Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[William]

All except a handful of scholars have rejected this claim, so much so, that when I was doing my doctoral work and trying to decide what to do it on, I asked about doing something on this and my advisor said that I could not because this claim is no longer taken seriously in the academic world.

I did not say useful fiction was good or bad - just useful.

[William]

All except a handful of scholars have rejected this claim, so much so, that when I was doing my doctoral work and trying to decide what to do it on, I asked about doing something on this and my advisor said that I could not because this claim is no longer taken seriously in the academic world.

I did not say useful fiction was good or bad - just useful.

Diana Walsh Pasulka talks about academic suppressions or suppression of information in general, including;
Suspicion of Purposeful Obfuscation
Information Suppression & Disinformation

She talks about "The Invisible College" as a concept that emerged in response to academic suppression, institutional control, and the need for secrecy in the study of unconventional or forbidden knowledge—especially in relation to UFOs, intelligence research, and esoteric traditions. It functions as an informal network of scientists, researchers, and intellectuals who share sensitive knowledge away from the constraints of traditional academia and government oversight.

This has to do with people who - like you did - ask procedural questions and - like you didn't do - decide to study what they are advised not to study or otherwise go there with one's thoughts and concerns, for reasons like 'such and such' is no longer taken seriously in the academic world.

This strategy is an aspect of useful fiction. Spin a yarn (serious scholars don't go there - and if one wants to pass, one follows a procedure mapped out for them to follow) and fear of bucking the system have most academics toeing the line.

[The Tanager]

What evidence do you have that the Christian narrative is a copycat of those mythologies? This claim completely goes against the current scholarship on this subject. All except a handful of scholars have rejected this claim, so much so, that when I was doing my doctoral work and trying to decide what to do it on, I asked about doing something on this and my advisor said that I could not because this claim is no longer taken seriously in the academic world.

I did not say useful fiction was good or bad - just useful.

Diana Walsh Pasulka talks about academic suppressions or suppression of information in general, including;
Suspicion of Purposeful Obfuscation
Information Suppression & Disinformation

She talks about "The Invisible College" as a concept that emerged in response to academic suppression, institutional control, and the need for secrecy in the study of unconventional or forbidden knowledge—especially in relation to UFOs, intelligence research, and esoteric traditions. It functions as an informal network of scientists, researchers, and intellectuals who share sensitive knowledge away from the constraints of traditional academia and government oversight.

This has to do with people who - like you did - ask procedural questions and - like you didn't do - decide to study what they are advised not to study or otherwise go there with one's thoughts and concerns, for reasons like 'such and such' is no longer taken seriously in the academic world.

This strategy is an aspect of useful fiction. Spin a yarn (serious scholars don't go there - and if one wants to pass, one follows a procedure mapped out for them to follow) and fear of bucking the system have most academics toeing the line.

I had already done a paper on this topic in one of my classes and later presented on this topic at a conference, so I have explored this topic (and have continued to since) through my own research and I can see why the vast majority of scholars have rejected it. I included an important part of what I said that you left out of your quote in bold above. I asked for the evidence, instead of just saying it's not worth our time. Please support your claim with evidence.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #83]
If we remove the claim that "God gives the increase" in 1 Corinthians 3:3-7, we are left with a system in which seeds are planted and grow according to their design—and the attribution of growth to "God" then becomes a narrative overlay rather than an actual causal force.


This shift exposes the mechanism of ideological, intellectual, and spiritual development as not divine intervention but rather the product of structured intelligence embedded in the original seed (whether that seed is a belief system, an institution, or an idea).


Let’s break down what this reveals.



1. "Seeds" as Programmed Ideologies: Growth is Not Neutral​

Paul’s statement:


"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."
suggests a natural growth process that ultimately relies on a higher power.

However, if we remove "God" as a necessary agent, then we see that:


The seed itself contains the programming for growth.
What grows is entirely dependent on what was planted.
The increase is built into the structure of the seed itself, not granted externally.

Implication:


People grow into what they are conditioned to grow into.
Religious systems, academic institutions, and ideological movements plant their own seeds—but they do not acknowledge the inherent bias within those seeds.
By attributing the growth to "God," they hide the mechanism of control and direction.

Control Mechanism: Make people believe their intellectual/spiritual growth is organic, while actually designing the seeds to grow in a predetermined direction.



2. Structured Intelligence at Work: The Illusion of Free Growth​

If seeds contain encoded intelligence, then the increase is not an act of divine favor—it is the inevitable result of structured intelligence within the system itself.


"Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase."

This downplays the role of the seed-planters and the caretakers—suggesting that no matter what they do, the outcome is in "God’s hands."


But if we reject that claim, then the reality becomes clear:


Whoever chooses which seeds are planted controls the future of the crop.
Whoever waters (sustains the ideology) determines what survives.
The increase is not random—it is an engineered outcome.

Control Mechanism: Attribute the outcome to an external force ("God," "the market," "historical necessity") to prevent people from questioning who designed the system.


If "God" is merely a placeholder for institutional control, then:

Those who plant the seeds are the true architects of what grows.
Knowledge is not an organic process—it is curated by those who decide what gets planted and what is allowed to flourish.
The "God gives the increase" model is a way to justify keeping power centralized.
It falsely implies that outcomes are beyond human influence, when in reality they are structured by those who plant, water, and control access to the seeds of knowledge.
Removing "God" reveals the true system of control: those who dictate the seeds dictate the future.

1. The Conflict is By Design: Loyalty vs. Growth​

Paul states:


"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"

Paul critiques this division, implying that those taking sides are stuck in a lower, flesh-driven mindset—but notice what this really reveals:


A system where competing "authorities" create factions based on who planted the seed versus who waters it.
An unspoken premise: The seed must be accepted as valid first before it can be watered.
Whoever controls the planting controls the initial framework of the discussion—watering merely sustains it.

If we take "God" out of the equation, what do we see?


The conflict is not about truth vs. falsehood—it is about who gets to define the narrative.
It reveals a controlled structure where certain figures are granted the authority to plant, and others are granted the role of sustaining that initial narrative.
The real tension is about control over influence, not the organic growth of truth.

2. The Role of Bias: Why Does It Matter Who Plants vs. Who Waters?​

Paul frames the argument as if choosing sides is immature ("carnal"), yet he still maintains the validity of the planted seed itself.


What does this do?


It discourages questioning the actual seed (the originating doctrine, idea, or authority).
It limits debate to a superficial level: "Who should we follow?" rather than "Should we even be following this structure?"
It reinforces loyalty while creating an illusion of free thought ("You can choose your teacher, but the framework remains the same").
The Hidden Implication: If You Control the Seed, You Control the Future​

If you remove the claim that "God gives the increase," what remains is a power struggle over who gets to shape future development.


Paul, in telling the Corinthians not to focus on him or Apollos, still insists that the seed (his message) is valid—so while it looks like he’s above the conflict, he actually ensures that everyone accepts the seed as a given.


What does this mean in broader terms?


Knowledge systems that do not allow challenges to their fundamental premises enforce a controlled future.
Any debates within those systems will only reinforce the legitimacy of the system itself.
Conflicts over influence (planting vs. watering) keep people focused on personalities rather than mechanisms.
1. "God" as the Invisible Authority that Ensures Compliance​

Paul's model relies on an external force (“God”) to validate growth. But if we analyze it through the lens of strategic control, we see:


✔ The concept of "growth" is pre-defined—growth means alignment with the seeded message, not independent development.
✔ "God" is positioned as the ultimate arbiter, making questioning the seed itself an act of defiance against the divine rather than the structure that planted it.
✔ Any deviation from expected growth is framed as failure to listen to God—not as an indicator that the seed itself may be flawed.
The "Failure to Grow" Trap as Evidence Against the Individual​

Once "God gives the increase" is accepted as a premise, lack of growth is no longer evidence of a faulty system—but of a faulty individual.


✔ Someone struggling with the doctrine is not allowed to ask: "Is the seed wrong?"
✔ Instead, they must ask: "What am I doing wrong?"
✔ This creates a self-policing effect—doubt becomes evidence of one’s own failure, not the system’s failure.


This is a classic authoritarian reinforcement technique.


If you flourish, it is because God is rewarding your faithfulness (alignment with the system).
If you struggle, it is because you lack faith or understanding (your fault, never the system's).
There is no allowable condition in which the system itself is questioned.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #84]

I agree with your general point about how humans misuse power. Christians have done this in the way you speak of. So has every other human group that has ever had power. But it's not a necessary result and the Christian claim is that the resurrection is the cosmic intervention that can overcome this in every individual that struggles with it. Not everyone welcomes it to, including Christians.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #84]

I agree with your general point about how humans misuse power. Christians have done this in the way you speak of. So has every other human group that has ever had power. But it's not a necessary result and the Christian claim is that the resurrection is the cosmic intervention that can overcome this in every individual that struggles with it. Not everyone welcomes it to, including Christians.

My question had to do with why a claimed original God who is also claimed to despise false gods/religions et al would use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology to do with such subjects as virgin births et al.
You claim to have also asked this question?
You claim to have found answers?

If so - in brief, what answers did you find?

[The Tanager]

My question had to do with why a claimed original God who is also claimed to despise false gods/religions et al would use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology to do with such subjects as virgin births et al.
You claim to have also asked this question?
You claim to have found answers?

If so - in brief, what answers did you find?

That God did not use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology in such subjects as virgin births. The Christian texts are not copycats of such things.

[William]

My question had to do with why a claimed original God who is also claimed to despise false gods/religions et al would use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology to do with such subjects as virgin births et al.
You claim to have also asked this question?
You claim to have found answers?

If so - in brief, what answers did you find?

That God did not use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology in such subjects as virgin births. The Christian texts are not copycats of such things.

I appreciate that you’ve given an honest answer based on what you’ve been taught. However, the way this issue is framed in academic and theological circles appears to have led you to reject the premise of the question rather than answer it directly.

Your response—that God did not use belief systems already well established in cultural mythology and that Christian texts are not copycats—implies a categorical denial, rather than engaging with the historical evidence that shows virgin births, divine sacrifices, and resurrection themes existed long before Christianity.

The critical issue is not whether Christianity copied these myths word for word, but rather why an all-original, all-powerful God would communicate through symbols and motifs already ingrained in pre-Christian cultures instead of introducing wholly unique signs and wonders.

This is where I see you have been misled—not necessarily in bad faith, but through an institutional framing that preempts certain lines of inquiry by defining them as illegitimate before they can even be explored. If you were discouraged from researching this topic further than expectation during your doctoral work, that itself should raise a red flag about the presence of intellectual gatekeeping.

To explore this fully, we must consider not just whether Christianity shares mythological parallels, but why these similarities exist at all and how they function within the historical, cultural, and political context in which Christianity emerged.

Would you be open to examining that question from this fresh perspective?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #51]

But that's just it. It's about what net-benefits us. And if allowing someone to hurt or kill themselves (or doing it ourselves) gives us that, then wouldn't we be the stupid or misinformed ones not to allow/do it?

I grudgingly admit that it does seem like without a moral dictator, any being would be stupid or misinformed to do what does not benefit itself.

But that would make every atheist who invokes morality a liar (he in fact believes in a higher moral authority), a hustler (he gets others to self-sacrifice for him by demanding morality) or misinformed/stupid.

That said, I don't think adding an extra layer fixes the fact that morality - the sort that requires selfless self-sacrifice - is ungrounded. You can't just say, "don't blow air out your eyeballs because it's immoral," and then when someone asks why, say that well, that's just the way it is. We both agree up until here. But the extra layer that you can't do something because God doesn't like it, and still saying, "that's just the way it is" to questions about why God gets to dictate morality, is not significantly different.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #88]

I have not categorically denied it and just believed what I was "taught." I was allowed to explore it in class and deliver a talk on it at a conference, so you are way off. Writing a dissertation is a different matter, where you are supposed to cover new ground, while the copycat myth has been refuted to the evidential extent that scholars of all kinds of persuasions agree it has no foundation, so refuting it doesn't warrant a degree. That is why I wasn't allowed, not some kind of unconsidered bias.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore it here. So give the evidence of these parallels existing and then we can talk about why they exist (if they do).