Because if something actually happened, especially something of historical significance, there should be more evidence of its occurrence than a fairy tale concocted by a fiction writer (or four).
One should expect that the evidence for a significant event that actually took place should be of greater weight than the "evidence" or indicators it did not.
Is the resurrection itself historically significant event? It probably didn't actually happen. So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.
Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history. Christianity itself would be historically significant.
The most significant event in the history of the world should have a more reliable footprint than the contradictory accounts of non witnesses writing mutually exclusive stories two or three generations after the events allegedly transpired!
Is the resurrection itself historically significant event? It probably didn't actually happen. So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.
Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history. Christianity itself would be historically significant.
If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)
If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)
There are people who believe Muhammad ascended into heaven on a winged horse, that joseph Smith received the book of Mormon on golden plates, that L. Ron Hubbard had ascertained spiritual information leading to the development of Scientology. The fact that people believed those things doesn't make them true. It doesn't mean they happened.
Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?
No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f?
The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!
Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?
Seriously? Are you now suggesting that it's true just because two people you cited believed it?
Ya know, this "discussion" is really devolving into the kind of circular nonsense that we got from Mike until his most recent exit... which was during tax season 2018.
No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f?
The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!
I would argue that the people who fell for LRon's BS are no more gullible than we were to fall for VeePee's BS. Scientists have documented that every human is subject to getting conned at some time or other in their lives... aka universal gullibility.
And his painstaking exploration of the various ways we can unwittingly get exploited, betrayed, or deceived serves as a reminder of just how crucial it is to understand the dynamics of gullibility--as well as the fact that none of us is totally immune to it.
But I digress. Is that too much of a diversion from the original topic?
Edited by Rocky
Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc.
I understand, but it needs to be said out loud. Trust me on this one.
Yes, I agree. I may have stated it poorly when I said they were Campbell's concepts. The concepts exist, with or without Campbell. What he did was identify them and assemble them into a form that could be understood. Not a small task, by any means.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Bolshevik
Is the resurrection itself historically significant event? It probably didn't actually happen. So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.
Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history. Christianity itself would be historically significant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Christianity cannot have it both ways.
The most significant event in the history of the world should have a more reliable footprint than the contradictory accounts of non witnesses writing mutually exclusive stories two or three generations after the events allegedly transpired!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Sure. But there was belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
BELIEF doesn't mean it happened
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It didn't. Christianity did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No dispute there.
There are people who believe Muhammad ascended into heaven on a winged horse, that joseph Smith received the book of Mormon on golden plates, that L. Ron Hubbard had ascertained spiritual information leading to the development of Scientology. The fact that people believed those things doesn't make them true. It doesn't mean they happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f?
The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You're just toying with me now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Seriously? Are you now suggesting that it's true just because two people you cited believed it?
Ya know, this "discussion" is really devolving into the kind of circular nonsense that we got from Mike until his most recent exit... which was during tax season 2018.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I would argue that the people who fell for LRon's BS are no more gullible than we were to fall for VeePee's BS. Scientists have documented that every human is subject to getting conned at some time or other in their lives... aka universal gullibility.
But I digress. Is that too much of a diversion from the original topic? Edited by Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc.
The Hero With A Thousand Faces
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lucas drew heavily and openly from Campbell's concepts. This is a whole other subject to explore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
George Lucas
JK Rowling
JRR Tolkien
Homer
Siegel & Schuster
Campbell merely identified the elements. He didn't invent them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't think anyone claimed he invented them.
The Christ story of course is an example. It seems to have caught on pretty well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I understand, but it needs to be said out loud. Trust me on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, I agree. I may have stated it poorly when I said they were Campbell's concepts. The concepts exist, with or without Campbell. What he did was identify them and assemble them into a form that could be understood. Not a small task, by any means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
What needs to be said out loud?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That the concepts didn't originate with Campbell. He
Edited by waysiderassembledaggregated them.word choice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I was anticipating a "how could Jesus fit Campbell's mythic hero archetype when Campbell didn't come up with it until the 20th Century" argument.
It is significant to note Campbell merely identified the archetypes. They didn't originate with him.
Like Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity; he didn't create gravity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You always say it better than me. You should probably think about a career in journalism when you grow up .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.