|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2008 : 11:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
IN 30-some-odd years Christianity goes from a small movement of huddled, fearfull believers to a "significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire"? Wow. Only a bold and agressive movement could have spread in that amount of time, if its even possible (which I personally doubt).
|
Scientology is 10 million strong, in the age of reason. It's not so hard to fathom. Just 5,000 members would constitute a strong presence in 60AD.
Edit: assuming they were vocal and fervent... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 03/12/2008 11:41:30 |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 12:09:13 [Permalink]
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2458 Posts
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 12:25:56 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You base this all off what is written by true believers - and I assume you think they had no reason to embellish events. Sorry, you're going to need some more evidence besides what the self-contradictory accounts written several decades after the events supposedly happened by people with a vested interest in pushing their version of events.
|
Talk about having your skeptical cake and eat it too. First, even if they did "embellish" some of the details that wouldn't rule them out as to being reliable concerning the core of what they RELUCTANCY came to believe about Jesus(namely 1st Cor.15:1-8;Rom.1:1-3;Phil.2:5-11).Secondly,its inconsistent to say they were try to create some hoax by writing the NT about Jesus, and then use the honset eyewitness accounts of what they saw,(without trying to smooth out any of the apparent inconsistencies) as evidence of "contradictory accounts'.Thridly, I've given you evidence that the accounts were not written "decades after the events... by people with a vested interest" Like being thrown out of the synagouge, called a heretic, and hunted down(1st.Cor. 15:9;Acts 9:1,2) for something you knew wasn't true (according to you). But for the sake of the argument perhaps you could give some names of ancient historians who we KNOW had absolutely no biases whatsoever? I can see it now we are at some ancient battelfield and in the distance we see a man with pen in hand writing and we ask who he is and responds (Monty Pythonishly) "Why I'm the appointed neutral observer." That didn't happen then and that's all we have of history is biased accounts which can be checked for their accuracy. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 12:14:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Scientology is 10 million strong, in the age of reason. It's not so hard to fathom. Just 5,000 members would constitute a strong presence in 60AD. |
World population in 1 AD is estimated to be between 170 and 400 million. Call it 300 million, so the world's population has gone up by a factor of 20 since then. 5,000 people then would be 100,000 today, proportionally. Similarly, ten million today would have been 500,000 people two thousand years ago (the population of Jerusalem was perhaps half that in 1 AD). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 12:20:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by leoofno
IN 30-some-odd years Christianity goes from a small movement of huddled, fearfull believers to a "significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire"? Wow. Only a bold and agressive movement could have spread in that amount of time, if its even possible (which I personally doubt).
|
Scientology is 10 million strong, in the age of reason. It's not so hard to fathom. Just 5,000 members would constitute a strong presence in 60AD.
Edit: assuming they were vocal and fervent...
|
The article claims that they were just the opposite of "vocal and fervent". And in the words of Jesus Christ Superstar: "Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication...".
Still, this is an area I need to look into more.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 12:48:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
...create some hoax... |
False dichotomy. There are more choices than "the Bible is true" and "the Bible is a hoax." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 13:01:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Skeptic Friend
USA
237 Posts
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 07:01:42 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I finally read the article and I found a few things curious.
1. He says :"In the letters of Paul, in the early preaching as Luke reports it in the Acts of the Apostles, and in various references in the other New Testament books, we gain a basic perspective on Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, crucified and raised from death, on whom the early Christians based their hope of salvation.". Yet Paul says almost nothing about an historical Jesus. Nothing that Jesus said or did while on Earth is mentioned. He says Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" and was crucified "by the powers of that age", but little else.
|
1st Cor.15:3 "For I [Paul] deliverd to you [the Corinthian believers] first of all that which I also received". The words 'delivered' and 'received' are rabbincal terms of a holy tradition, which Paul received when he visted the disciples of the HISTORIC Jesus(ad 37) Acts 9:26,27. Paul also mentions 'James the Lord's brother' (Gal. 1:19), plus we know from Paul's speaches in the book of Acts he knew quite abit about the historic Jesus. This 'holy tradition' was one of the yardsticks the early church used to test "new" gospels or letters from the apostels as both the oral and written teachings about their Messiah was compiled[Apologetics.org - Book Excerpt - Scaling the Secular City: The ...]. Again the early church were monotheistic Jews and psychologically could not be capable of claiming the things about Jesus unless they happened the way the NT says it did.As far as them "being true believers" the NT paints a diffrent picture of them,THEY WERE SKEPTICS Luke 24:11 "And their words[ the women telling the discples about Jesus' resurrection] seemed to them like idle tales, and they DID NOT BELIEVE them" ;(Matt 28:17} "When they saw Him [Jesus alive again], they worshiped Him; but some doubted;(Luke 24:13-35) vs 21-24" But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all of this, today is the thrid day since these things happened.Yes, and certain women of our company,... ASTONISHED US. ... said He was alive.[ Its clear these two did not believe their report.]; and of course there's Thomas (Jn. 20:24-30).
|
Hold on. I was questioning his inclusion of "the letters of Paul" (my bolding) in a list of works that supported an historical Jesus. And by that I mean the letters generally accepted as authentically Paul's. I am not talking about Acts. Acts does depict Paul as knowing about than historical Christ, but Acts was written many mant decades after Pauls letters, and not by Paul.
What I'm saying is that the actual letters by Paul do not support an Historical Jesus. Yes he does mention James "the brother of Jesus", but many believers are called "brothers" in his letters, so this does not necessarily mean a blood relative.
I do agree that many Jews would have had a hard time accepting a man who claimed to be God. They would likely have stoned him to death. However, there would have been no problem if Jesus was not regarded an a real person, but instead a spiritual son of god who acted in the spiritual realm. What Paul delivered to his Corinthian believers was what Jesus revealed to him in visions, as he plainly states. It could be that later, in more Helenized communities, Jesus aquired an earthly presence and ministry.
Quoting the Gospels and Acts is irrelevent to my point. Please show me how the authentic letters of Paul support an historical (living, breathing, walking, preaching) Christ. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 02:40:18 [Permalink]
|
| Loose ends.... "Clancy vs Luke" (Dave W) Lets see TOM has the internet and or the resources of of sending a team of researchers to do his 'dirty work' ...Luke has neither. So if Luke's facts are to be accurate (as they are) he has to either be there or rely on someone who was. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 03:13:50 [Permalink]
|
Loose ends cont. H. Humbert... Luke didn't fudge his account about Quirinius being Governor he was Governor twice B.C, 10-4.And as to Jesus birth in Bethlehem being contrived I refer you John 7:40-43 ; John's gospel breathes of being an eyewitness, in these verses he records like someone who was in the crowds hearing "the buzz" about Jesus birth place, and yet when it is questioned he dosen't respond "Well we know he was really born in Bethelem not Galiee". Why? Because it was common knowledge at the time that time he wrote his gospel that wasn't an issue( because Luke and Matthew had already settled it).  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 03:24:05 [Permalink]
|
Loose ends 3 H.Humbert.
.. [quote][/Originally posted by darwin alogos
Again the early church were monotheistic Jews and psychologically could not be capable of claiming the things about Jesus unless they happened the way the NT says it did.
Boy, you really need to believe that's true, don't you? I mean, it's like your entire argument hinges on that speculative premise.
quote] No I don't "need" it to be true but it is. Do you have any evidence that it isn't? Since you claim its "speculative" that shouldn't be to hard to PROVE. Good luck. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/16/2008 03:29:43 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 05:53:31 [Permalink]
|
darwin alogos said:
| No I don't "need" it to be true but it is. Do you have any evidence that it isn't? Since you claim its "speculative" that shouldn't be to hard to PROVE. Good luck |
The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Until you manage that, everyone else can scoff at your obvious stupidity.
You are going to need to do a lot better than "jesus was real because the bible said so". That infantile type of reasoning will get you nowhere.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
alleyes
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 08:09:46 [Permalink]
|
I should qualify what I am about to say by explaining I found this message board because I was trying to figure out how much of what is in the Bible is based on verifiable facts, how much of it might be based on facts, and how much of it is demonstrably a mythology. I was impressed by the information provided here, and many of the links people posted were really helpful.
So I want to be clear I am not particularly knowledgeable and I came here to learn, more than wanting to prove any particular preexisting belief.
One thing I think should be obvious to everybody except the people who are willing to make themselves crazy trying to have faith in something which any reasonable person would accept as impossible, is that the Bible contains enough contradictions, that even if you believe miracles are possible, everything in the Bible can't possibly all be true.
So if some parts of it can be proven to be untrue and written by ordinary humans who over time can be proven to have changed the story, it doesn't seen reasonable to assume the part of the story about Jesus the man should be assumed to be true, unless it can be proven otherwise.
I haven't come anywhere near to reading everything that has been recorded about these beliefs, but to learn what these beliefs were, I think it is important to look at records made before the time the Roman Empire incorporated Christianity into it's own system of having Gods that were imagined as being embodied and having human personalities.
From what I have been able to learn so far, there is proof the Jewish people believed in a coming Messiah. What isn't clear is what this idea actually meant.
Everything I have read so far that speaks of "the Messiah" could be read as an individual person or as a principle similar to the Buddhist idea of "enlightenment".
This idea of the Messiah seems to overlap with the Jesus story. I was thinking the Jesus story may have been a cultural archetype in the same way as we have the Celtic fairy tales. The archetypes found in fairy tales occur over a wide area, and generally have stories which attribute certain qualities to fairies. These stories tend to repeat variations of the same themes which inform the listener about these qualities, even though it is next to impossible to pin down what real life entities may have inspired the many stories and words which refer exclusively to elves and fairies.
I might be wrong, but it seems likely there is something more solid behind the Jesus story than there is behind fairy tales. The reason I think this is likely is because unlike the stories about elves and fairies, the root of the various versions of the Jesus story don't seem to go back much further than the general time period Jesus is said to have lived.
But I've also gotten the impression there is strong evidence that the teachings attributed to Jesus were the general cultural wisdom which was born over thousands of years of collective experience within the Jewish community.
It is only when I read about the brutal suppression and massacre of the Jewish people and culture by the Romans, that I realized the cruel irony of Constantine latching on to the Jesus story and promoting only the aspects of this that fit with Jesus being a Roman style God, who was King of the Jews.
I think there probably was a real person ( or persons ) who taught and provided spiritual inspiration behind those stories, but I don't think the teachings attributed to Jesus began with any individual.
|
| Edited by - alleyes on 03/16/2008 08:16:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 08:17:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Loose ends.... "Clancy vs Luke" (Dave W) Lets see TOM has the internet and or the resources of of sending a team of researchers to do his 'dirty work' ...Luke has neither. So if Luke's facts are to be accurate (as they are) he has to either be there or rely on someone who was. |
You think that "Herod," "Bethlehem," "Passover" and the like were terms so uncommon that Luke would have needed researchers to use them accurately?! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 08:33:56 [Permalink]
|
darwin alogos said:
| So if Luke's facts are to be accurate (as they are) he has to either be there or rely on someone who was. |
Or the ghost writers of the gospels were just making shit up.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 10:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Based more on what we know was left out than on what was included I think it's clear the original story of Jesus is hopelessly muddled. The early christians apparently tried to eradicate the gospel of Judas entirely, what did they succeed in irradicating? What was lost forever? How can the NT be trusted knowing that flawed, power-minded humans struggled over what would be a part of it and made every effort to destroy all record of what was left out? More Faith? Come on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Chaloobi
|
Just how do WE KNOW what was left out? But as far as your mythological revisionist history. I'll make it as simple as I can , as to how the early Jewish christians came to believe that the messiah they THOUGHT they had, before He was crucified was actually the REAL MESSIAH- | HE also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible PROOFS |
Acts 1:3 [emp. mine] Happy Resurrection Day |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 10:48:57 [Permalink]
|
H.Humbert said: You want to pretend that it takes more faith to reject the divinity of Jesus than accept it. That is utterly false.
|
No I don't need to "pretend" that it takes more "faith"to reject Jesus divinity and resurrection than to accept it web pages like this are the best proof. Skeptics will strain at well documented accounts of eyewitness reports, that cost them thier lives, and swallow totally outrageous revisionst historical accounts to avoid the TRUTH . |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus the Evidence
