From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidence or not ?
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:07:26 GMT


Hi, Sean

Nigel:
>> The position that Tigger seems to prefer - that there was no such
>> person, and the entire Gospel story was mnufactured by some (drug
>> crazed?) chaps who wanted to start a religion - stretches the limits
>> of credibility.

Sean:
>I agree but I would say that a resurrection stretches it further.
>Though remote, and though I don't favour it, I would still have to say
>that Tigger's proposal is possible. I don't know that I would put a
>resurrection quite in that category. On the other hand, I wouldn't like
>to declare it to be totally impossible.

All things are possible, but are they likely??? As I understand
it, our task as modern students of Christianity is to examine all
possibilities, and to make informed judgements about what is the
most lilely explanation of the known facts. 

I have yet to see an explanation which is more convincing than:
The disciples experienced _something_ after the death of Jesus,
which they described as Jesus being present amongst them, and
this inspired them to go out and begin the process of spreading
Christianity throughout the world. 

>Relatively speaking, the number of Christians would still have been
>quite small at the end of the 2nd century. Does one need the
>extraordinary to explain the growth since then? I'm afraid I can't see
>the difference. I feel I have demonstrated the environment that was
>conducive to giving a sect extra momentum in the early period, when it
>started to evolve. After that, what happened is little different to the
>growth that Christianity has enjoyed for centuries, all without
>miracles.

As I said in one of my posts to Tigger, the miracle stories have
served their purpose. In modern parlance they were the 'booster
rockets' that gave the Christian Gospel a start, by drawing
attention to Jesus and his message. (This is the case, whether
the miracle stories describe actual events or not). In our day,
when the miracle stories tend to detract from the message and
cause people to view it with skepticism, the miracle stories are
best jettisoned. 

>>> In your discussion with Tigger, you did recognize that the theist
>>> will have less difficulty in accepting a miracle as being the
>>> explanation. Though I have done so before in this ng, I will provide
>>> problem as presented by David Hume:
>
>>>: "The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
>>>: attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a
>>>: miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood
>>>: would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to
>>>: establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of
>>>: arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to
>>>: that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the
>>>: inferior.'" ("Of Miracles", David Hume; Open Court Classics, P32)
>
>>> The beauty of Hume's excerpt is that its validity is independent of
>>> whether or not one believes in miracles. I hope you can see that:
>
>> I don't think I understand it at all. Sorry to be obtuse, but what
>> does he mean by 'miracle'? Is he referring to magic tricks or divine
>> intervention in the natural processes of creation?
>
>What is you own understanding of "miracle"? Did you apply that to the
>proposal? I doubt if your understanding and Hume's would be different.
>In any case, though he was talking about miracles, the proposal is
>still valid if you replace "a miracle" with "the remarkable" and "more
>miraculous" with "more remarkable".
>
>Taking miracles right out of it, one could still say that for
>eyewitness testimony to establish the remarkable, the testimony would
>need such that, its falsehood would be more remarkable than that which
>it endeavours to establish. Note that I have so far only dealt with the
>first part of Hume's proposal.

Sorry to appear obtuse, but isn't this just a roundabout way of
saying what I said before - that as soon as a story of "miracle"
(or "the remarkable") is told to another person, even by an
eyewitness, it becomes, by definition, unbelievable. 

>I consider that which I have proposed to be more likely than a
>resurrection and an ascension. I fact, I don't believe my claims are
>particularly extraordinary. I don't mean to imply that you are saying
>that they are so.

If you mean that there were other sects with similar teachings
and similar expectations to Christianity in the first century,
then I concede all that. The historical and religious milieu was
ideal. But I would submit that Christianity is unique for at
least two reasons:

1. None of the other sects or mystery religions survived for more
than a generation after their founder had been killed or
discredited.

2. None of the others successfuly accomodated both the Jewish
religious world- view and the Greek philosophical world-view.

By any standards, Christianity _succeeded_ in taking the "good
news" to all the world. Do you agree?

>> No argument there, except to say that the distinction between "fact"
>> and "fiction" is not absoloute. I concede that it was the generations
>> after Jesus (ie from Paul onwards) that realised and articulated the
>> religious and cosmic significance of what he said and did. Even
>> according to the Gospels, the contemporaries of Jesus did not seem to
>> have much of a clue.
>
>Why do you think that is so?

The Biblical answer to that question is that only after Pentecost
(which we celebrate this Sunday, BTW, so all this is very
topical) did the Church have the enlightenment and inspiration of
the Holy Spirit to understand what Jesus was on about, and how
and why they should spread the Gospel. 

I think also that Paul was a brilliant man who was the catalyst
for taking the teachings of an obscure and discredited Jewish
teacher and moulding them into a workable and enduring religious
system. If we read between the lines of the Acts and Paul's
letters, this is exactly what he did, in the face of some
opposition from the Jerusalem Church - but he succeeded.

>
>> I was using "mystery religion" in respect of the other greco-roman
>> cults who had dying and rising Gods, not other Christian sects. I
>> think that there were many different Christian sects in the first
>> century - just as there are many different Christian sects/
>> denominations today. The world, and Christianity, has not changed all
>> that much in that respect.
>
>Oh, I would have thought that your label could at least have
>accommodated the Gnostics. In any case, I like the term and have
>hijacked it for early Pauline Christianity.

I cannot claim credit for the term (if that is what you are
implying). "Mystery religion" is common terminology for the cults
I have referred to above. Gnosticism in the 'missing link'
between the Mystery Religions and Christianity.

Some of the marks of a mystery religion - initiation and
fellowship rituals, secret teachings, a preoccupation with
eschatology - were also present in Christanity, but Christianity
was distinctive in that it was monotheistic, and did not involve
animal sacrifice. Of course, these two things, alongside the
universally admired ethical system of Judaism, are a large part
of what made Christianity so attractive.

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell