Egyptians, and the Origins of Christianity?

[JediKooter]

Very well said flere.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

And that is...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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:

Originally Posted by CASE 1

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.

Originally Posted by CASE TWO

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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]

Originally Posted by Danny

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]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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. 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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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.