Egyptians, and the Origins of Christianity?

[Sun Tzu]

So...first I'd like to state that I am in no way trying to start some flame war...I'm hoping that we can all have an intelligent conversation/debate on the subject of religion without people going fanatical. Now I don't practice any particular religion, though I am Jewish by blood. I'm not saying one thing is fact, and another is fiction. I'm just hoping to get some unbiased information here.

I've done a little reading, and though I'm nowhere near an authority on the subject, it looks to me like the Egyptians had some sort of organized religion in place about 4,000 years before Christianity that was...well...damn near identical in almost every single way. Since I don't know much about all of this stuff, I'm wondering if anyone here has looked into the same thing, and if you wouldn't mind shedding some light on the subject.

Thanks in advance.

[Izulde]

If you're referring to what I think you are, I believe that was a one-off pharoh and his wife (the smoking hot Nerfertiti (sp) ) who lost their rule because of it

[RainMaker]

I've researched it a lot and I still don't think the Egyptians were that close to what Christianity ended up being. A lot of the stuff out there that does compare the two are missing a lot of facts. I think there are better parallels between Greek Mythology and Dionysus to Jesus than Egyptians and Horus/Osiris.

[JediKooter]

A lot of christianity's stories can be found in religions that pre-dated it. The virgin birth story of jesus is similiar to these virgin birth stories: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, and Dionysus.

What RainMaker said... :)

[Noop]

I have read a few things that suggest it, especially about the Pharaoh who had 13 I guess slaves or something. Then the thing about the three Egyptian gods which relates to the Holy Trinity. I never dug deeper because I don't believe in that kind of stuff and really don't care enough to ever engage in a convo with someone about proving their belief wrong or whatever.

[I. J. Reilly]

I would like to hear more about the smoking hot queen named Nerftitty.

[Surtt]

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

[RainMaker]

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

Yeah, most religions have similar stories and vibes. They all kind of evolved from one another. I remember reading a great piece about how Christianity got singled out because it was one of the few that had a resurrection story to it which people were drawn to.

[JediKooter]

The story of Gilgamesh is a good example as well. Written a couple of thousand years before jesus' time.

[King of New York]

As I recall, there was a brief period where a pharaoh named Akhenaton decreed that he and the imperial family would pray to a single god. It wasn't quite monotheism, though, because I think that all the other Egyptians were still supposed to worship him. Plus, I don't think that the nature of Egyptian belief and practice changed all that much during that brief experiment.

Of course, it's still true that Judaism and by extension Christianity were very influenced by the Near Eastern religious environment.

[JediKooter]

As I recall, there was a brief period where a pharaoh named Akhenaton decreed that he and the imperial family would pray to a single god. It wasn't quite monotheism, though, because I think that all the other Egyptians were still supposed to worship him. Plus, I don't think that the nature of Egyptian belief and practice changed all that much during that brief experiment.

Of course, it's still true that Judaism and by extension Christianity were very influenced by the Near Eastern religious environment.

Aten was the god he wanted his people to worship. After Akhenaten's reign, Epyptians pretty much tried to erase him (Akhenaten) from the 'history books'.

[Dutch]

A lot of christianity's stories can be found in religions that pre-dated it. The virgin birth story of jesus is similiar to these virgin birth stories: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, and Dionysus.

What RainMaker said... :)

If nothing else, I'm impressed that you can just roll names off the top of your head like that.

[DaddyTorgo]

yep! i remember doing a paper on him in 7th grade...lol

[CamEdwards]

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

I think it's far more likely that Jesus would have been exposed to the work of Greek philosophers through local rabbis than taking a trip to India or China.

"Eye for an Eye" actually was more Eastern (Code of Hammurabi) than "love thy neighbor", which was a pretty common concept in Greek philosophy. Even Thales, who lived about 500 years before Jesus was born said "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

[JediKooter]

If nothing else, I'm impressed that you can just roll names off the top of your head like that.

A couple, yes. The rest I had to look up because I couldn't remember them exactly. ;)

Oh and Gilgamesh has a devestating flood story in it too if I remember correctly.

[Sun Tzu]

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...:)

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

[finketr]

sun tzu,

well the original Gospel/sources were written around 60-100 AD, iirc...

[Dutch]

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...:)

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

Did they not keep good records in Israel in 16 AD? Surely archeologists have dug up something...a casier's check signed by Jesus or something.

[JediKooter]

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...:)

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

I think the best evidence one could use, to proove there was the jesus that people refer to in the bible actually existed, would be contemporary sources of the time that mentioned him. Kinda like if there was a Nazareth Gazette or something like that in the birth section announcing that "Mary gives birth to a son that she named Jesus, still looking for the father" or "Jesus turns water into wine, the meek sing", you get the idea.

Guesstamates are that it was 100 to 200 years after he was dead that the first writings started showing up, and indeed, you can not discount the telephone game. Also take into consideration that around the 4th century AD is when the christian church started gaining some steam. So you have that gap in time to contend with too.

As far as christianity borrowing from earlier creation stories and virgin birth stories, etc...my take on it is this: It's no different than what Lucas did with Kurosawas Hidden Fortress and came up with Star Wars. Lucas took Kurosawas movie, changed the names, places and certain events, gave it a space theme and viola! Star Wars.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm starting to like this JediKooter fellow.

[JediKooter]

I'm starting to like this JediKooter fellow.

Well, I am a nice person and I like Star Wars, what's not to like? ;)

[Raiders Army]

Well, I am a nice person and I like Star Wars, what's not to like? ;)

Where's the kooter part come in?

[JediKooter]

Where's the kooter part come in?

Whenever I can get it...from my wife.

[RainMaker]

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...:)

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

There is some mention of Jesus, son of Joseph by old historians during his time. However, the mentions are rather light and he wasn't a particularly signifigant person of the time.

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.

[Shkspr]

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

[JediKooter]

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

Ok, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

[Raiders Army]

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.
I would bet heavily that a man named Jesus exists during the present time as well.

I'm not 100% sure, but if I went South of the border, I'd find at least one guy named Jesus.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I would bet heavily that a man named Jesus exists during the present time as well.

I'm not 100% sure, but if I went South of the border, I'd find at least one guy named Jesus.

You don't have to go south of the border at all.

http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg
(http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg)

[CamEdwards]

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

What about Sr Wltr Rlgh?

[Groundhog]

There is some mention of Jesus, son of Joseph by old historians during his time. However, the mentions are rather light and he wasn't a particularly signifigant person of the time.

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.

This is an interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Mac Howard]

I saw a documentary recently that pointed out the similarities between Krishna and Jesus - he too was born of a virgin, a jealous ruler hearing of the birth of a messiah had new-borns killed, he walked on water, fed a multitude from virtually nothing (only 500 in Krishna's case) and so on. Note also the similarity between the names Krishna and Christ.

Judea was directly on the trade route between Egypt and the far east and traders would have carried and told stories of religious characters from both which it's believed have significantly influenced developments in Judaism (of which Christianity is one). Krishna had much the same "love your enemies" etc message as Jesus and, even without Jesus visiting the far east he would have been aware of Krishna's teachings. Religious historians argue there is a significant Buddhist influence on Christianity.

There are claims that Jesus fled to the far east and died there. I believe there is still a tomb there that claims to be that of Jesus.

There is very little evidence outside of Christian writings for the existence of Jesus. Josephus, a very well respected Roman/Jewish historian of the 1st century who wrote extensively on the times of Jesus, mentions him only twice in the very briefest of terms. However it's thought that these mentions, which are clearly not consistent with continuity in the text and refer to Jesus as "the Christ" which Josephus an orthodox Jew would never say, have been introduced by enthusiastic Christian authors in the first centuries (we don't have originals of Josephus' writings, only copies and almost all copies in subsequent centuries were made by Christian clerics).

But there are extensive Christian writings - far too many to suggest there is no reality behind them - not only accepted biblical writings but many others and also those of the the Egyptian Gnostics. That these have been declared heresy by western Christianity doesn't detract from their value as evidence of the reality of Jesus. Despite the differences of interpretation of the significance of the stories they are essentially the same (whether Judas was acting or not on Jesus' advice in giving him to the authorities doesn't alter the truth of the story itself).

There's no doubt, even in the mind of this incorrigible agnostic, that there is a reality behind the story even if the story itself has been somewhat embellished.

The Christianity we have today, certainly in the Catholic church, is the Jesus story worked over by Greek philosophers - essentially neo-Platonists. Protestantism is not only a reaction against the behaviour of the Catholic church but also against the theology up to the 16th century largely defined by the ideas of Plato and Aristotle (who both declared what we know today as 'empirical evidence" was worthless and that intellectual/spiritual investigation was the only worthwhile human activity - if it hadn't been for these two Jesus may well have been using a laptop and the internet now 2000 years old ;) ).

[revrew]

Mac Howard's points about the historical evidence for an actual Jesus and the followers of him launching the Christian movement are pretty well said.

And if Christianity were merely an ancient religion with no basis in historical fact, then the pre-existence of its major themes would have significant relevance in discounting its validity as a unique faith. As a Christian, I fully admit that if Jesus were not an actual man of historical significance, I would quickly abandon the faith as just another myth in the long line of human religious baloney.

But if Jesus actually existed, actually died and was raised again to life, the pre-existence of such themes in other religions is irrelevant. Unless you'd like to argue that bodily resurrection from death is a common occurence in human history. Likewise with other themes: preexistence does not prove an event to be false or even "borrowed". Genocide, for example, existed long before the Holocaust, but the Holocaust is a historical fact denied only by people with their fingers in their ears. If the the details of Jesus' life are historical facts, then their precursors don't change that.

Now, we can get into a long debate on the subject of whether everything written of Jesus is true or not, whether embelished or "legendized", but Mac Howard is accurate to insist that the bulk of historical evidence through the writings from within the Christian tradition, as well as their insistence that eye witnesses could verify or debunk their claims, gives solid evidence that a Jewish man named Jesus existed and was believed by some to be the Messiah. Even academically, to deny the existence of an actual Jesus is bad scholarship and easily debunked. Some have tried, tried even desperately, and a careful examination of their methods shows clearly that desperation has overcome reason - that their fingers are in their ears.

For my part, I have looked at the history and come to believe the best and msot reasonable conclusion is that the details are also accurate, but that's a discussion for another time.

[Sun Tzu]

Ok...interesting opinions here.

revrew - Does this mean that the billions of people in the world who don't believe any of this or aren't of the christian faith are wrong?

My only strong opinion in any of this, is that I don't claim to know anything. I wasn't there, so who am I to say who has their fingers in their ears and who doesn't. When your day does eventually come, I think everybody is going to be equally unprepared for what happens after...if anything does happen at all. From the most "spiritually enlightened" person, to the homeless guy on the corner of Market and 5th.

[Fonzie]

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

[Shkspr]

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?

[RainMaker]

This is an interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Yeah, that is a nice summary of a lot of the stuff I've read. I think it's a coin flip to be honest. There are some accounts that could be talking about Jesus as the article mentions. Those also could mean completely different things. We aren't able to unravel all the historians accounts from that era so it's tough to say.

I was swayed toward believing that there was a guy named Jesus who had a father named Joseph and went around telling stories while high on opiates. There are a lot of independent, non-believer historians who believe this is true (in fact I'd say the majority).

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now because I don't really think it's a major issue. Even if there was a Jesus, it's fairly clear that he was rather unremarkable considering how few early documents spoke of him. I believe all the stories that people recite today is nothing more than fairy tales, so it doesn't matter if a regular guy named Jesus existed or not. I'm more interested in how the stories came to be and what their influences are.

For anyone really interested in religion and the mind, I recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He's a fairly well known author who focuses on religion, evolution, and why it came to be. Kind of like a more cerebral look at the Selfish Gene.

[Coder]

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?

Say Hello to one of the most quoted quotes on the internets! :)

Battlestar Galactica anyone? Peter Pan? Matrix?

[molson]

The Bible is not a history book.

Religion isn't as simple as whether something is factually true or not. I think there's segments on both sides that don't quite understand that. There's obviously those who think that the bible is some kind of unquestionable factual and litteral truth. And then there's those who thing that religion or spirtuality has no redeeming value because you can't prove litteral words of a text created by man. Both sides are WAY off, IMO.

We don't know. Disproving the facts of a man-made bible isn't making a case for atheism, or even that Christanity is invalid.

There's a billion ideas other than the two that are usually debated (god v. no god).

[Noop]

I remember hearing that the man in the portrait of Jesus is Cesare Borgia the son of Pope Alexander VI. I know people like to say it's the message that matters but I thought that was interesting.

[miked]

Sportsdigs wrote about Jesus 2000 years ago.

[JediKooter]

You would think that there would be some reports from the Roman commanders of the day saying that they finally took care of that jesus person who was causing so many problems. It's just not there. All written accounts of jesus of the bible were made long after his supposed time period. The evidence may exist and just has not been found yet or is sitting in some basement of some university.

So based on actual emperical evidence that is currently available, it's not looking good that the jesus of the bible existed. Was there some dude named jesus, probably, just not the one everyone reads about in the bible.

And molson is absolutely correct about religion being factually true or not because religion is based on faith, not facts. However, he is wrong about the atheism statement. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more than that and it isn't about disproving religion or whether they are valid or not.

Getting back to Sun Tzu's original question...I think christianity is an amalgam of older stories and fables that had been around for centuries before it was founded. Some stories borrowed from the Egyptians, Greeks, Mesopotamians, etc...

[molson]

And molson is absolutely correct about religion being factually true or not because religion is based on faith, not facts. However, he is wrong about the atheism statement. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more than that and it isn't about disproving religion or whether they are valid or not.

Religion is based on faith, but not faith of facts being accurate. I think that part's misunderstood, by both believers and non-believers. If someone conclusively proves that say, Jesus didn't exisit, the countering faith isn't "well, I believe Jesus existed anyway".

I'm not really responding to anyone here that said anything to the contrary, just shooting the breeze....

[JediKooter]

Religion is based on faith, but not faith of facts being accurate. I think that part's misunderstood, by both believers and non-believers. If someone conclusively proves that say, Jesus didn't exisit, the countering faith isn't "well, I believe Jesus existed anyway".

I'm not really responding to anyone here that said anything to the contrary, just shooting the breeze....

I totally understand what you are saying. I just think, in my opinion, letting go of one's faith/beliefs/bias/etc... is probably one of the hardest things for a person to do, even when presented with evidence that goes against their faith/beliefs/bias/etc...

I wish more people would shoot the breeze about this stuff. :)

[sachmo71]

You would think that there would be some reports from the Roman commanders of the day saying that they finally took care of that jesus person who was causing so many problems. It's just not there. All written accounts of jesus of the bible were made long after his supposed time period. The evidence may exist and just has not been found yet or is sitting in some basement of some university.

So based on actual emperical evidence that is currently available, it's not looking good that the jesus of the bible existed. Was there some dude named jesus, probably, just not the one everyone reads about in the bible.




There are missing records for lots of people from that era, especially records scribed in distant colonies about events that Caeser would care less about. I think the lack of evidence proves very little, since the significance of the actual Jesus was not realized for hundreds of years after his death.

The other side of it is that religion requires faith. You can't see God, so you need faith to believe in him. The same would hold true for his earthly son, especially for those religions that believe they are the same person.

An interesting take on the similarities of Jesus' story would be if God intentionally made his son's life and stories similar to old myths to make him easier to accept for the masses. We do know that God changes from vengeful to loving after the Jews were taken as slaves...maybe he hired a good marketing director during this period as well!

[Surtt]

I think it's far more likely that Jesus would have been exposed to the work of Greek philosophers through local rabbis than taking a trip to India or China.

"Eye for an Eye" actually was more Eastern (Code of Hammurabi) than "love thy neighbor", which was a pretty common concept in Greek philosophy. Even Thales, who lived about 500 years before Jesus was born said "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

It has been 20+ years, so I don't remember most of it.
The actual lecture was about what happened to Jesus in his early adult life.
In the bible, after his early childhood, he disappears until he is 30ish.
One of the possibilities the teacher threw out, using his teaching as evidence, was he traveled to the far east.


The Bible is not a history book.

Religion isn't as simple as whether something is factually true or not. I think there's segments on both sides that don't quite understand that. There's obviously those who think that the bible is some kind of unquestionable factual and litteral truth. And then there's those who thing that religion or spirtuality has no redeeming value because you can't prove litteral words of a text created by man. Both sides are WAY off, IMO.


I agree.
I think a lot of the problem with Christianity today comes from trying to interpret the Bible as the literal truth. It is meant to teach a philosophy, not facts.

[JediKooter]

There are missing records for lots of people from that era, especially records scribed in distant colonies about events that Caeser would care less about. I think the lack of evidence proves very little, since the significance of the actual Jesus was not realized for hundreds of years after his death.

The other side of it is that religion requires faith. You can't see God, so you need faith to believe in him. The same would hold true for his earthly son, especially for those religions that believe they are the same person.

An interesting take on the similarities of Jesus' story would be if God intentionally made his son's life and stories similar to old myths to make him easier to accept for the masses. We do know that God changes from vengeful to loving after the Jews were taken as slaves...maybe he hired a good marketing director during this period as well!

I agree that lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything, but, when the evidence that does exist points to a different picture/story, logic would dictate that you have to make your conclusions based on the available data/evidence.

So, taking the available data we have:
Jesus of the bible = No
Some guy named Jesus = Yes
Some guy named Jesus morphed into the Jesus of the bible a few hundred years later = Possibly

Yes, the Old Testament was full of vengence and destruction. Definitely some great marketing like you said. :)

[Surtt]

Well if you consider even Santa Claus is based on an actual person, I find it hard to believe there wasn't a Christ behind the stories. Maybe there were several and the stories eventually ended up being attributed to one person.

How closely Christ the person resembles Christ son of God, I can't guess.

[JediKooter]

Well if you consider even Santa Claus is based on an actual person, I find it hard to believe there wasn't a Christ behind the stories. Maybe there were several and the stories eventually ended up being attributed to one person.

How closely Christ the person resembles Christ son of God, I can't guess.

Santa Claus is a good example. He could possibly be based on an actual living person, however, do we really believe in flying reindeer or elves that work in the North Pole making toys or him being able to get to every house in time before the day is over? I can't speak for everyone, but, I think it would be safe to say, No.

After enough years or decades, he went from Santa the philanthropist to Santa the magic elf, thanks to the imaginative minds of people.

[Fonzie]

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?


I was actually making a Battlestar Galactica reference, but I'm quite taken with your interpretation. :)

[AENeuman]

First of all, North African Early Christianity rocks, i spent most of grad school learning and writing about those guys and gals

As far as the similarities I would tend to go with a Jung/Campbell explanation. I think our collective unconscious organically evolves as our societies evolve. In other words, "how you understand the nature of the world shapes how you go about knowing it."

I love Karl Rahner. He argues that man has a notion of the Mystery before learning our cultures "special revelation" ie knowledge of the Christ event. I think that "notion" creates the framework of our collective unconscious. Because it is outside of experience, and thus language, how it manifests itself can only be within our own cultural context and thus highly relative

[SFL Cat]

Yes, if I were a follower of Yesuah (i.e., one of the Apostles ... and there is historical evidence that they existed), I would gladly suffer persecution and have my life cut short just to support my story about a fabricated individual who I really knew never existed.

[Mac Howard]

I was unimpressed with the article that seems now to dominate the discussion. It was typical of an atheist supporting his position with an argument that only supports agnosticism - flawed logic and excessive certainty.

Let's set this straight - there is no lack of evidence. It's that the evidence is hearsay. We may not be prepared to put a man in jail on hearsay evidence but that doesn't mean that it's worthless. I suspect we act on hearsay evidence every day of our lives - hell, we would know nothing if we only accepted eye witness evidence.

And the more hearsay evidence the more probable that it's based on truth. And there's a lot of hearsay evidence about Jesus - about 30 gospels to begin with.

And I may be wrong here but isn't there one piece of eye witness evidence? Paul! Didn't Paul claim to communicate with Jesus on his Road to Damascus conversion?

Sure, you may consider him a nut, maybe wondering what he's been smoking, but you have an eye witness claiming to have spoken/seen Jesus (I'm not well up on the story so someone will probably put me right if I'm wrong here).

But, to begin with, the logic that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence is flawed. It simply doesn't follow. If you didn't live in a country that records births and deaths there would be no evidence that your great grandfather existed except "hearsay" evidence - your existence. You will find no eye witness evidence for his existence but he sure as hell existed.

I've considered this argument for some time and come to the conclusion that the reason for the lack of any contemporary written evidence is because Jesus was not the colossus of today but just a minor preacher in his own time. There was no reason for historians to write about him. He was just one of many radical preachers in Judea at the time. The story of Pilate's washing his hands of the case would support this. Judea was a hotbed of insurgency and Pilate had greater concerns than to trouble himself about a nonentity of a preacher from the sticks (Galilee) who preached "love your enemy". There were dozens of these preachers from Galilee (called the "mesmerics"). Jesus was just one of a crowd with a small collection of followers - not worth writing into the history books.

Yes I know that his followers claimed that thousands listened to him but, hey, if you're trying to convince others of the importance of your messiah you don't tell them that he preached a wonderful sermon to a crowd of thirty. A supporter never exaggerated before? There are people still think the 49ers are a football team ;)

My speculation, and I wouldn't claim it to be any higher than that but I think it fits the facts as we know them the best, is that Jesus was a minor preacher at the time and of no concern to authorities or historians. After his death the story was embellished - maybe ideas from other religions to build up the superhero image were borrowed (no shortage of them from Greek, Egyptian and far eastern travellers) - and followers, Paul in particular, transformed Jesus' reputation and consequently ministry from minor to major to massive.

It's a simple explanation but I think it best fits the facts - a minor religious figure (far from a legend in his own time) superbly supported by his followers. The question it leaves, of course, is how much of the stories are true and how much embellished/exaggerated/created? But I don't think there's any real reason to believe there's no basis behind the stories.

[bignej]

Arguing that just because there are many written accounts of someone doesn't mean they actually existed. The author of that article used the example of Hecules. He was written about by the greeks as if he actually existed. By your standards, he did.

[Sun Tzu]

Mac that was very well written, and I can see your point/s. However I also have to agree with bignej (unfortunately) in that with the logic that you're using, 1,000 years from now people will think The Easter Bunny was real.

[Dutch]

Mac that was very well written, and I can see your point/s. However I also have to agree with bignej (unfortunately) in that with the logic that you're using, 1,000 years from now people will think The Easter Bunny was real.

Or Alexander the Great.

[Icy]

I fully agree with Mac Howard explanation. I think Jesus existed and was just another preacher. For any reason his story grew up more than others and Christianity expanded worldwide to what we know today. But from that to believe that he was the son of a god... there are a lot of holes in that theory that make it impossible for those of us without faith to believe it based just on writings possible manipulated by his followers.

I have not studied it but i wonder what was for example the starting point of sects/religions like Scientology (did a guy invent all that and it was it later exaggerated or made up by it's followers?) and what will be said about it in centuries from now or what about if it expands to become a major religion. Of course that won't happen as we live in the information age so it's was harder to make up stories, but just think on all the followers that sect and similar ones have that fully believe what they are told by their leaders.

[revrew]

Dutch actually makes a very good point.

A study of how ancient history is known at all is important. The Easter Bunny example doesn't hold, because it's not ancient history. We have historians, photographs, legal records, etc ... all methods of recording history now that didn't exist in the majority of the ancient world.

Fellows like Josephus, who actually recorded history for history's sake, were the very rare exception in the ancient world, not the rule - as we have now.

For that purpose, the Gospel writer Luke is as legitimate of a historian as any that existed during the day. Just because he believed in the cause of the history he recorded is not a disqualifier, as anyone recording history at all (outside of Greece/Rome, perhaps) recorded it to reflect their cause. Even Josephus, for his part, was only recording history to tell the Jewish story. Luke is no different.

Now, we do have certain archaelogical evidences of the time period, such as minted coins bearing the image of a Caesar or pottery and buildings depicting events in artistic form. But these, in the study of ancient history, are often sparsely found and just as likely to be artistic fabrications (i.e. Hercules).

So, outside of confirmational clues in the archeological record, how do ancient historians know anything about anyone from the few centuries surrounding Jesus alleged life? The PRIMARY way of establishing the facts of early Western/MidEastern Civilization is through the writings that have survived, the literary history. This changed centuries later, as Western Civilization spread and map-makers and recorders and historians began becoming more prevalent, until eventually the scientific mind became the norm as it has today. But this was not the case yet in Jesus day. And you cannot apply the same principles of today's scientific mind - "show me the proof and the legal record or it doesn't exist" - in the analysis of that time period. Not even Julius Caesar had a birth certificate, so you know there's no official record of a carpenter's son from the boondocks who was killed like a common criminal.

Instead, historians look to the literary record to determine the history of the time. Do we have writings that indicate this person existed? Are there multiple authors/confirmations? How many do we have? Were they read widely and affirmed, or localized? If enough literary evidence can be put together, there's an assumption that the event happened. How do we know, for example, that Rome burned under Nero? Not because of the insurance records. Not because of pots with Rome burning and Nero's face on it. Not because the official historians filing the Chronicles of Rome. We know because we have writings from all over the place talking about the burning and about the cruelty of Nero. Add that to what archeological evidence we do have, and we can assume the event happened. Same with Alex the Great, Julius Ceasar, the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, etc etc.

When the same standards are applied to Jesus, the evidence is overwhelming. There are far MORE transcripts, accounts, diverse authors, copies, widespread literary evidence of the existence (and, I'd argue, resurrection) of Jesus than there are a host of other, even significant political, historical figures. This is all quite stunning, considering he was a nobody from nowhere who did absolutely nothing politically but be killed. Will you find a birth certificate? No. Dead record? No. TV reel or any other documentation? No. But neither will you find it for any of the millions of Jews who lived and died during the centuries surrounding Jesus. That kind of historical record keeping didn't exist.

But if we use the same standards we apply to the rest of the ancient world, the evidence that Jesus lived stacks up with any of them.

[Mac Howard]

Arguing that just because there are many written accounts of someone doesn't mean they actually existed. The author of that article used the example of Hecules. He was written about by the greeks as if he actually existed. By your standards, he did.

I didn't argue that. My point was a lack of evidence does not prove non-existence and that the hearsay evidence we have allows for the possibility of his existence (not that it proves it). There are millions of people for whom there is no evidence that have existed. The lack of evidence comes from reasons other than non-existence - usually because there is little reason in most people's lives to record them.

But in this case there IS evidence - albeit hearsay evidence which, while not having the credibility of eye witness evidence, is not without some value particularly with the amount we have and the range of sources. So the argument is doubly false - no evidence does not prove non-existence and what's more there is evidence..

Note that I began by saying the article was guilty of excessive certainty. I finished by saying that my explanation was speculation. That is my whole point - we cannot be certain. The evidence adds up to an agnostic position but not an atheistic (or for that matter a believer's) one. We simply cannot be certain either way.

My "unknown-at-the-time preacher bolstered by supporters exaggerated stories" I think is more probable than his "created idea imposed on a fictitious human presented as fact" because it involves behaviour that is very common in human beings (exaggeration of the object of our commitment) whereas his is an artificial construct to justify a pre-existing belief (Jesus didn't exist). Certainly both explanations are possible and neither can be proved wrong so it is flawed for either to argue theirs is certain and the other's definitively wrong.

Where I disagree with the article is that he claims that an existing Jesus is speculation (correct) but his non-existent Jesus is fact (wrong). If you think about it, his allowing that an existing Jesus is a possibility destroys the possibility of the non-existence being fact. That is a common atheistic flaw - you cannot simultaneously allow the possibility something (such as God) and then claim that there definitely isn't one. That flaw is precisely why agnosticism and atheism are often confused.

As for Hercules - there may well be a human at the centre of the myth, not with all the characteristics of Hercules the myth but perhaps a particularly fierce warrior or some such individual, again we cannot know for certain.

As for the Easter Bunny - I'm not aware than anyone is saying it's real - are they? :eek:

[Mac Howard]

For any reason his story grew up more than others and Christianity expanded worldwide to what we know today.

The reason was Paul. He was the great communicator, the superb publicist (and it helped that he was an educated Roman citizen and allowed to speak his mind without being crucified). Even before Jesus, Judaism was gaining some sort of foothold in Greece but Paul recognised that the Jewish dietary laws and circumcision had all the appeal for potential converts of rampant herpes and stripped them away from the demands made by Peter and the desciples. In Paul's Christianity you only had to accept Jesus to become a believer. For Peter (and possibly Jesus) you had to become a Jew.

Paul was therefore able to claim Christianity was for all people - gentiles as well as Jews- which expanded his audience somewhat.

It has been argued that Paul was more important than Jesus. If it hadn't been for Paul, Christianity would, at best have remained a minority religion, at worst have faded from view. Christians may argue that was precisely why Jesus selected Paul to spread the message.

[Mac Howard]

I've just read my post two up - it was written at two in the morning after watching another inept display by Man Utd. Sorry for that ;) I'll be more succinct:

The absence of eye witness evidence does not prove non-existence unless you can show all other explanations invalid.

Hearsay evidence may be less credible than eye witness evidence but you cannot proceed to "prove" non-existence by ignoring it all together.

You cannot claim to have proven your case when accepting the possibility of a contradictory case. Your own acceptance is an admission you've proved nothing. Claiming the alternative is "speculation" doesn't help particularly when your own is the same.

Those are the flaws in the article that I criticise above.

There are three possibilities

1) The whole story is true. To accept this you must accept the reality of supernatural events that are essentially unproven.

2) The whole story is a fiction. To accept this you must accept a proof that is flawed.

3) The story has a kernal of truth which has been exaggerated by followers. To accept this you need not accept unproven supernatural events or dubious proofs of non-existence merely an acceptance of very common human behaviour..

On a probability basis the third is probably the most likely ;)

Modern archeology is showing this to be true of many biblical stories - a kernal of truth with exaggerated descriptions and/or supernatural explanations from a people limited in their understanding of nature. The walls of Jericho have fallen (several times from earthquakes), societies destroyed by floods, there was a Semitic population in Egypt prior to the exodus (though not necessarily slaves), Israelites were captured and taken to Babylon and then released, a great temple was built and destroyed in Jerusalem twice (Solomon's and Herod's). And so on. Actual events often given supernatural and religious significance. The only archeological finds that might support the Jesus story would be written records but in 66 AD the Romans put Palestine to the sword, burnt Jerusalem and other Jewish cities to the ground - and what the temple could not withstand certainly papyrus would not . If there were records they would stand small chance of surviving - unless perhaps buried in a cave in the Judean wilderness (the Dead Sea Scrolls) or Egypt (the Gnostic Gospels). The second of these does support the Jesus story. This destruction might, indeed, be why the gospels date from after 70 AD - earlier writings being destroyed.

[RainMaker]

Isn't the hearsay evidence a bit sketchy too? Few, if any of those published accounts from that time really mention his full name. I don't believe any mention any of the miracles her performed. It's basically "hey there was this Cristos guy who was a teacher". Not, there was a guy named Jesus who walked on water, rose from the dead, etc.

[bignej]

The article stated that there was a possibility he existed. I think the author was pointing out that christians accept it as truth that this man not only lived but performed all of these miracles, yet noone cared to document his existence at all until 70 years after his death. Seriously if someone actually did some of those things, there should have been something somewhere. Jesus and whether he actually existed means nothing without the miracles. Like St. Nick in the Santa Claus example, he becomes simply some dude. The author is an obvious atheist but that doesn't negate his point. We wouldnt accept that someone existed and performed supernatural acts without some shred of evidence. Jesus (and Hercules) have no eyewitness account of their existence except for passed down info.

[RedKingGold]

Shit, I feel like an idiot for worshipping the Easter Bunny all these years.

[Mac Howard]

The article stated that there was a possibility he existed.

And, in doing so, undermined his own "proof". You cannot simultaneously say "maybe he existed" and "he definitely didn't". It has to be "maybe he existed and maybe he didn't". By allowing the possibility of Jesus' existence he shows little faith in his argument that he didn't.

Seriously if someone actually did some of those things, there should have been something somewhere.

Not if he did nothing that was deemed worthy of recording at the time or if the Romans destroyed such records when they destroyed the Jewish cities in the Jewish wars or 66-74 AD or if the newly formed Roman church destroyed them when they burnt all books that didn't directly support their particular interpretation of the stories in the 4th and 5th centuries. Today we know from discoveries in the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi that monks hid documents from the orthodox priests/Romans in the first century and from the Roman church in the 4th in caves in the wilderness and desert precisely to ensure their survival from destruction. Who knows what else might still be hidden?

[bignej]

I didnt read anywhere in the article where he said that Jesus "definitely didnt exist". All that he is doing is pointing out the silliness of believing something based on hearsay.

[RainMaker]

Regardless of whether he was an actual person or not, it's safe to assume his life was rather uneventful. Accounts from that time mention him in passing and hardly give him the status of someone who walked on water and rose from the dead.

[JediKooter]

Josephus was know for his embelishments as well. So, I would take what he has written with a pillar of salt.

Also, if I remember correctly, Paul was not born until after Jesus had died and only had 'visions' of Jesus. Not quite what I'd call an eyewitness. :)

[Mac Howard]

Josephus was know for his embelishments as well. So, I would take what he has written with a pillar of salt.

Also, if I remember correctly, Paul was not born until after Jesus had died and only had 'visions' of Jesus. Not quite what I'd call an eyewitness. :)

Josephus says nothing of note about Jesus and so his embellishments are meaningless. In fact Josephus' omission on Jesus is precisely why some say he didn't exist.

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

There is ample 'evidence" for Jesus in written documents and not just the bible - it just isn't definitive proof. But to say there is no evidence is nonsense - it just isn't as convincing as we should like to justify belief in the whole story.

[RainMaker]

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

He claims to have met the resurrected Jesus.

[Mac Howard]

He claims to have met the resurrected Jesus.

Yes, and if my memory serves me well (and it may not) he said something to the effect "Why are you persecuting me?".

[RainMaker]

Just saying that I don't exactly count the vision of a resurrected person as an "eyewitness account". More like a guy who is probably fucking crazy.

[Surtt]

Just saying that I don't exactly count the vision of a resurrected person as an "eyewitness account". More like a guy who is probably fucking crazy.

So...
Everyone who is Christian is crazy?
It is the core of the religion.

[JediKooter]

Josephus says nothing of note about Jesus and so his embellishments are meaningless. In fact Josephus' omission on Jesus is precisely why some say he didn't exist.

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

There is ample 'evidence" for Jesus in written documents and not just the bible - it just isn't definitive proof. But to say there is no evidence is nonsense - it just isn't as convincing as we should like to justify belief in the whole story.


Paul's visions of Jesus do not count in my opinion, simply because now we are in the supernatural world. No different than Edgar Cayce saying that he had visions of Jesus. They would be no more or less credible than Paul's, yet, I am sure we would cast a doubtful eye towards Cayce.

[Surtt]

Just look at George Washington.

I don't think most people would dispute he existed.
But look at the myths that are built around him: throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, chopping down the cherry tree, etc.
If he lived 2000 years ago, just going by the stories, it would be hard to accept he was a real person.

[Mac Howard]

Paul's visions of Jesus do not count in my opinion, simply because now we are in the supernatural world. No different than Edgar Cayce saying that he had visions of Jesus. They would be no more or less credible than Paul's, yet, I am sure we would cast a doubtful eye towards Cayce.

I cast a doubtful eye on the whole supernatural thing, JediKooper, and certainly put down Paul's eye witness evidence as being dubious in the extreme. But I'm pointing to the argument that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence and even one example (or as you point out possibly other occasions we may not be aware of) of an eye witness account.

The first problem with that article is that he immediately dismisses any evidence which might upset his case. He doesn't just call it questionable - he dismisses it outright. He does so, I think, because he's trying to prove a pre-determined position - Jesus doesn't exist - coming from his atheism and evidence of any sort gets in the way.

There simply is no evidence that Jesus did not exist and plenty that he did. In fact it's difficult to know what evidence you could have to prove his non-existence outside of suddenly a document coming up that credibly states "I made it all up". So, in the absence of any worthwhile proof of his belief he stretches the argument.

The lack of any definitive evidence is certainly a concern but to say it is a definitive factor is to assume:

a) Jesus was important enough at that time to justify a record of his actions

b) any records have not been destroyed - either by time, reuse or deliberate destruction by antagonistic authority.

I don't think anything in Jesus' story, once you put aside the supernatural, justifies any real national importance in his lifetime and I'm aware of the destruction of all that is Jewish by the Romans in 66-74 AD and all that is not in exact lockstep with the Pauline church in the 4th of 5th centuries. So it's feasible that nothing was ever written and, if it was, has been destroyed one way or another.

[Mac Howard]

Just look at George Washington.

I don't think most people would dispute he existed.
But look at the myths that are built around him: throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, chopping down the cherry tree, etc.
If he lived 2000 years ago, just going by the stories, it would be hard to accept he was a real person.

Well it would if you rejected the idea that beneath all the hype there was a human being that, while not necessarily justifying it, triggered it. But you're correct in what you suggest - there are billions of people for whom there is no evidence whatsoever, let alone the level of hearsay evidence we have for Jesus, that have existed. History would be thinly populated indeed if we insisted that everyone for whom there was no evidence hadn't existed :)

[Surtt]

I was unimpressed with the article that seems now to dominate the discussion. It was typical of an atheist supporting his position with an argument that only supports agnosticism - flawed logic and excessive certainty.


I just rolled my eyes after reading the first paragraph.


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

Shroud of turin?
Maybe easy to dismiss, but it does not do your creditability any good pretending it does not exist.


All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

source?
You have a copy of all contemporary Roman records?


Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.


Again source?
Stating opinion as fact.


Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.


Ever read a history book?
Lies!!!
hearsay!!!

[Surtt]

Well it would if you rejected the idea that beneath all the hype there was a human being that, while not necessarily justifying it, triggered it.

I am just saying that debating if Christ existed or not is kind of a moot point.

edit.
Just because someone existed does not make the stories any more (or less) believable.

[Groundhog]

Shroud of turin?
Maybe easy to dismiss, but it does not do your creditability any good pretending it does not exist.

It does not do your creditability any good pretending that it's authentic or worth mentioning as anything except a clever fraud.


source?
You have a copy of all contemporary Roman records?

There are existing contemporary sources from a bunch of people, and none mention Jesus. Go back and check my link on the first page.


Again source?
Stating opinion as fact.

It's not opinion. There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus. Again, read my link. Find me a single piece if you can. If it existed it would be a big deal, and all over google no doubt. Search on.


Ever read a history book?
Lies!!!
hearsay!!!

I've read a ton. Any history book worth a damn uses primarily contemporary evidence as much as possible, and where it can't and is instead relying on non-contemporary or untrustworthy evidence, it would say so.

[Groundhog]

I am just saying that debating if Christ existed or not is kind of a moot point.

edit.
Just because someone existed does not make the stories any more (or less) believable.

I don't see how it can be a moot point. If Christ DIDN'T exist, well, doesn't that sort of make Christianity itself a moot point? If he DID exist, yeah, sure, it doesn't mean that any of the NT is true, it just means that it did in fact start with a dude named Jesus. Still, that would be slightly more promising for believers.

The lack of any contemporary evidence not only talking about Jesus himself, but also about the pretty spectacular miracles he is supposed to have performed - you know, the kind of things you'd figure would get people talking - would be pretty worrying to me if I was trying to prove Christianity and Jesus Christ were real, and not another religion of many that have come and gone on this strange little planet of ours.

[Surtt]

I don't see how it can be a moot point. If Christ DIDN'T exist, well, doesn't that sort of make Christianity itself a moot point? If he DID exist, yeah, sure, it doesn't mean that any of the NT is true, it just means that it did in fact start with a dude named Jesus. Still, that would be slightly more promising for believers.

The lack of any contemporary evidence not only talking about Jesus himself, but also about the pretty spectacular miracles he is supposed to have performed - you know, the kind of things you'd figure would get people talking - would be pretty worrying to me if I was trying to prove Christianity and Jesus Christ were real, and not another religion of many that have come and gone on this strange little planet of ours.



The reason I said it is a moot point is that,
if You are a Christian: you will believe in Christ, no matter if there is historical evidence or not.
(I do not believe there is any way to prove he didn't exist)

If you do not: having a actual Christ will not prove he was the son of god.

[Surtt]

It does not do your creditability any good pretending that it's authentic or worth mentioning as anything except a clever fraud.


Fraud?
Source?

As I said it is out there and people believe it.
If you say nothing exist, but people say what about....
You need to at least acknowledge that it is there.



There are existing contemporary sources from a bunch of people, and none mention Jesus. Go back and check my link on the first page.
It's not opinion. There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus. Again, read my link. Find me a single piece if you can. If it existed it would be a big deal, and all over google no doubt. Search on.


???
You are making a statement about something that happened 2000 years ago and challenging me to prove it it wrong using google?

I am not a biblical scholar or an archaeologist.
But if you make a claim about such things i expect you to have someone in those field to back you up.
Stating opinion as fact.

*I see a bunch of sources at the bottom.
But without citing them in the actual essay they are worthless.

**
"There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus"
Do you have listing of everyone crucified?
Or perhaps a listing of all miracles performed and the performer?

At least state what you are referring to here.
Are there court records? Newspaper clippings? stone tablets?




I've read a ton. Any history book worth a damn uses primarily contemporary evidence as much as possible, and where it can't and is instead relying on non-contemporary or untrustworthy evidence, it would say so.

Of course every book written in the first century adhered to this literary standard.

[Groundhog]

Fraud?
Source?

As I said it is out there and people believe it.
If you say nothing exist, but people say what about....
You need to at least acknowledge that it is there.

There have been numerous tests done on the shroud that proved it isn't authentic or as old as it was said to be. It's like someone using the human footprint that was intentionally planted below a dinosaur footprint fossil by a creationist to prove that humans did exist at the same time as dinosaurs.


???
You are making a statement about something that happened 2000 years ago and challenging me to prove it it wrong using google?

No, I'm making a statement that something doesn't exist. There is NO contemporary evidence in existence. How am I supposed to dig up something that doesn't exist. If you think it does, or that it might exist, google it. You won't find anything that isn't refuted in the link I provided you.


Do you have listing of everyone crucified?
Or perhaps a listing of all miracles performed and the performer?

No, to both counts. I don't see the relevance here? I don't think there has ever been a miracle of any form performed EVER by ANYONE. By it's very definition, a miracle should never take place, except by supernatural means, and I don't see any evidence that that's ever happened.

At least state what you are referring to here.
Are there court records? Newspaper clippings? stone tablets?

No. Don't be lazy. Read the link. It details several important people who were alive and writing at the time of Jesus. Some of them Jews, some not. None of them mention Jesus or any miracles. These are all we have that are contemporary and originating in the area around where Jesus was supposed to be.


If the Bible was a history book, you would be right.

Correct. It's NOT a history book. Yet it describes a history of the world and mankind, and there are a lot of people who consider it a history book.

[bignej]

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

[Surtt]

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

+1

[JediKooter]

I cast a doubtful eye on the whole supernatural thing, JediKooper, and certainly put down Paul's eye witness evidence as being dubious in the extreme. But I'm pointing to the argument that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence and even one example (or as you point out possibly other occasions we may not be aware of) of an eye witness account.

The first problem with that article is that he immediately dismisses any evidence which might upset his case. He doesn't just call it questionable - he dismisses it outright. He does so, I think, because he's trying to prove a pre-determined position - Jesus doesn't exist - coming from his atheism and evidence of any sort gets in the way.

There simply is no evidence that Jesus did not exist and plenty that he did. In fact it's difficult to know what evidence you could have to prove his non-existence outside of suddenly a document coming up that credibly states "I made it all up". So, in the absence of any worthwhile proof of his belief he stretches the argument.

The lack of any definitive evidence is certainly a concern but to say it is a definitive factor is to assume:

a) Jesus was important enough at that time to justify a record of his actions

b) any records have not been destroyed - either by time, reuse or deliberate destruction by antagonistic authority.

I don't think anything in Jesus' story, once you put aside the supernatural, justifies any real national importance in his lifetime and I'm aware of the destruction of all that is Jewish by the Romans in 66-74 AD and all that is not in exact lockstep with the Pauline church in the 4th of 5th centuries. So it's feasible that nothing was ever written and, if it was, has been destroyed one way or another.

You make some good points. I think the key is, look at the evidence that does exist and does that evidence hold up. If the evidence is credible, then you have to include it any analysis being done. I don't know if this guys atheism is getting in the way or he doesn't feel the evidence is credible, I have no idea.

I think it's definitely an interesting subject, but, with the actual events being from so long ago, I don't think there will be a definitive yes or no.

[Groundhog]

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

Well, yes and no.

I think the inescapable fact is that to be a Christian you have to accept the NT on it's own merits, as there is nothing independent that confirms the wonderous things written in it. Faith, in other words. And this is why for me it slots in comfortably next to every other religion in the world. It just happens to be the one I'm surrounded by more-so than the others.

[Dutch]

This thread reminds me of environmentalists to some extent.

Earth's temperature at 400-year high
Earth's temperature at 400-year high - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/Earths-temperature-at-400-year-high/2100-11395_3-6087108.html)

Scientists do not have temperature records going back hundreds of years. Temperature records actually go back only 150 years. To determine surface temperature, researchers examine corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits and documentary sources such as historic drawings of glaciers.

Climactically speaking, the last 400 years have been sort of a roller coaster ride. From 1500 to 1850, the Earth was wrapped in what climatologists call the little ice age, where temperatures dipped. Since 1850, they have been rising. This last period also coincides with the Industrial Revolution.


Still, the researchers found Mann's conclusion that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere in the last few decades represented a high for the last 1,000 years to be plausible. None of the climate reconstructions in the new study indicate that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades. (The Spanish Armada took place in 1588.)

The cause? A lot of it is from human activity. "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution

How do we go from 400 years ago looking at pictures of caves and glaciers to the man-made Industrial Era beginning 300 years later to "prove" Global Warming?

Faith?

Are they wrong? I'm not sure.

[JediKooter]

Well, it took 4 centuries before the first council of Oceana to get the story of global warming out to the people. ;)

[Dutch]

Well, it took 4 centuries before the first council of Oceana to get the story of global warming out to the people. ;)

And how many centuries of mega-taxation before it's popular to question it? ;)

[Mac Howard]

You make some good points. I think the key is, look at the evidence that does exist and does that evidence hold up. If the evidence is credible, then you have to include it any analysis being done. I don't know if this guys atheism is getting in the way or he doesn't feel the evidence is credible, I have no idea.

I think it's definitely an interesting subject, but, with the actual events being from so long ago, I don't think there will be a definitive yes or no.

That's precisely what I'm saying - the nature of the evidence and the manner in which we've received it means there is inevitably a significant "not known" element in the subject. My disagreement with the article is that it assumes far too great a certainty than it can reasonably claim.

To move from "no evidence" to "no existence" can only be acceptable when all alternative reasons for the lack of evidence have been eliminated. In the case of the Jesus story there are at least two other explanations for that lack of evidence - that durable evidence was never created because he was not of sufficient importance at the time or that evidence was destroyed either by time, reuse, carelessness or deliberately destroyed perhaps by the Romans in 66-74 AD or the new Pauline church in the 4th and 5th centuries.

For me it's simply a case of "no smoke without fire". There's an awful lot of smoke to deal with and the most straight forward explanation of this is that there is a figure of Jesus on which the hype is then built to promote his message after his death. I see no reason to come up with a more imaginative explanation than this.

Just seen a program on the History channel, Sun Tzu , which I suspect is based on the book you read and triggered the start of the thread. Interesting but not convincing. I was not impressed at all by the rationalisation in the final analysis with which the priest/author hung on to his faith :)

[Sun Tzu]

I would love to know what the special...or at least the book is that this special was based on. I am in absolutely no way, shape, or form an expert on any of this stuff. I find all of this very interesting be though I'm leaning towards the option of jesus existing but being just your average ordinary joe. My "Easter bunny" example was meant to show that by the logic that was being used In said post, that we could make the arguement that any mythical person/creature existed because...hey a lot of people wrote about it, and who's to say that they didn't exist? I'm also very open however to reading some suggested material that may have a logical explanation as to how Jesus did perform all of these miracles...or even one of them for that matter.

Thanks again for the great reading so far. Please forgive any grammatical errors here. I'm posting from my new iPhone. This thing is awesome but will take some getting used to.

[revrew]

Some flawed thinking in the arguments about "Why no recordings of Jesus' miracles? I mean, if the guy walked on water, wouldn't that merit some record, somewhere?"

Answer: No.

For in the historical context, one has to consider, where and before whom were these alleged miracles performed? Rural Israel and Judea, among typically small crowds of uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery).

Imagine same scenario today: A man walks across a lake in rural Minnesota before a crowd of 10 people. What record would exist? The news media (which they didn't have back then) would interview the witnesses...but who would believe them? Would this become "national news"? Would it make the NYT best-sellers list? Heck no. And the media and press didn't exist then. Would a Roman official make a record of it? No. "Crazy Jews dreaming up their Messiah again, eh, Flavius? Tell 'em to shut up and pay their taxes."

The only highly public miracle Jesus performed before educated crowds in a major city of political importance...his resurrection. And what do we have? Eyewitness accounts recorded by a LEGITIMATE historian of the day, Dr. Luke. A flood of accounts written - while Jesus' contemporaries were still alive (not while Jesus was alive, the resurrection happened after his death, obviously) and while eyewitnesses were still around to confirm or deny the reports - about the resurrection.

A bit of historical perspective makes it obvious: there wouldn't be any "records" of his miracles to look up. We have one legitimate record of his life, Luke's. Three, if you count Matthew and John (not going to get into the Mark controversy in this thread). Paul (who was alive during Jesus lifetime), wrote about it extensively 10-20 years later (not 70), even saying to his readers: "Don't believe me? Check with the eyewitnesses; they're still alive."

Asking for more proof that Jesus existed is asking for the unreasonable. Like asking for proof of the existence of Joseph, his father, or Mary, his mother. Good luck with that. The fact that we have so MUCH about Jesus is the remarkable fact, not that we have so little.

[JediKooter]

I'm also very open however to reading some suggested material that may have a logical explanation as to how Jesus did perform all of these miracles...or even one of them for that matter.


There is one example that I know of off the top of my head, though unrelated to Jesus. It's the story of the parting of the Red Sea. It was possibly mistranslated to where the actual meaning was, the Sea of Reeds and when a low tide came in, people could very easily travel across without drowning. I think that fits within a reasonable logical explaination.

[Chief Rum]

Paul has always interested me as a historical figure. Some of the above mentions have brought to mind how when the first Christians, especially converts outside of Judea, worshipped, they didn't have a "New Testament" to pray with (of course). You could even argue the Old Testament was of little use to the mostly Jewish converts, as they had to have been disenchanted by both the differences in teachings between the Pharisees and Jesus, and also by being persecuted among their own people (Christianity was largely regarded as a Jewish outlier cult in the early years after Jesus's death). Gentile converts, of course, wouldn't even have had the Old Testament.

Without a book in which the events of Jesus's life was recorded, there had to be tellings and re-tellings of the stories over and over again to keep the stories alive and known. Of course, it's possible (perhaps even likely if the few who could read or write were put to use) that copies of the early stories were written down that have simply not survived. But from this point in history, it has the appearance that Chrisitianity was almost entirely oral in nature in its first few decades.

[SFL Cat]

Happy Resurrection Day everyone! :)

[RedKingGold]

Happy Resurrection Day everyone! :)

w00t!

No Rainmaking on my parade today!

[Chief Rum]

And yesterday was Zombie Jesus Day. How on Earth did we miss this obvious connection to the coming Zombie Apocalypse?

[Groundhog]

For in the historical context, one has to consider, where and before whom were these alleged miracles performed? Rural Israel and Judea, among typically small crowds of uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery).

This in itself is an interesting point that also isn't unique to Christianity, and is worthy of a thread of its own rather than expanding on here and dragging this thing too OT.

Imagine same scenario today: A man walks across a lake in rural Minnesota before a crowd of 10 people. What record would exist? The news media (which they didn't have back then) would interview the witnesses...but who would believe them? Would this become "national news"? Would it make the NYT best-sellers list? Heck no. And the media and press didn't exist then. Would a Roman official make a record of it? No. "Crazy Jews dreaming up their Messiah again, eh, Flavius? Tell 'em to shut up and pay their taxes."

Of course. In the example above, everyone would think they were nuts, and would demand to see it again for themselves. This is because common sense tells us that man can't ordinarily walk across the surface of water. Only the most naive of people would believe something like this without seeing it for themselves.

The only highly public miracle Jesus performed before educated crowds in a major city of political importance...his resurrection. And what do we have? Eyewitness accounts recorded by a LEGITIMATE historian of the day, Dr. Luke. A flood of accounts written - while Jesus' contemporaries were still alive (not while Jesus was alive, the resurrection happened after his death, obviously) and while eyewitnesses were still around to confirm or deny the reports - about the resurrection.

There is no certainty as to who wrote any of the gospels, nor when they were written. Most biblical historians date the first gospel as Mark's, written sometime after the year 70 AD, roughly 40 or more years since Jesus likely would have been crucified. Mark's gospel is referenced by both Matthew (~600 references) and Luke (~300 references), placing them well beyond the lifespan of the average human who would have been contemporary to Jesus.

The author of Luke himself admits to being an interpreter of earlier events passed on to him:

" <sup id="en-NIV-24887" class="versenum" value="1">1</sup>Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, <sup id="en-NIV-24888" class="versenum" value="2">2</sup>just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. <sup id="en-NIV-24889" class="versenum" value="3">3</sup>Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, <sup id="en-NIV-24890" class="versenum" value="4">4</sup>so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." - Luke 1:1-4

Remembering here that he is getting his information from "uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery)", more than half a century later.

A bit of historical perspective makes it obvious: there wouldn't be any "records" of his miracles to look up.

If we were talking about a man walking across water, sure. Jesus raises four people from the dead, including himself, cures just about ever disease known in his time, and feeds a crowd of people with next to no bread or fish, next to many more. These are all acts that are miracles in the "no freaking way should this happen" sense, and there are lots of them. People would take notice of this kind of thing. We have the writings of Romans and Jews around these poor and miserable areas that this happened. None of them put a single letter to paper about any of it.

We have one legitimate record of his life, Luke's. Three, if you count Matthew and John (not going to get into the Mark controversy in this thread). Paul (who was alive during Jesus lifetime), wrote about it extensively 10-20 years later (not 70), even saying to his readers: "Don't believe me? Check with the eyewitnesses; they're still alive."

Again, this is contrary to what biblical historians believe, who date these gospels far later.

Asking for more proof that Jesus existed is asking for the unreasonable. Like asking for proof of the existence of Joseph, his father, or Mary, his mother. Good luck with that. The fact that we have so MUCH about Jesus is the remarkable fact, not that we have so little.

We'll have to agree to disagree. We have just as much proof of every single other major religious figure.

[JediKooter]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Danny]

Others know more specific details than I, but I think the amount of evidence seems to be just right. There is enough there and enough lacking that it is a matter of faith. If there was unquestionable proof, there would be no point, everyone, with faith or not would believe.

[Mac Howard]

I would love to know what the special...or at least the book is that this special was based on.

The book is by Tom Harpur called "The Pagan Christ", Sun Tzu :

The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=J_wtUj1TeN0C&dq=tom+harper&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=FS3jSeDKNYGHkQXpjdXUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=16)

The History Channel program has the same name.

In fact I've just watched another History Channel program called "Unmasking The Pagan Christ" - two theologians were asked to produce a reply.

I found the programs fascinating but neither program particularly convincing. Both seemed to me to set out to prove an pre-existing belief and make far too much of the evidence quoted. The book says that Jesus did not exist but is merely a rehash of the Egyptian myth of Horus. The reply essentially that the similarities are exaggerated and there are bound to be similarities when describing religious figures.

I've made my position clear and I won't trouble people any more. But in the second of the programs one commentator was Elaine Pagels, a Professor of Religion at Princeton and the author of the book The Gnostic Gospels (described by the Modern Library as one of the best 100 books ever written and by Christian conservatives as one of the worst 50 :) ) and a commentator I've found unusually rational in religious debates before. She comments thus:

People have asked whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed. And it's impossible to prove whether he did or he didn't, historically. It seems to me enormously more likely that he probably existed because of the disparate kinds of evidence that we have.

As you know we have evidence from Roman Historians like Scotanius (I couldn't make out the exact name - Mac), from the Roman senator Tacitus about the group that he founded - he had heard about the founder who was executed under the direction of Pontius Pilate in Judea. He'd heard about Jesus of Nazareth.

We've heard about him in the writings of Josephus - just a couple of mentions - which suggest that he was a known historical figure.

Now you can say that's all made up and it could be but it's unlikely that it would have been made up from so many sources.

So, to me, it is a much greater hurdle of credulity to imagine that Jesus did not exist. A far less likely hypothesis.

Here's another interesting web site dealing with the evidence of Josephus. It gives both the copies of his writings (we do not have the original) from both Christian and Islamic sources. You can see what Christian clerics did to them :)

Josephus'Testimony to Jesus (http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html)

You can argue that the Islamic quotation confirms Jesus' existence but even here there is a problem. This passage does not appear in the book Josephus wrote about the time of Jesus but in a much later book - 90 AD. Why? The implication is that Josephus is reacting to the growth of the Christian faith and repeating what is being said of Jesus rather than writing from his own knowledge. For me it adds to the idea that Jesus was a relative unknown in his own time and became well known through the efforts of his followers - he wasn't sufficiently important (or even known to Josephus) for Josephus to mention in his earlier more relevant book but became important and was added to the later one.

[Sun Tzu]

Excellent! I'll have to either pick it up from Amazon or look for those specials on the History channels upcoming programing. Thank you!

[AENeuman]

Another fun modern read is really anything by Karen Armstrong, History of God would be your best bet.

For a fun old school reading try Celsus "True Doctrine" 2nd century anti-Christian writer. one of the few works not burned by the church.

Celsus is great because his arguments are really no different than today and even this thread. Even in the 2nd century you can see the problem of legend. Here is some lines from wiki:

Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness

The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity.

To Celsus, it was much more reasonable to believe that each part of the world has its own special deity; prophets and supernatural messengers had appeared in more places than one.

Besides being bad philosophy based on fictitious history, Christianity is not respectable. (H)e says the Christian teachers who are mainly weavers and cobblers have no power over men of education. The qualifications for conversion are ignorance and childish timidity.

Finally, "An interesting feature of Celsus' writing is that he refers to Jesus' father by name as Panthera. It is taken by Celsus as given that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a roman soldier of this name."

[Danny]

Another fun modern read is really anything by Karen Armstrong, History of God would be your best bet.

For a fun old school reading try Celsus "True Doctrine" 2nd century anti-Christian writer. one of the few works not burned by the church.

Celsus is great because his arguments are really no different than today and even this thread. Even in the 2nd century you can see the problem of legend. Here is some lines from wiki:

Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness

The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity.

To Celsus, it was much more reasonable to believe that each part of the world has its own special deity; prophets and supernatural messengers had appeared in more places than one.

Besides being bad philosophy based on fictitious history, Christianity is not respectable. (H)e says the Christian teachers who are mainly weavers and cobblers have no power over men of education. The qualifications for conversion are ignorance and childish timidity.

Finally, "An interesting feature of Celsus' writing is that he refers to Jesus' father by name as Panthera. It is taken by Celsus as given that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a roman soldier of this name."

From your post, Celcus' writings look pretty biased. You want to talk about the bible being hearsay, the gospels were still written hundred and fifty or so years before Celcus' book and yet his hearsay about Jesus' father should be taken as true?

He tries to insult anyone who would become Christian.

Also, it makes perfect sense for God to reveal himself to humans over any other creature. Humans are the only creature we know of who would be aware of his presence.

\\

[Groundhog]

From your post, Celcus' writings look pretty biased. You want to talk about the bible being hearsay, the gospels were still written hundred and fifty or so years before Celcus' book and yet his hearsay about Jesus' father should be taken as true?

There was no NT when he was writing. Who knows what texts made up the Christian religion as he knew it.

Also, it makes perfect sense for God to reveal himself to humans over any other creature. Humans are the only creature we know of who would be aware of his presence.

Sure. What doesn't make sense is that if this world was created for us, why have we only inhabited this planet for a fraction of the time it has existed? Why the ebb and flow of dominant creatures that eventually led to us, for the time being, at least?

[JediKooter]

From your post, Celcus' writings look pretty biased. You want to talk about the bible being hearsay, the gospels were still written hundred and fifty or so years before Celcus' book and yet his hearsay about Jesus' father should be taken as true?

He tries to insult anyone who would become Christian.

Also, it makes perfect sense for God to reveal himself to humans over any other creature. Humans are the only creature we know of who would be aware of his presence.

\\

Well, Celsus' writings are biased, just like the gospels are biased. Even if you take the christian/jew hate out of his texts, he does make some good points about humans superior attitude and thinking that only god himself/herself would be revealed only to humans.

Which gospels specifically are you refering to though? Any gospels written before Celsus' book, would have been written about the time when Jesus was around 25ish (going by your 150 year reference), since the best guestamate is his book was written around 175 AD.

[Danny]

There was no NT when he was writing. Who knows what texts made up the Christian religion as he knew it.



Sure. What doesn't make sense is that if this world was created for us, why have we only inhabited this planet for a fraction of the time it has existed? Why the ebb and flow of dominant creatures that eventually led to us, for the time being, at least?

That's a valid point. I think this can be explained based on your bias. It's easy for me to say that the world wasn't ready for humans until after all of that time. You could easily say what you just said. Even when I was a kid and I wasn't Christian, I've always found the idea that God could not be proved or disproved fascinating. I understand that it's tempting to only believe what evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt. For me, there is enough evidence to support my faith and what I believe inside to be true, but it makes sense that there is not enough evidence for those that don't belief a certain idea to be true deep down inside. I know some Christians try and say their religion has been proved and while there is evidence supporting it (and not), it's still a matter of faith. For me, that's the point in all of these discussion/arguments over religion because neither side can be proved.

[Danny]

Well, Celsus' writings are biased, just like the gospels are biased. Even if you take the christian/jew hate out of his texts, he does make some good points about humans superior attitude and thinking that only god himself/herself would be revealed only to humans.

Which gospels specifically are you refering to though? Any gospels written before Celsus' book, would have been written about the time when Jesus was around 25ish (going by your 150 year reference), since the best guestamate is his book was written around 175 AD.

I had the wrong year on his writings, about 100 years then.

[JediKooter]

I had the wrong year on his writings, about 100 years then.

That's cool Danny. Happens to the best of us. :)

[Groundhog]

Even when I was a kid and I wasn't Christian, I've always found the idea that God could not be proved or disproved fascinating.

We're wired differently, I think. :)

I personally find this idea an example of how flawed human thinking is. You can't prove something doesn't exist, and that extends well beyond just religion. I can't prove that cavemen didn't ride around in Fred Flintstone's car, and didn't ride on the backs of pterodactyls. There is no reason to think they did however, as nothing has pointed to that being true, outside of a cartoon that came some time after the facts. :)

I'll grant that there are (or, at least, certainly were) many reasons to believe in a god or gods however. Likely every single culture that has ever existed on the face of this planet has had their superstitions and religions, all rising out of ignorance, as an attempt to explain the world in a way that makes sense to them. They are all shaped to follow the flow of life and time as it is known to mankind with his birth and death, a beginning and an end, which shows exactly how human-centric they are, and doesn't square up with the actual infiniteness of time.

To be honest, I find the "can't prove it exists or doesn't exist" argument to be very frustrating, because if you can't prove it exists, well... doesn't that speak volumes? To me, it does. Anything else is at the very best a theory, and a tenuous one at that.

I understand that it's tempting to only believe what evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt. For me, there is enough evidence to support my faith and what I believe inside to be true, but it makes sense that there is not enough evidence for those that don't belief a certain idea to be true deep down inside.

I'm happy for you, but doesn't it trouble you that the followers of every major religion now and in the past believed it with the exact same conviction as you? Especially knowing that the invention of religions is a natural and commonly occuring event, and if not for the Romans, who knows what kind of church you'd be going to right now.

[AENeuman]

You can't prove something doesn't exist, and that extends well beyond just religion.

Sure you can. something that is both red and green all over has never existed. there has never been a married bachelor. :)

Celsus is greatly biased. What's great about him is that his greek smugness is very similar to modern elitist atheists. (Minus the anti-Jew stuff)

I think the Christian movement took off because of its prolific writers. Not being married to a single language allowed each community to put the story into their worldview (or sacred canopy as Durkheim puts it). But more importantly it allowed for an exchange of ideas (much like FOF!). Not being bound to elders telling stories or a leader writing down their "conversation" with god freed the religion to grow organically and mature.

It also allowed the faith to be many different, even contradictory, things at once, ie Gnostic. however once rulers took over the movement they would only keep the letters/verses/books that legitimized their power and made their interpretation the one and only. that's why i love the first 3 centuries, Christianity was open-sourced

[Groundhog]

Sure you can. something that is both red and green all over has never existed. there has never been a married bachelor. :)

Prove it!

Celsus is greatly biased. What's great about him is that his greek smugness is very similar to modern elitist atheists. (Minus the anti-Jew stuff)

Yeah, he's biased because he doesn't like Christians. Still, he's as entitled to his opinion about the Christian movement of his time as anybody else is. For all I know, he was spot on. There isn't much else out there that describes it in a negative light and survived, not that I've read anyway. The only reason his still exists is because it was quoted at length in a later positive and equally biased work. I'm not saying he's right in his attacks either because it's impossible to say.

It's definitely interesting how many of his arguments carry on today. In fact, when I read Hitchen's 'The Portable Atheist', I was actually shocked by how it's been the exact same arguments being used for and against for centuries and centuries and centuries back in time, long before the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today.

I think the Christian movement took off because of its prolific writers. Not being married to a single language allowed each community to put the story into their worldview (or sacred canopy as Durkheim puts it). But more importantly it allowed for an exchange of ideas (much like FOF!). Not being bound to elders telling stories or a leader writing down their "conversation" with god freed the religion to grow organically and mature.

It also allowed the faith to be many different, even contradictory, things at once, ie Gnostic. however once rulers took over the movement they would only keep the letters/verses/books that legitimized their power and made their interpretation the one and only. that's why i love the first 3 centuries, Christianity was open-sourced

And probably about as accurate as a wiki article.

[SFL Cat]

Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace. Quite simply, the work of Christ allows us to renew a personal relationship with our creator, God.

For those who look at Christianity as simply an intellectual pursuit, or as a philosophical quandry, you will more than likely be disappointed or underwhelmed. Even the scripture offers, "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, and the wisdom of men is foolishness to God."

But for those of us who have heard the gospel and have chosen to receive grace, for most of us it has been a life-changing event. Now you can think we're crazy, weak-willed, stupidsticious, sheep,...or whatever else floats your boat or makes you feel superior, but for us, we know it is the power of God to help us live a life that is pleasing to Him and to share the good news of reconciliation with God to a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink. Now, if that scares you..., well, BOO!

[cartman]

Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace. Quite simply, the work of Christ allows us to renew a personal relationship with our creator, God.

For those who look at Christianity as simply an intellectual pursuit, or as a philosophical quandry, you will more than likely be disappointed or underwhelmed. Even the scripture offers, "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, and the wisdom of men is foolishness to God."

But for those of us who have heard the gospel and have chosen to receive grace, for most of us it has been a life-changing event. Now you can think we're crazy, weak-willed, stupidsticious, sheep,...or whatever else floats your boat or makes you feel superior, but for us, we know it is the power of God to help us live a life that is pleasing to Him and to share the good news of reconciliation with God to a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink. Now, if that scares you..., well, BOO!

Not all branches of Christianity share this view.

[Groundhog]

Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace.

This is your personal interpretation, many would disagree. Who is right?


But for those of us who have heard the gospel and have chosen to receive grace, for most of us it has been a life-changing event. Now you can think we're crazy, weak-willed, stupidsticious, sheep,...or whatever else floats your boat or makes you feel superior, but for us, we know it is the power of God to help us live a life that is pleasing to Him and to share the good news of reconciliation with God to a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink. Now, if that scares you..., well, BOO!

Not meant as a personal slight against you, but to a nonbeliever, this paragraph is empty fluff of the kind found from each and every devout believer of each and every religion, complete with a threat of the impending end of days just about every religion seems to so eagerly await.

[SFL Cat]

Not all branches of Christianity share this view.

I would say that's why most formal denominations of Christianity are on the wane in the Western world "they assume the form and rituals of godliness, but deny the true Power."

[SFL Cat]

Not meant as a personal slight against you, but to a nonbeliever, this paragraph is empty fluff of the kind found from each and every devout believer of each and every religion, complete with a threat of the impending end of days just about every religion seems to so eagerly await.

As it should. We are commissioned in the New Testament only to preach the gospel with the accompanying signs. It is the Spirt of God that woos mens' hearts and brings them to repentence and salvation, not the preacher or evangelists' clever words.

I figured out a long time ago that there is nothing I can do to change a person's heart. All I can do is share the gospel when/if the opportunity presents itself, and pray for that person to receive God's grace.

[cartman]

I would say that's why most formal denominations of Christianity are on the wane in the Western world "they assume the form and rituals of godliness, but deny the true Power."

How does that viewpoint settle with Matthew 7:1?

[SFL Cat]

The measure we use to judge others, is the measure that will be used to judge us.

Specifically, someone who judges another for an act he himself also commits, will be judged all the more harshly by God.

[cartman]

And that goes to the heart of all the schisms and various reformations of Christianity over the years, and is why there isn't a 'monolithic' set of beliefs for Christianity, other than Jesus was the son of God. All of the branches and sects have their ways of how to interpret the Bible and progress down the path. Any attempt to say that a specific sets of beliefs represents Christianity as a whole just doesn't reflect the varied landscape.

[SFL Cat]

And that goes to the heart of all the schisms and various reformations of Christianity over the years, and is why there isn't a 'monolithic' set of beliefs for Christianity, other than Jesus was the son of God. All of the branches and sects have their ways of how to interpret the Bible and progress down the path. Any attempt to say that a specific sets of beliefs represents Christianity as a whole just doesn't reflect the varied landscape.

Well, the Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins and was ressurected thing, IS pretty much THE Christian faith...everything else is more or less pissing contests between various denominations.

Now if you want to get into heresies like Gnosticism, that was presented as such by the original founders of the various churches in the ancient world, many of whom were original disciples of Christ.

[cartman]

Well, the Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins and was ressurected thing, IS pretty much THE Christian faith...everything else is more or less pissing contests between various denominations.

Now if you want to get into heresies like Gnosticism, that was presented as such by the original founders of the various churches in the ancient world, many of whom were original disciples of Christ.

Agreed, I was just pointing out that what you put here:

Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace. Quite simply, the work of Christ allows us to renew a personal relationship with our creator, God.


isn't a universal view among Christians. That falls under the "pissing contest" as you put it.

[SFL Cat]

Not so...the "grace" part is the fundamental element of the Christ is God's son, died on the cross for our sins and was ressurected thing.

I would welcome you to explain how it falls under the "pissing contest" category.

[cartman]

The very concept of Grace is what led to Luther's 95 Thesis. He had a very different view than what Rome had, and took his views to split off and found Lutheranism. Then if you go to Calvinism, predestination was introduced, so no matter what you did, or chose to do, God had already decided your fate, and if you received grace or not. In the Church of Christ, they for the most part do not side with any of the reformation ideas, and prefer to keep things tied directly to their interpretation of the New Testament. Salvation is key to them, and grace is something more not to fall out of than it is to strive for.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head, but definitely the views on grace were a major reason for the formation of the various Protestant groups of Christianity.

[Groundhog]

As it should. We are commissioned in the New Testament only to preach the gospel with the accompanying signs. It is the Spirt of God that woos mens' hearts and brings them to repentence and salvation, not the preacher or evangelists' clever words.

I'm guessing far more preachers at your average suburban church do more preaching of John 4:8 than Luke 19:27.

[AENeuman]

...a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink.

I think belief via the promise/threat of impending doom might be older than virgin birth stories;)

[AENeuman]

Prove it!

Well... if we can agree what bachelor means and married means I have a chance.

If we can't I'm going to deny Australia exists. Or better yet, I say Australia is just the name of my cat, who is licking himself right now.;)

[Groundhog]

I think belief via the promise/threat of impending doom might be older than virgin birth stories;)

And hopefully just as false, given the Hebrew word that was translated into "virgin" in Greek in fact simply meant "young woman" - usually the same thing ideally, but no doubt not so much in practice... Yet how often do we still hear about the virgin birth...

[Groundhog]

Well... if we can agree what bachelor means and married means I have a chance.

I'm sure I could be stubborn and come up with all sorts of definitions of bachelor and marriage... The gay marriage thread on this board is a good example of how even the meaning of that word means a lot of different things to a lot of different folks.

If we can't I'm going to deny Australia exists. Or better yet, I say Australia is just the name of my cat, who is licking himself right now.;)

Ahhh... but see, I *can* prove Australia exists, because I'm standing on her right now. The country, that is. You're cat is probably still OK. ;)

[AENeuman]

Ahhh... but see, I *can* prove Australia exists, because I'm standing on her right now. The country, that is. You're cat is probably still OK. ;)

March Hare: Have some wine.
(Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea.)
Alice: I don't see any wine.
March Hare: There isn't any.
Alice: Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it.
March Hare: It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited

[Groundhog]

I just can't believe I used "you're" instead of "your" when I'm always getting on other folks for doing the same. :(

[sabotai]

You can't prove something doesn't exist, and that extends well beyond just religion.

That isn't really true, but I know what you are trying to say ("You can't prove a negative"). You can not prove something doesn't exist (or any kind of negative claim), unless you can prove a positive claim that negates the possibility of the negative claim being false. IOW, you can prove A doesn't exist by proving a positive claim that makes it impossible for A to exist.

In AE's example, you can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exists (negative claim) by proving that "married" and "bachelor" are mutually exclusive (positive claim). Just like someone can not be an atheistic theist; they are mutually exclusive (a provable positive claim that would negate the possibility of an atheistic theist existing).

But as far as this thread goes, you are right in that you can not prove Jesus did not exist. At least, AFAIK, there's no positive claim, or set of positive claims, that you could prove that would negate the possibility of Jesus existing.

(It's 3am and I'm very tired. I hope I didn't screw up the wording and hope this post made sense. :) )

[Groundhog]

That isn't really true, but I know what you are trying to say ("You can't prove a negative"). You can not prove something doesn't exist (or any kind of negative claim), unless you can prove a positive claim that negates the possibility of the negative claim being false. IOW, you can prove A doesn't exist by proving a positive claim that makes it impossible for A to exist.

In AE's example, you can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exists (negative claim) by proving that "married" and "bachelor" are mutually exclusive (positive claim). Just like someone can not be an atheistic theist; they are mutually exclusive (a provable positive claim that would negate the possibility of an atheistic theist existing).

Yes, good point, I was trying to be difficult, turns out I was being difficult as well as wrong. ;)

But as far as this thread goes, you are right in that you can not prove Jesus did not exist. At least, AFAIK, there's no positive claim, or set of positive claims, that you could prove that would negate the possibility of Jesus existing.

FWIW, considering I've been so negative this entire thread, I just thought I'd make clear that I have few doubts that there was a Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that something like Christianity can rise from nothing. To be more accurate, what I should have said is that I don't believe in a historical Jesus, or in other words, a Jesus that we can know anything about with any real certainty.

It would be hypocritical for me to say he DID exist for certain though. I just think it's most likely that he did.

(It's 3am and I'm very tired. I hope I didn't screw up the wording and hope this post made sense. :) )

Well, you made more sense than me, by making the point I intended to make. I'll blame mine on my 6 day long weekend of non-stop boozing that has unfortunately come to an end today with my first day back at work. :)

[RainMaker]

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

[SFL Cat]

The very concept of Grace is what led to Luther's 95 Thesis. He had a very different view than what Rome had, and took his views to split off and found Lutheranism.

At the time, the Bible was in limited supply and even then, a good portion of the population couldn't read or write. Christian doctrine was pretty much decided by the whims of Rome, whether it was scriptural or not -- thus we had indulgences, self-flagellation, Christ in large part being supplanted by worship of the Madonna and the saints, etc., etc. Luther went back to original NT scripture, looked at the message of the gospels, and saw how it had been distorted and amended by the Roman church over the years. So you could say that the Reformation was Luther's attempt to move the Church back to its roots in the writings of the NT -- quite simply, we are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ.


Then if you go to Calvinism, predestination was introduced, so no matter what you did, or chose to do, God had already decided your fate, and if you received grace or not.

While I don't agree with a majority of Calvinist thought, you can't say that grace isn't a fundamental element of their belief system...it is perhaps moreso. To a Calvinist, God's grace is ABSOLUTE. He alone decides who will receive His grace (unmerited favor) and who will not, and the individual soul plays no part in that process.


In the Church of Christ, they for the most part do not side with any of the reformation ideas, and prefer to keep things tied directly to their interpretation of the New Testament. Salvation is key to them, and grace is something more not to fall out of than it is to strive for.

I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the dogma of the Church of Christ, but again...what you describe is the basic tenant of the Christian faith...salvation comes through God's grace through Jesus Christ.

[SFL Cat]

I think belief via the promise/threat of impending doom might be older than virgin birth stories;)

I would agree...you could add to that a fatalistic world view, "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

[Dutch]

I think belief via the promise/threat of impending doom might be older than virgin birth stories;)

What makes the "Think Green/Global Warming" movement such a success?

[revrew]

Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace. Quite simply, the work of Christ allows us to renew a personal relationship with our creator, God.

For those who look at Christianity as simply an intellectual pursuit, or as a philosophical quandry, you will more than likely be disappointed or underwhelmed. Even the scripture offers, "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, and the wisdom of men is foolishness to God."

But for those of us who have heard the gospel and have chosen to receive grace, for most of us it has been a life-changing event. Now you can think we're crazy, weak-willed, stupidsticious, sheep,...or whatever else floats your boat or makes you feel superior, but for us, we know it is the power of God to help us live a life that is pleasing to Him and to share the good news of reconciliation with God to a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink. Now, if that scares you..., well, BOO!

Well said, SFL Cat. As the Celsus example illustrated earlier, and as the Gnostics and other controversies described by Paul also illustrate, Christians have banged their heads against the same walls for many generations, trying to explain truth to generations of people that don't define truth by the same standards. It can be discouraging, especially on Internet boards, but be encouraged that you are not alone, and beware getting angry or bitter. You have spoken well.

[JediKooter]

FWIW, considering I've been so negative this entire thread, I just thought I'd make clear that I have few doubts that there was a Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that something like Christianity can rise from nothing. To be more accurate, what I should have said is that I don't believe in a historical Jesus, or in other words, a Jesus that we can know anything about with any real certainty.

It would be hypocritical for me to say he DID exist for certain though. I just think it's most likely that he did.


My problem is, where is the physical evidence for Jesus? There is none and if anybody says the shroud of turin...

There's plenty of physical evidence for Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, George Washington, King Tut, etc...

I have serious doubts that the jesus of the bible existed, but, conceed that there may have been your average joe named jesus that did exist at the time. There's thousands of people named jesus even now in 2009.

Heck, the christians had to use Mithras for designating what day christmas was going to be. Other than making up the stories about jesus in the NT, christians haven't done much on the side of original ideas.

If people want to have faith, that's fine with me. I highly encourage people to not confuse faith and fact as being the same thing though.

[RedKingGold]

If people want to have faith, that's fine with me. I highly encourage people to not confuse faith and fact as being the same thing though.

Problem is that those with faith believe it as fact with no need for the type of evidence you seek.

[JediKooter]

Problem is that those with faith believe it as fact with no need for the type of evidence you seek.

Well, to be fair, I don't think everyone who has faith can be painted with that brush.

Unfortunately, there are plenty that can be painted with that brush though.

[SFL Cat]

What makes the "Think Green/Global Warming" movement such a success?

Touche!

[flere-imsaho]

I'm coming late to this, but are some people claiming here that there's a similar availability of credible historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great as there is for Jesus?

[sabotai]

Well, you made more sense than me, by making the point I intended to make. I'll blame mine on my 6 day long weekend of non-stop boozing that has unfortunately come to an end today with my first day back at work. :)

You go ahead and blame it on your 6-day weekend of nonstop boozing and I'll just sit here and be jealous. :)

[Sun Tzu]

I'm coming late to this, but are some people claiming here that there's a similar availability of credible historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great as there is for Jesus?

Well, seeing as how this Jesus fellow is the only person out of those three that supposedly was ressurected from the dead, and walked on water, and performed a whole host of other miracles, I think asking for some kind...well any kind of evidence that he actually existed (let alone did any of these things) is warranted.

[AENeuman]

What makes the "Think Green/Global Warming" movement such a success?

Great example, totally the same thing, reverent fear.

Socrates had it right(of course) when he said:

For if anyone stands in reverence and awe of something, does he not at the same time fear and dread the imputation of wickedness?

Which fits nicely with:

Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

[Dutch]

I'm coming late to this, but are some people claiming here that there's a similar availability of credible historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great as there is for Jesus?

Yes, we believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great did indeed exist.

[Dutch]

Great example, totally the same thing, reverent fear.

Socrates had it right(of course) when he said:

For if anyone stands in reverence and awe of something, does he not at the same time fear and dread the imputation of wickedness?

Which fits nicely with:

Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

Yup. And to bring in modern faith-based "gospel"...environmentalism.

www.algore.com (http://www.algore.com/)
Official website of Al Gore, the former Vice President of the U.S. under former President Bill Clinton. Find out how he is spreading the word about global warming

Gore 9:11:05 Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.

Gore 9:9:05 The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.
(http://www.algore.com)

[flere-imsaho]

But if we use the same standards we apply to the rest of the ancient world, the evidence that Jesus lived stacks up with any of them.

No. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how historical research is conducted.

Literary accounts of historical events (or figures), regardless of their objectivity, are but one part of the historical record. Other primary sources include records of state (which exist for the Greek and Roman empires, as well as a number of empires conquered by the Greeks and Romans), evidence from architecture, and archaeological finds, such as coins and whatnot.

The literary primary sources that establish the existence of figures such as Julius and Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great are corroborated by other primary sources such as those listed above. No such corroboration exists for Jesus.

Further, the literary primary sources for the Caesars and Alexander the Great can, in many cases, be established as contemporary (a key requirement for "primary source" status) considerably more readily than those purporting to be primary source evidence for Jesus.


This is not to say that Jesus didn't exist. It's just not correct to say that as much historical evidence exists for Jesus as it does for other major figures of the ancient world.

[JediKooter]

Very well said flere.

[Dutch]

The literary primary sources that establish the existence of figures such as Julius and Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great are corroborated by other primary sources such as those listed above. No such corroboration exists for Jesus.

Further, the literary primary sources for the Caesars and Alexander the Great can, in many cases, be established as contemporary (a key requirement for "primary source" status) considerably more readily than those purporting to be primary source evidence for Jesus.

This is not to say that Jesus didn't exist. It's just not correct to say that as much historical evidence exists for Jesus as it does for other major figures of the ancient world.

To be fair, Alexander the Great could easily order his historians to write about him. Jesus was basically hiding from authorities until captured and executed. I wouldn't want to be the one Chronicling that.

Still, despite the persectution, the information that existed at the time regarding Jesus was enough to persuade even his captors (The entire Roman Empire) to fully accept Christianity by the end of the 3rd century AD. I would assume most of that information was a bit more perishable, that's fair to state as well.

[JediKooter]

To be fair, Alexander the Great could easily order his historians to write about him. Jesus was basically hiding from authorities until captured and executed. I wouldn't want to be the one Chronicling that.

Still, despite the persectution, the information that existed at the time regarding Jesus was enough to persuade even his captors (The entire Roman Empire) to fully accept Christianity by the end of the 3rd century AD. I would assume most of that information was a bit more perishable, that's fair to state as well.

The Roman Empire 'accepted' christianity because Theodosius I created a law in 380AD making christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. You going to argue with the emperor? Sounds like not much a of choice was given to the citizens of the empire to me.

[Dutch]

The Roman Empire 'accepted' christianity because Theodosius I created a law in 380AD making christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. You going to argue with the emperor? Sounds like not much a of choice was given to the citizens of the empire to me.

It was the rise of Christianity and the beginnings of a powerful church, not Theodosius which made Theodosius create the law. I'm not sure he was all that big of a religious guy actually, being excommunicated at one point (which back then may have been like handing out speeding tickets today for all we know).

EDIT: The Roman Empire was losing power by that time anyway, so any 'forced' conversion on his part could've caused a faster collapse of the empire. I'm fairly convinced this was the will of the people, not the pope.

[Groundhog]

To be fair, Alexander the Great could easily order his historians to write about him. Jesus was basically hiding from authorities until captured and executed. I wouldn't want to be the one Chronicling that.

See, Alexander the Great didn't particularily NEED to order people to write about him. No doubt he did, but even if he hadn't people would have written about him because of his importance and his deeds. He was a pretty big character in his day. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Lots of people throughout history have achieved similar things to what Alexander the Great did, and we know about them because of the impact they had on the people around them, who felt fit to chronicle it.

No one in history, excluding other religious figures, has achieved anything as spectacular as Jesus of the NT. Yet no contemporaries chronicled it, or at least, not enough to have them come down to us through the centuries? There is not a single other historical person who would have his deeds considered fact on such flimsy evidence, especially given their, well, "miracle" nature.


Still, despite the persectution, the information that existed at the time regarding Jesus was enough to persuade even his captors (The entire Roman Empire) to fully accept Christianity by the end of the 3rd century AD. I would assume most of that information was a bit more perishable, that's fair to state as well.

Again, that shows nothing, given that lots of cultures have accepted lots of religions over the history of mankind.

[JediKooter]

It was the rise of Christianity and the beginnings of a powerful church, not Theodosius which made Theodosius create the law. I'm not sure he was all that big of a religious guy actually, being excommunicated at one point (which back then may have been like handing out speeding tickets today for all we know).

EDIT: The Roman Empire was losing power by that time anyway, so any 'forced' conversion on his part could've caused a faster collapse of the empire. I'm fairly convinced this was the will of the people, not the pope.

Ok, I realized I'm using Roman Empire in place of the Roman Republic which was on its way out at the time of Theodosius. The Roman Empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

There was the Edict of Tolerance by Constantine I in 313AD that opened the door to christianity becoming the 'state' religion. So, there seems to have been a build up to christianity taking over. I'll give in to there being a good possibility that it was indeed the will of the people that led to Theodosius' making it the state religion. I just don't know enough about the overall feelings of the Roman populace at the time though to be 100% sure.

But, going back to the OP, I don't think it would have been possible for christianity to even get to that point, without it borrowing from many of the pre christian religions to appeal to a wider audience.

[RedKingGold]

I'd like to know how much evidence is needed to believe in Jesus without feeling like a dolt, k thanx.

[JediKooter]

I'd like to know how much evidence is needed to believe in Jesus without feeling like a dolt, k thanx.

Apparently next to zero for a lot of people ;)

[Groundhog]

I'll give in to there being a good possibility that it was indeed the will of the people that led to Theodosius' making it the state religion. I just don't know enough about the overall feelings of the Roman populace at the time though to be 100% sure.

Neither do I. From more recent times in other countries and with other religions I've read it happening both ways - from the top down, and from the bottom up. And even when coming from the top down, it's not always enforced as the "control tool" I think sometimes religion is made out to be, as in some of the cases at least I think there is a good amount of evidence that the folks at the top were actually quite devout.

But, going back to the OP, I don't think it would have been possible for christianity to even get to that point, without it borrowing from many of the pre christian religions to appeal to a wider audience.

I think it's nearly impossible to argue otherwise, given the wealth of evidence.

[RedKingGold]

Apparently next to zero for a lot of people ;)

Guess it's a wrong thing to believe in hope, then.

After all, we can't see hope or prove that hope even exists. So, I guess there's just no such thing as hope.

[AENeuman]

There was the Edict of Tolerance by Constantine I in 313AD that opened the door to christianity becoming the 'state' religion. So, there seems to have been a build up to christianity taking over. I'll give in to there being a good possibility that it was indeed the will of the people that led to Theodosius' making it the state religion. I just don't know enough about the overall feelings of the Roman populace at the time though to be 100% sure.

The best scholar today on all this is Peter Brown. In his book "Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity" he argues the weak central government allowed for local leaders to be persuaded all sorts of" new philosophers." This allowed Christianity to grow politically and religiously. Eventually monks become the new philosopher.

On the other end, the message from these elite Christians was presented in a simple populist way (love the poor for example) which Brown argues was a "masterstroke" for the emerging religion. soon bishops had the devotion of the lower class and thus the attention of the ruling class. they became the spiritual and political leaders of the most powerful (and essential) cities of the Empire. So yes, the Empire did not have much choice, it was more or less after the fact.

[Groundhog]

Guess it's a wrong thing to believe in hope, then.

After all, we can't see hope or prove that hope even exists. So, I guess there's just no such thing as hope.

Well, hope doesn't really exist outside of your head. It's not a tangible object.

[JediKooter]

Guess it's a wrong thing to believe in hope, then.

After all, we can't see hope or prove that hope even exists. So, I guess there's just no such thing as hope.

I know what you are getting at and I'm not falling for it. :)

[RedKingGold]

Well, hope doesn't really exist outside of your head. It's not a tangible object.

Why waste time on it then. Let's just throw it out because it's not tangible.

[RedKingGold]

I know what you are getting at and I'm not falling for it. :)

And that is...

[Groundhog]

Why waste time on it then. Let's just throw it out because it's not tangible.

Because it's a natural human emotion, just like love, hate, fear, etc. and it serves a purpose. And yes, so does religion of course, but that also makes claims to being tangible.

[RedKingGold]

Because it's a natural human emotion, just like love, hate, fear, etc. and it serves a purpose. And yes, so does religion of course, but that also makes claims to being tangible.

Religion itself is not tangible though, so why even argue about it?

[Groundhog]

Religion itself is not tangible though, so why even argue about it?

Because its believers impact and potentially threaten my life nearly every single day?

[Dutch]

Because its believers impact and potentially threaten my life nearly every single day?

And who will impact and potentially threaten your life every day once religion is squashed?

[JediKooter]

And that is...

It's circular logic (if that's the correct term I'm thinking of).

Well, if we can't see, touch, smell or taste hope, love, compasion, etc...but, we know they exist, then how can we say that god doesn't exist since you can apply the same (for the lack of a better word) feelings to god. So, therefor, god must exist since hope and the other feelings humans have exist.

(Not directed at you RKG) Creationists love to play that game as if it gives some sort of special validity to what they believe in. Usually that game is followed by the 'What if?' game that Ray Comfort loves to play.

[Groundhog]

And who will impact and potentially threaten your life every day once religion is squashed?

Who knows. If that does happen, I'm sure you'll see me on these forums arguing about that as well. :)

[RedKingGold]

Because its believers impact and potentially threaten my life nearly every single day?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people.

=

Religion doesn't hurt people, people who use religion for their own selfish gains hurt people.

[RedKingGold]

It's circular logic (if that's the correct term I'm thinking of).

Well, if we can't see, touch, smell or taste hope, love, compasion, etc...but, we know they exist, then how can we say that god doesn't exist since you can apply the same (for the lack of a better word) feelings to god. So, therefor, god must exist since hope and the other feelings humans have exist.

(Not directed at you RKG) Creationists love to play that game as if it gives some sort of special validity to what they believe in. Usually that game is followed by the 'What if?' game that Ray Comfort loves to play.

Yet, but that's also the same circular knowledge that you explore in your arguments.

If something can't be seen, touched, smell, or tasted, then how can we know that god does exist.

[JediKooter]

Religion doesn't hurt people, people who use religion for their own selfish gains hurt people.

Which is why, as an atheist, wants it kept completely out of public education and legislation and also why, I feel that religions in america should not be tax exempt.

[JediKooter]

Yet, but that's also the same circular knowledge that you explore in your arguments.

If something can't be seen, touched, smell, or tasted, then how can we know that god does exist.

Because you can't prove a negative. All of my arguments are based on scientific findings and emperical evidence and because of that evidence, it's not looking good for the existence of god.

[SFL Cat]

When push comes to shove, I suppose there is as much "historical" evidence to support the existence of Jesus as there is for the founders of the world's other major religions: i.e. the Buddha, Confuscius, Moses, and even the prophet Muhammad -- which is to say, outside of religious holy writings and associated texts, very little.

I do think it is a little unfair for some of you to expect a Jew who spent his early life in Roman occupied Israel's equivalent to the sticks to get the same scholarly attention (such as it was in those days) as someone like Julius Caesar or Alexander.

I'm sure a lot of us would like to think that we're making a lasting mark in this world, but the fact is, unless we become a major world leader or achieve something globally noteworthy, 100 years from now, we'll be mouldering in the grave completely forgotten by everyone except, perhaps, our decendants.

That said, it really doesn't matter if countless volumes were written about Christ by outside historians who confirmed that, yes, He was real guy who wandered about rural Judaea preaching and teaching the unwashed masses. The real rub is what Christians believe about Him: that He is God incarnate, God in the flesh, and that through His work on the cross, we're saved by God's grace.

Even if we could conclusively point and say: Seeeee, there he is in hiistoreeee!!! The unbeliever would reply: Yeah, there's that crazy Jew who had delusions of godhood. Where'd you guys hide the body when you stole it from the tomb?

[Groundhog]

Guns don't kill people, I kill people.

=

Religion doesn't hurt people, people who use religion for their own selfish gains hurt people.

Non sequitur.

Religion hurts people in far subtler ways than suicide bombers or guns. The hurt doesn't always stem from people using it for their own selfish gains. It stems from people following a 2,000 year old book (in the case of Christianity) and its subsequent reinterpretations to the letter.

Regardless, this says nothing at all about the truthfullness of religion, or Christianity in particular, which is what this thread is about.

If religion's sole saving grace is that it can make some people happy, why the need of gods and heavens and an afterlife? Why not follow one of the strains of, say, Buddhism that doesn't need all that extra supernatural stuff, but just instructs you to be a decent human being?

[Dutch]

Non sequitur.

Religion hurts people in far subtler ways than suicide bombers or guns. The hurt doesn't always stem from people using it for their own selfish gains. It stems from people following a 2,000 year old book (in the case of Christianity) and its subsequent reinterpretations to the letter.

Regardless, this says nothing at all about the truthfullness of religion, or Christianity in particular, which is what this thread is about.

If religion's sole saving grace is that it can make some people happy, why the need of gods and heavens and an afterlife? Why not follow one of the strains of, say, Buddhism that doesn't need all that extra supernatural stuff, but just instructs you to be a decent human being?

So what you are saying is that God didn't create war, we did. God didn't create genocide, we did. God didn't create pain and suffering, we did. God didn't create anything because God doesn't exist.

Yet, now you are saying that if we just get rid of this rediculous "belief" of God, that everything will be okay? You realize you haven't gotten to the root problem, yet, right?

[RedKingGold]

Which is why, as an atheist, wants it kept completely out of public education and legislation and also why, I feel that religions in america should not be tax exempt.

Again, you're blaming religion for the faults of teachers/parents and legislators who use their own personal beliefs inapposite of yours. As Dutch brings up, if religion did not exist or was banned, we could just plug in other nouns for "religions" in that above quote and still be accurate.

Because you can't prove a negative. All of my arguments are based on scientific findings and emperical evidence and because of that evidence, it's not looking good for the existence of god.

Science once proved that the world was flat, too. Also, I guess it was incorrect to think that alien life forms exist simply b/c they have not been proven yet.

[Groundhog]

When push comes to shove, I suppose there is as much "historical" evidence to support the existence of Jesus as there is for the founders of the world's other major religions: i.e. the Buddha, Confuscius, Moses, and even the prophet Muhammad -- which is to say, outside of religious holy writings and associated texts, very little.

I do think it is a little unfair for some of you to expect a Jew who spent his early life in Roman occupied Israel's equivalent to the sticks to get the same scholarly attention (such as it was in those days) as someone like Julius Caesar or Alexander.

History has seen many generals and military heroes. History has not seen many folks raising other folks from the dead. Can you imagine the kind of scene that would have created? You'd have thousands of people migrating to whever Jesus was, pleading that their loved one is brought back from the dead.

I'm sure a lot of us would like to think that we're making a lasting mark in this world, but the fact is, unless we become a major world leader or achieve something globally noteworthy, 100 years from now, we'll be mouldering in the grave completely forgotten by everyone except, perhaps, our decendants.

Well, if I start raising people from the dead, I'm thinking I might get at least an entry in the printed copy of wikipedia that they are sending to 3rd world countries...


That said, it really doesn't matter if countless volumes were written about Christ by outside historians who confirmed that, yes, He was real guy who wandered about rural Judaea preaching and teaching the unwashed masses. The real rub is what Christians believe about Him: that He is God incarnate, God in the flesh, and that through His work on the cross, we're saved by God's grace.

Yeah, but is that convincing? Why do Christians believe with such certainty that it's true, after you admit that there is no more evidence of it having happened than of Zeus having thrown down lightning bolts from the sky?

Why do people of different faiths think it's nonsense and instead worship different gods, that you in turn think are nonsense? What if you happened to be born in India rather than a Christian country?

Even if we could conclusively point and say: Seeeee, there he is in hiistoreeee!!! The unbeliever would reply: Yeah, there's that crazy Jew who had delusions of godhood. Where'd you guys hide the body when you stole it from the tomb?

If someone found a contemporary document that said Jesus existed, all that would mean is that it's more likely he did exist. One single piece of evidence might be, out of neccessity, barely enough to suggest something happened in history, but certainly not to prove something of the magnitude written about in the NT/OT/whatever.

[Groundhog]

So what you are saying is that God didn't create war, we did. God didn't create genocide, we did. God didn't create pain and suffering, we did. God didn't create anything because God doesn't exist.

I'm not really saying we created it either, because it exists in the animal world too, they just don't have the means to wage any of it quite like we can.

Yet, now you are saying that if we just get rid of this rediculous "belief" of God, that everything will be okay? You realize you haven't gotten to the root problem, yet, right?

No, I'm not saying this at all. Please show me where I did. You are drawing your own conclusions from what I wrote. I'm not naive enough to think that all the world's troubles are caused by religion, or that eliminating it will bring upon world peace. Of course not.

What I am saying though is that religion, while perhaps helpful to some individuals, is harmful to the whole.

What would the world be like without it? I don't know. We've seen what it's like when it has too much power however, and it's not a pleasant place. I'd quite like to see what happened entirely without it.

[JediKooter]

Again, you're blaming religion for the faults of teachers/parents and legislators who use their own personal beliefs inapposite of yours. As Dutch brings up, if religion did not exist or was banned, we could just plug in other nouns for "religions" in that above quote and still be accurate.


I was very specific on what my main problems were with religion. Keep it out of schools, keep it out of legislation and lose the tax exempt status. I never said get rid of religion.

There's a whole host of social problems here in america. All social problems are started by people. However, it takes an educated society to see what is BS and what is not. It's not as simple as democrat vs. republican or ford vs. chevy.

Science once proved that the world was flat, too. Also, I guess it was incorrect to think that alien life forms exist simply b/c they have not been proven yet.

The dogma of the church said it was flat, so it was flat. We all know what happened to Galileo when he opposed the churches 'scientists'. Heck, even the ancient Greeks said the earth was round.

As for aliens, if you want to use Drake's Equation, then I guess in way you could say yes. However, as much as I would like to think that there are aliens (any kind from single celled organisms all the way to sentient life forms) there is ZERO emperical evidence that they exist.

[Groundhog]

Again, you're blaming religion for the faults of teachers/parents and legislators who use their own personal beliefs inapposite of yours. As Dutch brings up, if religion did not exist or was banned, we could just plug in other nouns for "religions" in that above quote and still be accurate.

Yes, humans will still be humans. Though how can we know things wouldn't be better.

Though again, this doesn't address whether any religion or its superstitions are TRUE, which to me at least is a pretty fundamental point to this whole debate.

Science once proved that the world was flat, too.

Bad science, maybe. Since then, it's shown us that it isn't, all while improving all of our lives dramatically in some cases, or hurting it in others.

I'll never understand why it always needs to turn in to religion vs science, either. Religion isn't a faith based belief system. It's something we all see the TANGIBLE effects of every day, and have all seen it progress throughout our lives.

It's also helped men do some terrible things.

It's apples and oranges however.

Also, I guess it was incorrect to think that alien life forms exist simply b/c they have not been proven yet.

It's incorrect to think they DO exist, it's not incorrect to think they MAY exist.

[Raiders Army]

Although religion has helped mankind do some "terrible" things, it has also helped mankind do some wonderful things as well. If you're going to give credit for the bad, you must give credit for the good as well.

Actually, I think that perhaps some of the most terrible things religion has contributed to have been reinforcements of societal norms, albeit some taken to the nth degree.

I'm not even sure that the elmination of religions would necessarily be a good thing. Sometimes it's better to be happy in ignorance than be miserable in understanding. Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog or do you just want to enjoy it? Do you want to know about the leper who used the public bathroom right before you?

[revrew]

Given some of the responses on this thread (dunno who said what, have lost track), I am convinced that arguing for the truth of Jesus' existence will ultimately convince no one, even if I used sound, reasonable argument backed with scholarly attribution - for our worldviews are so foundationally different, that even plain facts are seen through too different of lenses to hope for significant agreement.

But I would like to state, for the record, that I disagree wholeheartedly, and believe it to be plain regardless of a person's worldview, with two assertions I've read in this thread:

1. The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries.

2. The historically ignorant at best, hopelessly prejudiced at worst assertion that religion is and has been a harmful influence on society. Particularly, the positive influence of Christianity on Western Civ is abundant. From the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice to the spread of democracy, women's rights, the valuation of human life, the establishment of hospitals and schools, the foundations of the Euro-American rule of law, the logical roots of the scientific method as we know it, etc. etc. all owe their existence to the principles of Christianity at work in Western Civilization. Now, I am keenly aware of the abuses that have come with religion - from the Crusades to the Inquisition - but to assert that religion is a net minus on history?? Again, either hopelessly ignorant - particularly of American history - or unjustifiably selective in historical interpretation.

Now, with a thoroughly ingrained faith in the value of a secular humanist worldview, all religion of today would appear foolish, regressive, and even potentially dangerous. Its abolition or at least removal from the public and political sphere would be seen as valuable, and I don't begrudge my peers who adhere to that worldview from seeing religion as a net negative in the current times.

But historically? My secularist friends owe their lives and their freedoms to the faith of their fathers. I could belabour the point, ask how many of us were born in Catholic hospitals or make some other clever argument, but I wonder if any of it would even have effect. I will contend that to the honest mind, my assertion is as self-evident as the truths our forefathers held, believing as they did that all our rights were endowed to man by his creator. Of course, without their faith, our forefathers wouldn't have believed any of that crap, and America would look radically different than it does today.

[SFL Cat]

History has seen many generals and military heroes. History has not seen many folks raising other folks from the dead. Can you imagine the kind of scene that would have created? You'd have thousands of people migrating to whever Jesus was, pleading that their loved one is brought back from the dead.

I only know of two instances in the NT where Jesus raised people from the dead:

Luke 8:49: While he yet spake, there came one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.

But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.

And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

John 11: Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with fragrant oil and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. Therefore the sisters sent to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick."

When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was.

Then after this He said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judea again." The disciples said to Him, "Rabbi, lately the Jews sought to stone You, and are You going there again?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."

These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him."

Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him."

So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles away. And many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. Then Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You."

Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."

And when she had said these things, she went her way and secretly called Mary her sister, saying, "The Teacher has come and is calling for you." As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly and came to Him. Now Jesus had not yet come into the town, but was in the place where Martha met Him. Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and comforting her, when they saw that Mary rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, "She is going to the tomb to weep there." Then, when Mary came where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet, saying to Him, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died."

Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. And He said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, "See how He loved him!" And some of them said, "Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?" Then Jesus, again groaning in Himself, came to the tomb.

It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days." Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?"

Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me." Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go." Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him.

But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "What shall we do? For this man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation." And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.

Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there into the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, and there remained with His disciples. And the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went from the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves. Then they sought Jesus, and spoke among themselves as they stood in the temple, "What do you think; that He will not come to the feast?" Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a command, that if anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him.

As you can see, no multitudes of thousands there to witness the events, and the reaction (especially in the case of Lazarus) was mixed. The miracle with Lazarus only hastened the plans by the Jewish religious leaders to seize Jesus and put him to death.


Well, if I start raising people from the dead, I'm thinking I might get at least an entry in the printed copy of wikipedia that they are sending to 3rd world countries...

With all the appropriate disclaimers, I'm sure. It is "claimed" this person raised someone from the dead. There is no conclusive evidence, other than eyewitness accounts of fanatical followers, most of whom probably see UFO's and are abducted by aliens in their spare time. :)


Yeah, but is that convincing? Why do Christians believe with such certainty that it's true, after you admit that there is no more evidence of it having happened than of Zeus having thrown down lightning bolts from the sky?

That goes to a personal issue of faith...of God touching your life in such a way that you have an assurance that He is indeed there and that His Spirit is with you. Not something that can be explained, only experienced.


Why do people of different faiths think it's nonsense and instead worship different gods, that you in turn think are nonsense? What if you happened to be born in India rather than a Christian country?

I would say because a great majority of people simply participate in the religion they grow up with. Most have never heard the gospel. In fact, it amazes me the number of people in this country I've met (particularly young people) who have never heard about Jesus outside of being just another swear word.

[SFL Cat]

Dola...good stuff revrew!

[Groundhog]

I only know of two instances in the NT where Jesus raised people from the dead:

There were four people raised from the dead; Jairus' daughter, Jesus himself, Lazarus, and the son of the widow at Nain.

As you can see, no multitudes of thousands there to witness the events, and the reaction (especially in the case of Lazarus) was mixed. The miracle with Lazarus only hastened the plans by the Jewish religious leaders to seize Jesus and put him to death.

Yeah, as according to the NT. And as has hopefully been made clear in this thread and in scholarly research, the NT is not a contemporary source. What I'm saying is that if something like this occured in real life, I would expect it to create some major waves. I'd expect at the very least everyone directly near these events to immediately run to Jesus to bring their dead loved ones back to life as well.

That goes to a personal issue of faith...of God touching your life in such a way that you have an assurance that He is indeed there and that His Spirit is with you. Not something that can be explained, only experienced.

OK then. I guess he just ignored me! Off to hell I go, thanks baby Jesus! :)

I would say because a great majority of people simply participate in the religion they grow up with.

Without question. So it comes down to the dumb luck of being born in the right place at the right time then to get in to heaven or whatever afterlife the correct religion has in store for us.

Most have never heard the gospel. In fact, it amazes me the number of people in this country I've met (particularly young people) who have never heard about Jesus outside of being just another swear word.

Honestly, if there was anyone in the United States, outside of some kid who grew up in some kind of strange sect or locked in a closet, who didn't know who Jesus was, I'd be surprised.

[Groundhog]

1. The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries.

I'm sorry but what you write here is contradicted by the majority of biblical historians, both regarding the dating of the gospels, and the order in which they were written.

I stand by the earlier statement that there is zero contemporary evidence that exists for anything in the gospels. And even if I were to allow that you were correct in dating the gospels (which I certainly don't ;) ), that still doesn't explain the mysterious lack of any other contemporary evidence. One source would not be sufficient to explain something as miraculous as the miracles of the NT.

2. The historically ignorant at best, hopelessly prejudiced at worst assertion that religion is and has been a harmful influence on society. Particularly, the positive influence of Christianity on Western Civ is abundant. From the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice to the spread of democracy, women's rights, the valuation of human life, the establishment of hospitals and schools, the foundations of the Euro-American rule of law, the logical roots of the scientific method as we know it, etc. etc. all owe their existence to the principles of Christianity at work in Western Civilization. Now, I am keenly aware of the abuses that have come with religion - from the Crusades to the Inquisition - but to assert that religion is a net minus on history?? Again, either hopelessly ignorant - particularly of American history - or unjustifiably selective in historical interpretation.

I'd say it speaks volumes that many of the advances you describe came about in no small part due to the separation of church and state, and the added freedom that gave to the realm of science. American history, from what I've read of it at least, is shaped in no small part by the amount of religious refugees that came to the US to escape persecution back home.

I disagree very strongly on most of your points in this paragraph actually, for many reasons outside of just my negative attitude towards religion.

But historically? My secularist friends owe their lives and their freedoms to the faith of their fathers. I could belabour the point, ask how many of us were born in Catholic hospitals or make some other clever argument, but I wonder if any of it would even have effect. I will contend that to the honest mind, my assertion is as self-evident as the truths our forefathers held, believing as they did that all our rights were endowed to man by his creator. Of course, without their faith, our forefathers wouldn't have believed any of that crap, and America would look radically different than it does today.

Obviously I disagree with the vast majority of this as well, perhaps even the last sentence. That is far harder to say with any certainty, given it hasn't really happened anywhere at any time.

edit: grrrr... the wysiwyg editor is annoying at times.

[Groundhog]

Although religion has helped mankind do some "terrible" things, it has also helped mankind do some wonderful things as well. If you're going to give credit for the bad, you must give credit for the good as well.

Of course. But what good things has it done that could not have been done by secular people or secular organisations?

Actually, I think that perhaps some of the most terrible things religion has contributed to have been reinforcements of societal norms, albeit some taken to the nth degree.

Yes, no question about that either. Though religion itself has given people another reason to hate each other, and perhaps an even stronger one than even race, especially in the Western world. The hatred of Middle Easterns by a good many Westerners has less to do with which particular country they are from than it does the fact that they are Muslims.

I'm not even sure that the elmination of religions would necessarily be a good thing. Sometimes it's better to be happy in ignorance than be miserable in understanding. Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog or do you just want to enjoy it? Do you want to know about the leper who used the public bathroom right before you?

This is probably the most interesting point about religion to me. Is ignorance bliss, or is reality, no matter how harsh or cruel it may seem, better?

To slighlty rephrase what I wrote in one of my posts above, to the average individual I think ignorance may be bliss, but to humanity as a whole I believe reality is preferable. In nearly all matters of individuals vs the whole, religious or otherwise, I tend to side with the whole as that's just the way I'm wired.

I think there is more to be gained as a species from casting aside primitive superstitions than there is to hold on to them.

I don't expect it to ever happen though.

[Raiders Army]

1. The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries.
Something that I've wondered about is why did it take everyone so long to write down what happened? I mean, if you truly believed that the son of God walked among you, wouldn't you have written a book about it right away? Look at everyone today who writes a book and tries to capitalize on their 15 minutes (or longer in some cases).

The other piece to it is that if you were involved in a crime as an eyewitness and the police took a statement from you, I would guess that what you saw wasn't necessarily a 100% account of what happened simply because you didn't see everything and between the time the incident occurred and when you wrote your statement you would've forgotten the details.

[Danny]

[QUOTE=Raiders Army;1992683]Something that I've wondered about is why did it take everyone so long to write down what happened? I mean, if you truly believed that the son of God walked among you, wouldn't you have written a book about it right away? Look at everyone today who writes a book and tries to capitalize on their 15 minutes (or longer in some cases).
[QUOTE]

Wouldn't there have been a good chance they would have been killed and their works gotten rid of?

[Raiders Army]

Of course. But what good things has it done that could not have been done by secular people or secular organisations?
I don't think that's the point I was trying to make though. The point is that religion is responsible for good as well as evil in the world. The question is why do we need religion for good? I don't believe we do in all cases, but maybe some of the time we do.


This is probably the most interesting point about religion to me. Is ignorance bliss, or is reality, no matter how harsh or cruel it may seem, better?

To slighlty rephrase what I wrote in one of my posts above, to the average individual I think ignorance may be bliss, but to humanity as a whole I believe reality is preferable. In nearly all matters of individuals vs the whole, religious or otherwise, I tend to side with the whole as that's just the way I'm wired.

To eat the apple or not eat the apple, eh? :)

I think most people would prefer the blue pill as opposed to the red pill simply because their minds could not handle not having a higher being to lean on in times of stress. The problem with Atheism is that it does not provide an acceptable alternative to religious folk nor does it provide any easy answers that religion provides.

I think there is more to be gained as a species from casting aside primitive superstitions than there is to hold on to them.
Really? I'm not sure I agree since I can't really weigh the positives and negatives to religion and say that it isn't ultimately a wash. Any bad done by people in the name of religion would've been done anyhow for another reason. Any good done by people in the name of religion might have been done anyhow for another reason.

Religion isn't holding back science either.

I think people will always believe in something, whether it's an unprovable God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. *shrug*

[Raiders Army]

Wouldn't there have been a good chance they would have been killed and their works gotten rid of?

I honestly don't know. I was asking the question. :)

Did something happen in the intervening years?

[Danny]

I honestly don't know. I was asking the question. :)

Did something happen in the intervening years?

I'm actually not sure and am curious too. I'm still learning about all of the history of everything myself.

[AENeuman]

Something that I've wondered about is why did it take everyone so long to write down what happened?

They all thought Christ was coming right back. The end days were going to be in their lifetime so why write something down.

[flere-imsaho]

To be fair, Alexander the Great could easily order his historians to write about him.

Not to nitpick (OK, yes to nitpick), but there are plenty of chroniclers in parts of the world not conquered by Alexander, Julius or Augustus who wrote about them. In fact, a key part of examining contemporary chroniclers as primary sources is to see if you can get two with offsetting biases.

This is kind of like the OJ vs. Phil Spector debate. :D In their time, people like Alexander the Great, and Julius and Augustus Caesar were considerably better known than Jesus. One of the results of this is that there's considerably more historical evidence in the form of primary sources about them, than Jesus.

The main weakness in the claim of Jesus as a historical figure is that such a claim relies almost wholly on what are effectively secondary sources.


You see the "problem" of later notoriety coloring the view of primary/secondary sources quite often in historical research. The fact that Jesus (historical figure or not) had considerably more influence later on, and is much better known now, doesn't change the fact that primary evidence for his existence (using historical standards) is sparse.

Let's take another example. We know that Jeanne d'Arc was a real person. Her presence at the Siege of Orleans, and subsequent battles, is well recorded by a number of chroniclers from both sides as well as independent observers. Plus, evidence of her is recorded in state records of England, France and Burgundy. Her later notoriety, however, is based on events that have very little, if any, evidence from primary contemporary records, but are well documented in secondary, later, sources. Thus we have the situation where the Duke of Burgundy was certainly better known at the time and more influential in the outcomes later attributed to Jeanne d'Arc, but popular recollection, aided by these secondary sources, remembers it differently.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd like to know how much evidence is needed to believe in Jesus without feeling like a dolt, k thanx.

For what it's worth, I don't think you need to believe that Jesus was a historical figure to believe in Jesus. If you must be able to believe that Jesus was a historical figure to believe in Jesus (or, generally, Christianity) then just believe that the secondary sources are accurate and you'll be just fine.

[flere-imsaho]

The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries.

That's fine, but to return to your previous claim, the gospels, as a historical record, simply do not "stack up" as well as the historical record of other major historical figures at the time (i.e. the Caesars, Alexander the Great, etc...). Further, their value as a historical record is compromised somewhat by a lack of counterbalancing sources to their quite obvious (sorry) propaganda.

Do the gospels have value as historical evidence? Absolutely. Do they help prove the assertion that Jesus was an actual person to the same extent that other historical evidence proves the assertions that Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great were actual people? No.

The historically ignorant at best, hopelessly prejudiced at worst assertion that religion is and has been a harmful influence on society. Particularly, the positive influence of Christianity on Western Civ is abundant. From the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice to the spread of democracy, women's rights, the valuation of human life, the establishment of hospitals and schools, the foundations of the Euro-American rule of law, the logical roots of the scientific method as we know it, etc. etc. all owe their existence to the principles of Christianity at work in Western Civilization.

Two issues with this.

First, at the very least what you're describing would be more correctly termed the "Judeo-Christian" influence on Western society.

Secondly, many of the advances you list also had significant inputs from the cultures of the Far East and even the Muslim world. Are we to forget that the practice of accurate mathematics was largely kept alive in what became the "muslim world" while the Christian world sank into the dark ages? To say nothing of basic scientific precepts.

[flere-imsaho]

My secularist friends owe their lives and their freedoms to the faith of their fathers. I could belabour the point, ask how many of us were born in Catholic hospitals or make some other clever argument, but I wonder if any of it would even have effect. I will contend that to the honest mind, my assertion is as self-evident as the truths our forefathers held, believing as they did that all our rights were endowed to man by his creator. Of course, without their faith, our forefathers wouldn't have believed any of that crap, and America would look radically different than it does today.

It's ironic (and sad) that the men (and women) who advanced Western civilization in, say, the 17th through 19th centuries, while certainly "men of faith", often pursued science with the kind of zeal that would have 21st century religious fundamentalists condemn them.

[JediKooter]

Given some of the responses on this thread (dunno who said what, have lost track), I am convinced that arguing for the truth of Jesus' existence will ultimately convince no one, even if I used sound, reasonable argument backed with scholarly attribution - for our worldviews are so foundationally different, that even plain facts are seen through too different of lenses to hope for significant agreement.

I know I'm not arguing to try and convince anyone other than to look at the facts that exist. The bible doesn't count as it is not an acurate historical document. There's too many 'plot holes', for the lack of a better term. These plot holes aren't because no one has found the connecting points, it's because it was written by so many different people.

But I would like to state, for the record, that I disagree wholeheartedly, and believe it to be plain regardless of a person's worldview, with two assertions I've read in this thread:

1. The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries.

No one is saying that jesus had no contemporaries. People are saying there is no contemporary evidence. Two very different things.

2. The historically ignorant at best, hopelessly prejudiced at worst assertion that religion is and has been a harmful influence on society. Particularly, the positive influence of Christianity on Western Civ is abundant. From the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice to the spread of democracy, women's rights, the valuation of human life, the establishment of hospitals and schools, the foundations of the Euro-American rule of law, the logical roots of the scientific method as we know it, etc. etc. all owe their existence to the principles of Christianity at work in Western Civilization. Now, I am keenly aware of the abuses that have come with religion - from the Crusades to the Inquisition - but to assert that religion is a net minus on history?? Again, either hopelessly ignorant - particularly of American history - or unjustifiably selective in historical interpretation.

1. Slavery which the bible condones
2. Women's rights - why is it so hard for women to join the clergy? I will give points for the female saints though
3. Valuation of human life - hmmmm sacrificing your enemies new borns
4. Establishment of hospitals and learning institutions - yes.
5. Euro - American rule of law - I can't speak for Europe, but, America was NOT founded on christian principles and the founding fathers were very secular. Most of them were deists and not christian.
6. Scientific method - that sounds highly suspect in my opinion. Would like to see some sources on that. The reason being, the scientific method goes against the grain of religious dogma, so I find it extrememly hard to believe.

To add to the list, why the disgusting treatment by the church against gays? Why the pope's almost capitulating to Hitler (no Godwins Law here) during WW2 and the treatment of the jews? How come no one in the church is trying to reel in the lunatic evangilistic fundamentalists that are just as bad as your bus bombing jihadist?

Now, with a thoroughly ingrained faith in the value of a secular humanist worldview, all religion of today would appear foolish, regressive, and even potentially dangerous. Its abolition or at least removal from the public and political sphere would be seen as valuable, and I don't begrudge my peers who adhere to that worldview from seeing religion as a net negative in the current times.

I've never called for the abolition of religion. Just its removal from public schools, legislation and revoking its tax exempt status. There's a good reason why our founding fathers specifically included the separation of church and state. If it is not clear why, then I would recommend doing some research to clarify it.

But historically? My secularist friends owe their lives and their freedoms to the faith of their fathers. I could belabour the point, ask how many of us were born in Catholic hospitals or make some other clever argument, but I wonder if any of it would even have effect. I will contend that to the honest mind, my assertion is as self-evident as the truths our forefathers held, believing as they did that all our rights were endowed to man by his creator. Of course, without their faith, our forefathers wouldn't have believed any of that crap, and America would look radically different than it does today.

Not sure specifically which fathers you are refering to. Founding fathers or actual familial fathers that owe their lives and freedoms to?

I was not born in a catholic hospital for the record nor have I ever been baptised :)

However, again, the founding fathers of America were NOT christian, some were, but most were deists and the inclusion of the word 'creator' was intentional, not because they were trying to establish christian law, but because they did not know who or what method created us and that no one was above the law. They used logic and reason to form the constitution not religious doctrines.

For the record, I do not advocate the abolishment of religion. It does have its time and place for people. However, there's certain arenas that it just does not belong in. I actually enjoy having smart, insightful conversations about religion and where we all came from and I think this has been one and I think everyone has been calm about it.

Having said all that, this is all stuff that's probably better suited for a different thread as the OP was asking about the origins of christianity and I stand by my earlier sumation that christianity is nothing more than an amalgam of prior religions and superstitions. Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it good...it just is what it is.