Can it be Said that there was a Typical Early Christian in Terms of Religious Belief?

[ABuddhist]

As we all know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And when you do have evidence why do we just dismiss it as interpolation or fraud?

For the record let me leave a comment in response to this distortion of what I wrote:

If we lack evidence for X then it follows that we cannot safely build a hypothesis on X. As I have tried to point out endless times to others who make the same criticism as John T, absence of evidence does not mean that we can safely conclude X does not exist, but it does mean we cannot know it existed, either! And therefore we cannot build a hypothesis on the asssumption that X existed.


As for the second point, if I have ever "just dismissed" contrary evidence "as interpolation" please point to the evidence of where I have committed that criminal act. Not that your inability to cite evidence will be proof that I have never done so, but it will be reasonable grounds for saying that your accusation is unjustified.

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

1. Logic and critical thinking are separate. It is possible to use logic while not being a critical thinker.

3. So you accept the Pentecost account as literally true. Do you extend the same charity to, for example, the miracle-filled account of how Asvaghosa was converted to Mahayana Buddhism from Hinduism by Aryadeva? If not, such suggests a major bias in which accounts you accept as true. For what it is worth, I, as a non-Mahayana Buddhist, reject both accounts as propagandistic legends.

3. Why should we accept Acts of the Apostles as an accurate account of events? The Acts of the Apostles is increasingly being recognized as a second century CE work of propaganda rather than as an accurate account of events. A good introduction is to such scholarship is here: https://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-f ... s-seminar/ and https://vridar.org/2013/11/24/pauls-let ... ar-report/

[John T]

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

Well Jeezus, you quote my comment and then write your criticisms beneath it -- how silly of me to assume you were addressing your remarks at my words!

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

Well how indeed. And of course the resurrection proves Jesus is alive today and will soon come to judge sinners like me, and how even creation itself proves there was a creator who made the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago.

You have me cornered John T. I can't argue against such "critical thinking" and sound "logic".

Your sarcasm (tit for tat) is duly noted and justly deserved. It is my fault that I thought you would know who the real target was.

Again, sorry about that.

[ABuddhist]

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

Well Jeezus, you quote my comment and then write your criticisms beneath it -- how silly of me to assume you were addressing your remarks at my words!

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

Well how indeed. And of course the resurrection proves Jesus is alive today and will soon come to judge sinners like me, and how even creation itself proves there was a creator who made the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago.

You have me cornered John T. I can't argue against such "critical thinking" and sound "logic".

Your sarcasm (tit for tat) is duly noted and justly deserved. It is my fault that I thought you would know who the real target was.

Again, sorry about that.

Why should we assume that John T was being sarcastic, though? Sarcasm is difficult to detect in writing.

I wonder whether I am on John T's "ignore list". If so, it is to my loss, because I am so interested in knowing what his opinion about the Acts Seminar (and indeed other scepticism about that document's reliability) is.

I refrain from accusing him of bad faith, of course!

[neilgodfrey]

Why should we assume that John T was being sarcastic, though? Sarcasm is difficult to detect in writing.

I wonder whether I am on John T's "ignore list". If so, it is to my loss, because I am so interested in knowing what his opinion about the Acts Seminar (and indeed other scepticism about that document's reliability) is.

I refrain from accusing him of bad faith, of course!

I didn't know John T was being sarcastic with his Pentecost comment. He comes across like some Pentecostals who also present themselves as scholars -- bombastic and ignorant, trying to sound like they know all there is to know about "the opposition" yet knowing nothing and totally misrepresenting the "enemy". The same style of bombast and ridicule is found among fundies who present themselves as so much "smarter" than scientists who "teach" evolution.

[ABuddhist]

Why should we assume that John T was being sarcastic, though? Sarcasm is difficult to detect in writing.

I wonder whether I am on John T's "ignore list". If so, it is to my loss, because I am so interested in knowing what his opinion about the Acts Seminar (and indeed other scepticism about that document's reliability) is.

I refrain from accusing him of bad faith, of course!

I didn't know John T was being sarcastic with his Pentecost comment.

I interpreted the reference to tit for tat as being a reference to his sarcasm.

Do you know where John T has presented refutations of multiple forms of mythicism? He claimed to have done such a thing to me as part of a confused request for me to tell him what my definition of mythicism is.

[neilgodfrey]

I interpreted the reference to tit for tat as being a reference to his sarcasm.

Do you know where John T has presented refutations of multiple forms of mythicism? He claimed to have done such a thing to me as part of a confused request for me to tell him what my definition of mythicism is.

Indeed. It was his earlier comment where he introduced Pentecost as evidence that I did not think sounded like sarcasm. Hard to tell with these types whose obvious ignorance is matched only by their bombast.

Do you know where John T has presented refutations of multiple forms of mythicism? He claimed to have done such a thing to me as part of a confused request for me to tell him what my definition of mythicism is.

Of course he hasn't. He's not worth taking seriously.