ’s followers were reporting that he had continued preaching to them and was still at large, Pilate would be compelled to assume an escape had occurred, and would have to haul every Christian in and interrogate every possible witness in a massive manhunt for what could only be to his mind an escaped convict—who was not only guilty of treason against Rome for claiming to be God and king, as all the Gospels allege (Mark 15:26; Matthew 27:37; Luke. 23:38; John 19:19-22), but now also guilty of escaping justice and continuing to lead a rebellion! And the Sanhedrin would feel the equally compelling need to finish what they had evidently failed to accomplish the first time: finding and killing Jesus.

Yet none of this happens. No one asks where Jesus is hiding or who aided him. No one is at all concerned that there may be an escaped convict, pretender to the throne, thwarter of Roman law and judgment, dire threat to Jewish authority, alive and well somewhere, and still giving orders to his followers. Why would no one care that the Christians were claiming they took him in, hid him from the authorities and fed him after his escape from justice (as Acts 1 pretends), unless in fact they weren’t really claiming any such thing back then? Harboring fugitives would have been accounted a crime. Why were they never charged with it? Think about it.

So either Acts deliberately suppresses the truth about what happened to the body and what was really being argued, said, and done about it (which eliminates Acts as being of any historical value, and supports every suspicion you might have had that the real story was actually embarrassing to Christians, not corroborative), or there was no missing body and no one was claiming there was. The latter is the most inherently probable, being the simplest of explanations, and the most consistent with all the other evidence. So there simply was no empty tomb. Mark made it up.

Against this conclusion, no evidence exists. So we move on.

 

[joelr]

I am not saying that this proves anything for sure, the only claim that I am making is that if someone is going to invent a story an if someone has the liberty (and the will) to lie and invent any witnesses to promote an agenda…………one is more likely to invent witnesses that would be considered reliable. By the people that you are trying to convince.

The simplest explanation is that the authors mentioned woman because the authors thought women where the first witnesses, you symbolism stuff simply adds complexity without adding any explanatory value

The entire Gospel has re-writes of many OT narratives, Kings, Elija, Mark is making Jesus the new Moses. The literary styles and sources show this to be fiction not history. Also historical writings always gave sources and reasons for improbable events.


Mark also sees to use the Psalms to create this narrative -

Whatever the case, Paul’s conviction in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the scriptures” must derive from some Old Testament passage, even if it was also developed (then or by Mark) in conjunction with Jewish or Pagan ideology. However, in choosing how to illuminate this motif in his parable of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, Mark drew upon the Psalms. He consciously modeled his crucifixion narrative on Psalm 22, adapting phrases directly from the Septuagint text thereof (as countless scholars have long noted), including Christ’s cry on the cross, the taunts of the onlookers, and the dividing of garments by casting of lots. Crucifixion also calls up that Psalm’s image of the messiah’s pierced hands and feet. This begins a logical three-day cycle of psalms: Psalm 22 marks the first day (the crucifixion), Psalm 23 the next (the Sabbath, during which Christ’s body rests in the grave), and then Psalm 24 predicts and informs the resurrection on Sunday, the third day.


There is a similar use of women in the OT:

Mark also calls upon other biblical parallels to illuminate the secret meaning of the narrative. I list several in my discussion of this in The Empty Tomb. But most prominently among them, when Mark has the women say “who will roll away the stone…?” he copies a Septuagint phrase from the Genesis narrative of Jacob’s fathering of the twelve tribes of Israel through two women (Mark 16:3, apokylisei…ton lithon; Genesis 29:8, apokylisôsin ton lithon), which, like Mark, contains a reversal of expectation theme, leads to the foundation of a new Israel (the twelve tribes prefiguring the twelve disciples), and involves the visit of a woman, in that case bringing in the sheep to be watered from the well, the parallel to Christ’s tomb, whose opening also brings the water of life to the faithful. Psalm 24 also links us to this very narrative and its meaning, through its prominent mention of Jacob and his nation (in Psalm 24:6).


There is also an Orphic backgrouond to the narrative:

We have ample evidence that the Jewish theologian Philo and, according to Josephus, the Essenes in general, saw even the body of a living person as a corpse and a tomb—a tomb for the soul. This concept appears to have originated within pagan Orphic theology (I cite the scholarship in The Empty Tomb).

According to the plate, when an initiate enters the land of the dead, they will find “a white cypress” on “the right-hand side” (leuka and dexia). In Mark 16:5, when the women enter the tomb (the land of the dead), they find a “boy in white” on “the right-hand side” (leukên and dexiois). The Bacchic initiate is told to go beyond the white cypress, where guardians of the sacred waters will ask them “What are you looking for in the land of the dead?” In Mark, too, the women are searching for something in the land of the dead: Jesus, the water of life. Yet they, too, are supposed to go further (physically, to Galilee; but psychologically, to a recognition of the truth), for they are told that though they are “looking for Jesus,” he is not there (Mark 16:6). The initiate is supposed to ask for a drink from the sacred waters, because they are “perishing” (apollumi, hence “being destroyed, dying”), and the guardians will give it to them, and they shall thereby secure themselves eternal life in a paradise of the hereafter. Likewise, for the women (and the reader), through Mark’s invocation of Jacob’s well, the tomb represents the well of eternal life, from whose waters the sheep must drink to be saved. Just as the initiate must drink of the waters of “memory” (mnêmosunê) to be saved, so do the women enter the tomb, a “memorial” (mnêmeion), where they are told to remember something Jesus said (Mark 16:7).

Thus, Mark’s empty tomb story mimics the secret salvation narratives of the Orphic mysteries, substituting Jewish-Messianic eschatology for the pagan elements. Only in an understanding that Christ is not here (meaning: the land of the dead; but also, the corpse) will the water of life be given. This is the fundamental underlying message of Mark’s empty tomb narrative. The tomb, and its emptiness, symbolizes the land of the dead, or even the dead flesh of Jesus, and the details (the boy in white on the right, the water of life being sought, the need to go further, the role of memory) evoke the symbols of Orphic mystery cult, thus becoming a narrative symbolic of the path to salvation: one must ‘see’ the truth, and become ‘one’ with the new body of Jesus in heaven, in order to be saved. This is the message Mark wrote his myth to convey, albeit only to the insightful, those initiated into the mysteries of the Christian faith.

This is clearly myth, not history.

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

Reply to post 215


To claim that Paul started believing in Jesus soon after the death of Jesus if all of the Jews of the day in and around Jerusalem knew that Jesus had not existed and knew that this non existent Jesus was not crucified, is beyond ridiculous.
The other Jews never claimed that Jesus did not exist. That is a recent invention and plainly ridiculous in the extreme.

Muhammad wrote the Quran after "revelations". Joe Smith started believing in Mormonism after his "visions". All fake.
The myths started before Paul and the story then was different. Paul did not say anything except Jesus was killed by the "Arhceons of the day?. In some cases this means supernatural forces. The Gospel story was not around and Paul suspiciously mentions nothing of it. This myth may have been similar to other savior myths which took place in the celestial realm. In Ascension of Isaiah this takes place in the celestial realm.
Mark was the first to make this a fully on-Earth story with events, crowds, family and such.
The Jewish people did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Some did convert but the events that were supposed to happen did not and they also knew it was Pagan elements from Hellenism, Persian and Roman.

There was a Jewish-Christianity for Jews who converted, which eventually ended:
According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism.

People didn't have paper, phones or means of communication or much transportation so people didn't know what was really going on?

There are no writings about Jesus from early Jewish communities. The first mentioned is Josephus which has been shown to be a forgery or edited.

 

[joelr]

It seems like, in accordance to what you are basing it from, that from the plethora of comments I am eliciting from you that I am sticking a nerve.

From the diet of the sites you are reading from, I understand why you hold to that position. The diet of what I gather my information from (such as the renown encyclopedia Britannica), I wouldn't agree.

But I respect your position even though I wouldn't agree with it.

Pretty sure Briticanica shows the standard dating for the Gospels and says they are anonymous?
They also have a good essay on Hellenism and it's influence on early religions from 300 B.C. - 100A.D


This shows most Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad. This is why the "mystery religions" also had dying/rising sons/daughters of their one true God.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme



-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity) Eucharist


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


I

 

[Kenny]

That's an interesting left turn into ontology? The first known author of the human race who has surviving work is actually praise to Inana. It's strangely moving. Enheduanna.

The exaltation of Inana (Inana B): translation

A hymn to Inana (Inana C): translation

mercy and pity are yours, Inana. ...... are yours, Inana. To cause the ...... heart to tremble, ...... illnesses are yours, Inana. To have a wife, ......, to love ...... are yours, Inana. To rejoice, to control (?), ...... are yours, Inana. Neglect and care, raising and bowing down are yours, Inana. To build a house, to create a woman's chamber, to possess implements, to kiss a child's lips are yours, Inana. To run, to race, to desire and to succeed are yours, Inana. To interchange the brute and the strong and the weak and the powerless is yours, Inana. To interchange the heights and valleys and the ...... and the plains (?) is yours, Inana. To give the crown, the throne and the royal sceptre is yours, Inana.

Yes... there is that which can be read.

But when does reality become real?

 

[Kenny]

Pretty sure Briticanica shows the standard dating for the Gospels and says they are anonymous?
They also have a good essay on Hellenism and it's influence on early religions from 300 B.C. - 100A.D


This shows most Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad. This is why the "mystery religions" also had dying/rising sons/daughters of their one true God.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme



-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity) Eucharist


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


I

We can ALL agree that the Gospels and some letters don't have a signature and those that don't have a signature can be technically called anonymous.

However, they do have reasons when they have been called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We can also figure out that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians were influenced by things of that time. No argument.

However, the Gospel was preached from the TaNaKh! and NONE of them were written after 300 AD.

So, your points are quite mute since it says "that it might be fulfilled, according to what was written, as it was said by the prophet..." et al

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

I see this comment a lot. It should be a red flag for anybody who hears it. It means that at least one of us who have interpreted that evidence is incorrect, and if we're empiricists, we're keen to resolve the different conclusions.

Furthermore, we can if we are both critical thinkers, meaning that we subscribe to the same rules of interpreting evidence. This makes it possible to go back to our point of departure - where we first disagreed - and see who has made the error. And that's the point - if we have contradictory opinions about what evidence means, it means at least one of us is incorrect, and we're not done.

If you can't see that, imagine that we were taking about adding a column of numbers. The numbers function as the evidence. The reasoning applied to it are the rules of addition. The sum is the equivalent of the conclusion, a correct sum being the equivalent of a sound conclusion. Hopefully, you agree that at least one was wrong if two people come up with different sums, and if being accurate matters, the discrepancy needs resolution. Likewise with interpreting evidence.

Of course, if one is a faith-based thinker, this doesn't work, because the two have no basis for reconciling their differences. They don't think alike. They process evidence differently, so they can never agree.

In fact, the critical thinker doesn't actually believe that the faith-based thinker used evidence at all to come to his belief. Whatever evidence he looks at will either be seen to support him or will be rejected. Many prominent people of faith such as WL Craig and Ken Ham have proudly proclaimed that evidence cannot change their minds, which is pretty good evidence itself that they didn't use any in the first place.

But back to interpreting evidence. I discovered an excellent trope for discussing this topic. This is a diagram of all the places that WWII bombers had been hit compiled from examining them upon return from battle. On the basis of this, it was decided that these areas needed reinforcing. Somebody else had a different and contrary opinion. Is that OK, or does that suggest a need to explore the different opinions and decide which is incorrect? Hopefully, you can see why the latter is the correct. It's not OK to just say, "Oh, well that's not how I see it." One needs to give his reasons for dissent, and they need to be convincing or the reasons are rejected. Here's the diagram:

The other opinion was that it was the white areas that needed reinforcing, not where all the red dots are. Why? Because airplanes hit in those areas didn't come back. Reinforcing the white areas would save lives. Reinforcing the red areas was reinforcing the parts of the aircraft that could survive a hit.

So, your points are quite mute

This is the second time I've seen this from you, so I thought I'd comment this time. The word you want is moot.

 

[Kenny]

I see this comment a lot. It should be a red flag for anybody who hears it. It means that at least one of us who have interpreted that evidence is incorrect, and if we're empiricists, we're keen to resolve the different conclusions.

I see this conclusion as wrong.

There are 7 theories of how life was created (that I am aware of) . Is there a red flag because there are different conclusion? Hardly - just waiting for better evidence.

Furthermore, we can if we are both critical thinkers, meaning that we subscribe to the same rules of interpreting evidence. This makes it possible to go back to our point of departure - where we first disagreed - and see who has made the error. And that's the point - if we have contradictory opinions about what evidence means, it means at least one of us is incorrect, and we're not done.

If, as one continues forward and we "subscribe to the same rules of interpreting evidence" - we would have to agree to the same rules lest one creates their own rules to their own benefit.

You "assume" that someone has made an error when, in reality, we could be looking at the same evidence and simply have two different theories.

Are we done? Hardly.

Of course, if one is a faith-based thinker, this doesn't work, because the two have no basis for reconciling their differences. They don't think alike. They process evidence differently, so they can never agree.

So, for starters, can we first agree to what "faith-based" thinker is lest we be talking two different languages?

Maybe we can start there?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are 7 theories of how life was created (that I am aware of)

You probably mean scientific hypotheses, and you are probably referring to the different ideas about whether life began in tidal pools versus seafloor vents, began with a bolt of lightning or just by absorbing sunlight, developed on earth versus came from space, etc.. Speculating about logical possibilities is not concluding. There is a single scientific hypothesis for abiogenesis - life arose spontaneously via the chemical evolution of small organic molecules into larger ones, which eventually resulted in a population of reproducing cells. The precise pathway has yet to be worked out and possibly can't be, just as with evolution. There is only one theory of evolution, but the precise pathway from arboreal ape to man, for example, has not yet been elucidated and possibly never will be.

Your comment suggested that you were content to disagree about what evidence meant and stop there, such as whether the evidence suggested a naturalistic origin to life or divine creation. Typically, the creationist will say that's not what the evidence shows him and be content. My point was that if there are two contradictory conclusions drawn from the same evidence, at least one is incorrect, and if correct answers matter, the discrepancy can be resolved using the principles of critical thought. You haven't addressed that.

You "assume" that someone has made an error when, in reality, we could be looking at the same evidence and simply have two different theories.

If people come to conflicting conclusions using the same evidence, at least one is wrong. Will you address that by agreeing or disagreeing, and if in disagreement, why you think it is incorrect?

can we first agree to what "faith-based" thinker is

Anybody willing to come to conclusions with insufficient evidentiary support, a violation of the principles of critical thought, can be called a faith-based thinker. If one is willing to do that, there is no common manner to resolve a dispute with a strict empiricist. Referring back to the addition problem, if one has his own rules of addition, he will come up with his own answers in a process where there is one correct answer and countless incorrect ones, and there is no way to get him to agree.

I mentioned Craig and Ham in my last post as examples of people wiling to believe that way, who were proud that they were refractory to evidence that contradicted their faith-based beliefs. Here's another from a pastor Peter la Ruffa: “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it." Suppose we add a column of numbers, and when we have to combine two twos, a dozen skilled adders agree that the sum shall be four. So, 22 + 22 = 44 for them, but 55 for the good pastor. There is no resolving this discrepancy, since they use different rules of addition. The pastor, a faith-based thinker, adds by faith. He's already told you that he's not interested in your reasoning as to why 2+2=4.

This is the problem the critical thinker encounters with the faith-based thinker. Consider the creationist and evolutionary scientist again. The creationist declares that cells are too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, and that therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. The critical thinker points out that that is merely an unevidenced claim and disregards the possibility of a naturalistic explanation, which he dismisses with a handwave. Furthermore, the creationist is told that he is guilty of special pleading by invoking an even more complex entity to account for cells that he declared too complex to exist without an intelligent designer. That discussion is going nowhere, because the two think so differently. There needs to be a objective basis for truth in order to call it that, and both discussants need to be on the same page using it.

I mentioned in my last post that the skeptic doesn't actually think that the faith-based thinker came to a contradictory conclusion using the same evidence, but rather, that he simply decided to believe what he wanted to believe without evidence and later claimed that he DID use evidence, but came to a different conclusion. If he had applied fallacy-free reasoning to the evidence, he would not have concluded creationism. How can these two resolve their differences? They can't.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That is an interesting spin on the story. What "evidence" in the Bible is there that he did not die?

i would say that the Muslim claim that he did not die is more probable. When it comes to miracles any mundane explanation is more probable. But I wonder if there is any evidence at all for that.

The story recounts a comatose woman Jesus specifically protested wasn’t dead, but sleeping. They couldn’t tell when someone had a pulse, making it highly likely that Jesus was pulled down prior to clinical death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can ALL agree that the Gospels and some letters don't have a signature and those that don't have a signature can be technically called anonymous.

However, they do have reasons when they have been called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

But not very good ones when on looks into them. That is why modern theologians as a whole reject the idea of Mark being by Mark etc.. For example the first records of anyone claiming the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke was Irenaeus. And he was born in roughly 130 CE. How old would he have had to have been to be bold enough to make that claim? Let's say in his twenties. That would make it about 150 CE at the earliest. Being born at 130 Luke could not have both been a witness to the apostles and have ever communicated with Luke himself. Though if written in the late 80's or even at the turn of the first century there was more than enough time to forget who the original anonymous author was.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

You probably mean scientific hypotheses, and you are probably referring to the different ideas about whether life began in tidal pools versus seafloor vents, began with a bolt of lightning or just by absorbing sunlight, developed on earth versus came from space, etc.. Speculating about logical possibilities is not concluding. There is a single scientific hypothesis for abiogenesis - life arose spontaneously via the chemical evolution of small organic molecules into larger ones, which eventually resulted in a population of reproducing cells. The precise pathway has yet to be worked out and possibly can't be, just as with evolution. There is only one theory of evolution, but the precise pathway from arboreal ape to man, for example, has not yet been elucidated and possibly never will be.

Your comment suggested that you were content to disagree about what evidence meant and stop there, such as whether the evidence suggested a naturalistic origin to life or divine creation. Typically, the creationist will say that's not what the evidence shows him and be content. My point was that if there are two contradictory conclusions drawn from the same evidence, at least one is incorrect, and if correct answers matter, the discrepancy can be resolved using the principles of critical thought. You haven't addressed that.

Yes, obviously, the statement is made is scientific but giving specific analogy of how two people (or in this case 7) can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

Not meant to go into specifics on biogenies.

If people come to conflicting conclusions using the same evidence, at least one is wrong. Will you address that by agreeing or disagreeing, and if in disagreement, why you think it is incorrect?

Well, yes. Obviously if there are 7 viewpoints, 6 are wrong. But until more evidence is given, we are open to any one of them (or subscribe to just one in the viewpoint that the one we chose is correct.)

Anybody willing to come to conclusions with insufficient evidentiary support, a violation of the principles of critical thought, can be called a faith-based thinker. If one is willing to do that, there is no common manner to resolve a dispute with a strict empiricist. Referring back to the addition problem, if one has his own rules of addition, he will come up with his own answers in a process where there is one correct answer and countless incorrect ones, and there is no way to get him to agree.

I'm not quite sure we are on the same wavelengths. Using the analogy of 7 theories, each one came to their conclusion though there isn't sufficient evidentiary support for if there was, there would be only one...

Are you suggesting that the 7 theories are by faith?

I mentioned Craig and Ham in my last post as examples of people wiling to believe that way, who were proud that they were refractory to evidence that contradicted their faith-based beliefs.

Yes, there are some positions that Craig and Ham make that are theories and not evidential. But I wouldn't call that "by faith".