Posted on 04/16/2003 6:36:15 PM PDT by Remedy
And what is that standard?
Cordially,
Well, at least you've taken the main step. Conservatism assumes a pessimistic view of human nature. Paganism in all it's permutations--collectivism, libertarianism, rationalism, idealism, etc.--assumes the opposite.
Here's hoping you reconcile it the 'right way'.
Crossan explains the absence of a body post-cruxifiction by suggesting that Jesus' followers may have left his body unburied and exposed in the desert where his bones were then scattered by wild dogs. Those dogs weren't the only ones howling after Crossan's theory got around!
Excellent, thanks for that quote.
That Jesus rejected this, the basis for all pagan systems of ethics Deathics, should be proof enough of His Divinity.
As were the witnesses, many of whom were stoned (with rocks) for their belief in what they saw.
That words were put into his mouth by later writers (Saul of Tarsus and his followers.)
See original post: "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false."
I'm afraid that, rather than projecting your perspective back, you've projected it across. Most modern Western people are formed, to some degree or another, by the influence of Hebraic civilization. All the examples you cited are, like you, pagan. The division here is less about era than worldview.
There is also the matter of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." "There survives nothing" is definitely not synonymous with "there has never been anything written"; since you do not have access to all extant writings, your statement is unsupportable. If the Church destroyed all dissident writing, or buried it in the Vatican library, they (and you) can deny their very existence.
The Catholics have always kept records of the heresies rejected, especially at Councils. (And truths rejected, for that matter.) Even if only keeping their own side, that does survive to record the controversy. This one single issue would be unique if they destroyed or hid not only their oponents' writings, but their own. Yes, in the right circumstances, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
Even given the logical errors, you are also factually incorrect (i.e., no records of Christian sects who did not believe in the claims of divinity of Yeshua.) Read about the Ebionites, and get back to me.
I've got an even better one: the Arians, which I forgot completely because I was thinking of very early groups, like the Gnostics (who are condemned by doctrine, but not name, in the New Testament).
So I read about the Ebionites. They seem to have grown out the Judaizers, who I did mention and were very early, but the Ebionites proper, with their low Christology, didn't exist until the second century. They weren't contemporaries of the Apostles.
There are over 300 prophecies that could be cited. Just a few should be enough.
Isaiah 40:3 The Messiah would be heralded by a messenger of the Lord who would be a voice of one calling "In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wildernedd a highway for our God." This was fulfilled by John the Baptist.
Is 53:2-12 give precise descriptions of Christ's sufferings and death:
Daniel gave the very year that the messiah would die (Chapter 9).
Psalm 16 predicts his resurrection.
Psalm 110 predicts his ascension.
The probability that Jesus could have fulfilled just 16 of the messianic prophecies is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The chance that he fulfilled 48 of them is 1 in 10157. Stoner's odds
Arcane writings can be interpreted in many ways, and later scripture can be written to appear to support the old prophecies.
What makes the arcane? A subjective personal fiat? If the scripture in question was understood by the Jews to be messianic before Christ was born, it is not arcane.
Yeshua may not have been born in Bethlehem (there is no Roman evidence of the "census" referenced in the infancy tale of Yeshua, which makes the actual location of his birth an open question)
There is no Roman evidence? How could one possibly know that? It wasn't that long ago that Pilate was said not to have existed because there was no Roman evidence. There is a biased and uninformed opinion about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts that assumes all biblical accounts in error unless they are corroborated by a secondary or less reliable source. Try applying that standard to say the theory of evolution or innocent-until-proven-guilty.
The fact of the matter is that if the Messiah was not born in Bethlehem then his contemporaries would have known.
and he may not have fled to Egypt as a newborn (no one but the gospel writer describes the 'slaughter of the innocents' under Herod Antipas).
Another "may have?" The slaughter occurred just before Herod died and was not contrary to his nature since he had done many such brutal things during his reign according to Josephus. Of course there is a problem for skeptics in the gospel account: There were people alive when the account was written who would know if it was a fabrication since they witnessed it. Yet there exists no claim to the contrary.
He may not have sat with the rebbis in the Temple as a boy. These things may be pious inventions, designed to give Yeshua legitimacy as a messiah
Yet another "may not have." If the stories are false, where are contemporary critics? Christianity had no political power before Constantine 300 years later and the critics were free to discredit Christ or the NT. The alleged fabrications would have been made while living witnesses to the contrary had the power to object. Yet none such objections exist. Rather than producing the body of Christ to disprove the resurrection, stories were circulated that his body was stolen. NOT likely for the following reasons:
If the body was stolen, 11 of the 12 apostles chose execution for what they knew was a lie.
The Shroud of Turin, the alleged burial cloth of Christ cannot be explained or duplicated. Skeptics find comfort only in a questionable carbon dating test which is doubted even by professionals in the field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.