Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 154 by marco]

Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord.

How so? Does the existence of a group of followers for any other religion, belief, cult, preacher (whatever word you want to use) in the early days of that group indicate that the beliefs are true?
Does the existence of the first group of Scientologists point to the existence of Xenu, as per Scientology claims? If you say no to this example, why then allow it for the early Christians? It looks like special pleading to me.

I was replying to Ancient of Years and agreeing with his statement:
"Some believers think it sufficient to demonstrate the early existence of Christianity as proof of the truth of Christianity"
My "yes" is an indication of agreement that people do make that erroneous conclusion - I of course don't subscribe to the view that because we know of early Christians we can deduce the authenticity of Christ and his miracles. Go well.

OK we are on the same page.

I think I may have set up for confusion with my convoluted sentences.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to marco]

Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord.

Christians were being "thrown to the lions" during the second and third centuries, more than a hundred years after the Gospels indicate that Jesus was executed. None of these people had any direct knowledge of Jesus themselves. Even by the second century the difffering beliefs in who Jesus was and what he represented were many and varied widely. Basically the only thing that many of these people had in common was that they called themselves Christians. The Romans cared little. One person who called themselves a "Christian" was as good as another to them. Many of the people being fed to the lions during the second and third centuries held beliefs in Jesus that most "Christians" today would scarcely recognize as being Christian.

"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)

Once the Catholic church became organized they began making judgements against these "heretics," and made every effort to eradicate them. The Montanists are a good example.

"When, about 190, the Roman proconsul Antonius persecuted Christianity in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most of them he dismissed with the words: "Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?" The Church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." ("The story of Civilization," vol 3,"Caesar and Christ," by Will Durant, Chapt 23, Page 605).

Wikipedia
"A sect called "Montanist" existed in the 8th century; the Emperor Leo III ordered the conversion and baptism of its members. These Montanists refused, locked themselves in their houses of worship, set the buildings on fire and perished."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

[marco]

Tired of the Nonsense: thanks for the outline of Roman history which I suspect is meant to counter the statement I made. You have taken it out of context - I don't hold the view contained in .......

"Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord. "

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 154 by marco]

Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord.

How so? Does the existence of a group of followers for any other religion, belief, cult, preacher (whatever word you want to use) in the early days of that group indicate that the beliefs are true?
Does the existence of the first group of Scientologists point to the existence of Xenu, as per Scientology claims? If you say no to this example, why then allow it for the early Christians? It looks like special pleading to me.

I was replying to Ancient of Years and agreeing with his statement:
"Some believers think it sufficient to demonstrate the early existence of Christianity as proof of the truth of Christianity"
My "yes" is an indication of agreement that people do make that erroneous conclusion - I of course don't subscribe to the view that because we know of early Christians we can deduce the authenticity of Christ and his miracles. Go well.

Thank you for the clarification.

[KenRU]

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 156 by Zzyzx]

Okay. Is it fair to say that many or most people adopt a religion "without thinking about it" (particularly during childhood) but perhaps DO think about it later in life? When / if that later thinking occurs some may conclude that the religion is not for them and others may decide exactly the opposite.

Yes, I think we can agree, but I am not talking about those who come to faith as a child, and simply continue to attend Church as an adult, without thinking about it. Rather, I am talking about those right here on this site who claim to have made major life decisions, such as going into the ministry, going to the mission fields, deciding who to marry, etc., etc., and they themselves claim to have made these major life decisions based on a faith, they now tell us they did not really think about.

You see, it is one thing to continue to attend Church as you always have as a child, without really thinking about it, it is quite another to actually make major life decisions, that you now claim has had devastating effects upon you, and then go on to tell me, you never really thought about what you believed? REALLY? Are you telling me, you want to defend such a person? And I am wrong for questioning if this person is really now thinking, when they have admitted to making such, terrible decisions in the past without thinking. Lets think about this


If these people admit they were not thinking when they made these horrific decisions in the first place, then this means they could not have been thinking about the teachings they received concerning Christianity, rather without thinking they simply accepted whatever reckless teachings were thrown their way. This means, they cannot possibly tell us what Christianity actually teaches, because they are telling us, "they were not thinking when they were a Christian." Now all of a sudden, when things fall apart, they now want us to believe they are experts on what Christianity teaches and are now thinking, rather than simply, reacting to the fact, that the reckless doctrine they simply excepted without thinking, has caused them anguish. Good grief!

It appears as though some people give serious thought to what they were / are told. Others may not – but still consider themselves to be devout Christians.

Right, and you are more than willing to allow this. But you see, I am not a Muslim, and I do not believe the Koran. However, I do believe I can read and understand what the Koran has to say. Since this is the case, I would not allow someone to refer to themselves as Muslim who attempts to claim Islam teaches something it clearly does not teach without challenging them. In other words, I would not have the attitude, "well I do not believe any of that stuff, therefore anyone can call themselves Muslim, and claim it teaches whatever they please."

Even though I may not believe what Islam teaches, if I understand what it teaches, it would be dishonest for me to allow someone to claim it teaches something, I am confident it does not, and continue to believe it is fine for them to refer to themselves as Muslim. If I am unconcerned about what Islam teaches, and have no idea, it is still dishonest to say, "anyone can say Islam teaches whatever they wish and continue to refer to themselves as Muslim." Islam teaches what it teaches, whether it is true or not, but even if we believe it is not true, does not give us the right to say, "anyone can believe as they like, and continue to refer to themselves as Muslim.

Now you could say here, that you are not really concerned about what Christianity teaches, or what a Christian claims to believe because it is all nonsense to you, but it certainly must concern you, seeing as how you spend so much time here, attempting to refute it, but the fact of the matter is, if it really does not concern you, this does not give you the right to simply allow someone to continue to claim to be Christian, when what they claim to believe goes squarely against the clear meaning of Scripture.

If you believe the Scriptures cannot be understood, then this is what you need to say, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate this by at least commenting on the passage you brought up yourself, concerning, "faith moving mountains" which I have expounded upon, and demonstrate how it could have been interpreted differently. I believe I went into great detail explaining how this passage could only apply to the future Apostles, and referred to other Scriptures that clearly demonstrated that the only ones who performed, "mighty works" were the Apostles Jesus was conversing with. So then, if you believe there is a problem, I would love to hear it.

The Clergy Project currently lists twenty-seven stories from former Christian ministers. There is great variation among them.

Okay, thus far I have read two more of these stories on top of the one I had read earlier, and thus far two of the three, speak of the "peace they now have" which again has nothing to do with determining truth. There are many Christians who claim to have peace, so what?

Others of us HAVE found peace (and contentment and fulfillment and satisfaction) in "this life".

Promoters of religion, however, often seem to prefer that their customers be dissatisfied with real life in order to sell them "hope" for better things in a proposed "afterlife" (that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary).

Again, so what? What of the Christians who claim to have "found peace?" I believe it boils down to who is correct, right? You do understand, those that have claimed to have "found peace" are dying at this very moment, right? What is it they are dying from? You may say, "it is simply the circle of life" while the Bible tells us "we are all dying from a condition called sin," so who is right? And how could either side prove such a thing?

You continue to use this phrase, "that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary." Well let me ask you, is the New Testament we have, "imaginary?" I am not talking about what is written in the New Testament, rather I am speaking of the actual letters contained in the New Testament. If they are real, (and they are) then it seems as if real people, claimed that real events, occurred in real time, and in real space. Now none of these things may be true, but the fact that we have these letters demonstrates there were those who claimed these things were true, and went to the effort to write about these things in letters addressed to others at the time.

Now you claim we do not know who the authors may have been, and that it is possible these letters may have been written decades, or generations after the fact, but this does not wash with the letters attributed to Paul, or Luke. You see, there is no denying the fact that Paul authored letters, or that Paul was one of the main reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the world, and his letters, along with the letters of Luke, clearly demonstrate there were those who believed these things, and also lived their life accordingly at the time.

Okay. Condense it to "Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative" and who granted that authority?

Allow me to ask you, why do you believe there has to be some sort of authority? We all know there are those who will use written documents, (not simply the Bible) to prey upon weak minded people. But you are certainly not weak minded in the least, so why do you believe there must be some sort of authority to determine the meaning of what is contained in the Bible?

This is exactly how cults, begin because there are those who allow others to be an authority over what is said in the Bible, instead of taking the time, and effort to read it for oneself, and using ones own mind. In fact this is exactly what the Catholic Church did, and it is one of the reasons for the reformation. At that point in time, not only did no one have a Bible, the Bible was in the Latin language, so even if you owned a Bible you could not read it. This left the Church alone as the authority of not only what the Bible said, but also the interpretation. This left the people totally dependent on the Church.

But you see, the reformers believed it best for people to read and determine for themselves what the Bible actually had to say, which is why they went to the trouble to have the Bible translated into the language of the people. The point is, most of us have sound minds, and are able to read, and interpret language. With this being the case, then why do we need an authority? If you and I come to a different conclusion concerning the meaning of a particular passage, we have the ability to sit down together, to discuss, and compare our differences. So again, why do we need an authority?

A good example of the above is when you simply throw a passage of Scripture out there concerning, "faith moving mountains." Your point seemed to be, "how can we determine the way in which this passage should be read?" Well, the first point is, you cannot simply take one sentence from a passage, (whether the Bible or any other written material), and believe you can understand it. However, once I placed this one sentence in it's surrounding context, it was easy to determine we were overhearing a conversation between Jesus, and His future Apostles, and when we compared this to other passages in the Bible, we find the author of "Acts" records the Apostles performed mighty works, and goes to the trouble to be sure to distinguish between what the ordinary believer was doing, compared to the Apostles, to ensure the reader understands, the Apostles, using their faith were the only ones who were performing these mighty works.

If the ordinary believers were not performing mighty works during the Apostolic age, then what would now make us believe the ordinary believer would be performing faith based miraculous works? At any rate, as you can clearly see, without twisting the meaning at all, and without changing the meanings of words, and without forcing a meaning upon the sentence you cite, Jesus never intended to say, "anyone, anywhere, anytime, should, or would, be moving mountains with their faith" and to cause this passage to mean this, would necessarily entail twisting, and forcing a meaning upon it, that is not there! It is not that difficult.

The point is, do you really believe we need an authority to determine what a written document is saying, or do you believe you have the ability to read and understand yourself? Although there are creeds and confessions I adhere to, because I believe them to be in line with the clear meaning of Scripture, they are not authoritative over me, which allows me to continue to use my mind, as I read, study, and examine evidence. This means I am not bound to defend a certain belief, that goes against the clear meaning, and common sense. The point is, we can examine what is said in a passage, talk and discuss certain meanings, and come to a conclusion in this way, or we can lazily sit back, and allow someone to tell us what we need to believe.

I have no desire for anyone to be interested in reading, and studying Scripture, because I understand it is hard work. However, if someone is going to attempt to comment on what is recorded in the Bible, enough to give an opinion on the meaning, or to comment that it is all nonsense, or to tell me what I must, and should be doing, and believing as a Christian, then it would seem as though such a person giving such opinions would at least attempt to intently study the subject, they seem to want to be an expert in.

[Realworldjack]

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 165 by Realworldjack]

RWJ, it is a pleasure – as always. I will break up my reply into several pieces to avoid a monologue.

Okay. Is it fair to say that many or most people adopt a religion "without thinking about it" (particularly during childhood) but perhaps DO think about it later in life? When / if that later thinking occurs some may conclude that the religion is not for them and others may decide exactly the opposite.

Yes, I think we can agree, but I am not talking about those who come to faith as a child, and simply continue to attend Church as an adult, without thinking about it. Rather, I am talking about those right here on this site who claim to have made major life decisions, such as going into the ministry, going to the mission fields, deciding who to marry, etc., etc., and they themselves claim to have made these major life decisions based on a faith, they now tell us they did not really think about.

"Didn't think about it" appears to me to mean "didn't think critically / analytically" but believed what was said or written. In retrospect a person may realize that they did not give the matter proper thought or consideration but simply accepted. Later they may question what they have been told ("think about it") and realize that they've been sold a bill of goods.

Many of us have experienced that in life. I would be a bit doubtful if anyone claimed to have never done so.

You see, it is one thing to continue to attend Church as you always have as a child, without really thinking about it, it is quite another to actually make major life decisions, that you now claim has had devastating effects upon you, and then go on to tell me, you never really thought about what you believed? REALLY?

It might be difficult for you as a person who obviously thinks deeply to accept that MANY others make major life decisions based upon what they have been told or what they read – giving little thought to whether those things are true and accurate.

Some who DO give thought to what they have been told or taught STILL accept things that they later regard as being wrong. That is known as a mistake.

Are you telling me, you want to defend such a person?

Defend? I simply observe what they say. Many who say they are formerly devout people well trained in the teachings of Christianity talk about their reasons for leaving. As we can see, the still-devout may feel inclined to be critical of those who leave the faith.

Apostates are often shunned and demonized by preachers and "the faithful" because they are an example to others that there is life after religion – often a very rewarding and fulfilling life (that they were likely taught was impossible without faith).

And I am wrong for questioning if this person is really now thinking, when they have admitted to making such, terrible decisions in the past without thinking.

It is not uncommon for all of us to look back at some earlier decisions or actions and wonder how we could have been so stupid. Who among us has not done so?

Lets think about this

Does it work both ways? Are the newly religion-free wrong to doubt the thinking of those who remain in the religion?

If these people admit they were not thinking when they made these horrific decisions in the first place, then this means they could not have been thinking about the teachings they received concerning Christianity, rather without thinking they simply accepted whatever reckless teachings were thrown their way.

Agreed. Is that uncommon in Christendom? Don't Christians typically simply accept what Bible writers and preachers / teachers "throw their way"? How can it be established that the Bible does not contain "reckless teachings" and that preachers / teachers understand correctly?

This means, they cannot possibly tell us what Christianity actually teaches, because they are telling us, "they were not thinking when they were a Christian."

One can be very seeped in the teachings of an ideology based on what they hear and read from others – and follow without critical thought. Some of the people cited went to / through divinity schools and presumably were taught the beliefs of their faith by competent expert instructors.

Are divinity schools NOT teaching "actual" Christianity? If not, who decides such matters?

Do amateur, in-the-pew Christians know more about the religion that those who teach and attend divinity schools? How do the amateurs become so knowledgeable and wise? Do they read the Bible "better" than scholars and theologians? Are they more "pure" and faithful?

Now all of a sudden, when things fall apart,

Leaving religion may be difficult for those who once believed its dogma and literature. However, "fall apart" may not be apt description of the process for many.

Part 1 of 6

[Zzyzx]

.
Part 2 of 6

they now want us to believe they are experts on what Christianity teaches and are now thinking, rather than simply, reacting to the fact, that the reckless doctrine they simply excepted without thinking, has caused them anguish. Good grief!

One can understand quite well a given topic and later realize that what they accepted at the time was inaccurate.

Personal example: In my early studies of geology I was taught and understood well the then-current ideas related to geological processes. They seemed to make sense and I had little basis upon which to disagree. Soon thereafter, however, I encountered the rapidly advancing new information regarding plate tectonics – and realized that these ideas were far better supported than their predecessors.

Given the new information and a lot of research, I became a strong proponent of the then-new ideas and taught them in my classes. Traditional geologists strongly opposed this "heretic" teaching – for a few years until the preponderance of evidence convinced them that the old ideas were incomplete and inaccurate.

This may be somewhat analogous to the process that preachers mentioned went through in discovering that what they had once thought to be truthful and accurate was not. I cannot relate to such a religious path personally because even in childhood I did not accept what was taught by religious "authorities" (including Catholic school) and the tall tales of the Bible.

It appears as though some people give serious thought to what they were / are told. Others may not – but still consider themselves to be devout Christians.

Right, and you are more than willing to allow this.

Absolutely. I am not in a position to allow or deny what others do or what happens in the real world. If next week you were to say that you were no longer a Christian because you realized that it was all hokum, I would certainly be "willing to allow this" (without accusing you of thinking or not thinking). If the following week (or month or year) you announced that you had thought deeply and decided to become a Christian again (or a Buddhist or Hindu), again I would "allow" (accept) that as your decision (not that I expect any such things to occur).

But you see, I am not a Muslim, and I do not believe the Koran. However, I do believe I can read and understand what the Koran has to say.

Exactly – just as Non-Christians can read the Bible and understand what it has to say. Right?

That is refreshing – since many Christians seem to think that Non-Christians cannot / do not understand what the Bible has to say – or that Christian understandings of the Bible trump those of Non-Christians.

Since this is the case, I would not allow someone to refer to themselves as Muslim who attempts to claim Islam teaches something it clearly does not teach without challenging them.

By that reasoning it is appropriate for anyone to challenge anyone else's claim to be a Christian based upon a claim that the person believes / teaches something different than THEY think appropriate (or "scriptural").

Notice that tens of thousands of Christian denominations have very different ideas about what Christianity teaches – so each is free to denounce other denominations as being not "REAL" Christians (as we see happening in some of these threads).

In other words, I would not have the attitude, "well I do not believe any of that stuff, therefore anyone can call themselves Muslim, and claim it teaches whatever they please."

Is this to say that you feel competent to decide who is and who is not a Christian or a Muslim – and to disagree with a person's declaration of faith? Is this based on how YOU read the Bible, which may be different than how they read the Bible – and you claiming to be right and them wrong?

Even though I may not believe what Islam teaches, if I understand what it teaches, it would be dishonest for me to allow someone to claim it teaches something, I am confident it does not, and continue to believe it is fine for them to refer to themselves as Muslim.

What you believe about the teachings of Christianity or Islam is simply an OPINION. Many people of either faith may disagree with your opinion and say something very different.

Various sects within each of those religions disagree vigorously and even violently about what is the "right" or "true" teaching of their religion. Who is RIGHT and why? How is that decided?

If I am unconcerned about what Islam teaches, and have no idea, it is still dishonest to say, "anyone can say Islam teaches whatever they wish and continue to refer to themselves as Muslim." Islam teaches what it teaches, whether it is true or not, but even if we believe it is not true, does not give us the right to say, "anyone can believe as they like, and continue to refer to themselves as Muslim.

Most of us are aware that Islam has two major divisions, Sunni vs. Shia that are different enough to make war over – just as Christianity has Catholicism vs. Protestantism (which also differ enough to have made war on each other).

Who is to say which of the "teachings" is correct – or that either / any is correct?

[Zzyzx]

.
Part 3 of 6

Now you could say here, that you are not really concerned about what Christianity teaches, or what a Christian claims to believe because it is all nonsense to you, but it certainly must concern you, seeing as how you spend so much time here, attempting to refute it,

My concern is not with any specific teachings of Christianity or any other religion. What I dispute are claims of knowledge expressed by religionists – claims that conflict not only with one another but also with what is known of the real world.

I have observed, at the university and elsewhere, such claims of "knowledge" embedded in people's psyche standing in the way of grasping / accepting even basic information related to biology, geology, Earth science. I also observe religious "knowledge" influencing public policy.

Therefore, I spend time here challenging religious claims of truth and knowledge.

but the fact of the matter is, if it really does not concern you, this does not give you the right to simply allow someone to continue to claim to be Christian, when what they claim to believe goes squarely against the clear meaning of Scripture.

What you (generic term) regard as "the clear meaning of scripture" is NOT "clear" to everyone in Christendom.

If you believe the Scriptures cannot be understood, then this is what you need to say, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate this by at least commenting on the passage you brought up yourself, concerning, "faith moving mountains" which I have expounded upon, and demonstrate how it could have been interpreted differently.

The key term is "interpreted" – and you (generic term) have no patent or copyright on truth and your preference does not trump anyone else's – except for you personally.

I believe I went into great detail explaining how this passage could only apply to the future Apostles,

Wait a minute. I seems to me as though you explained how it applied only to the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Has that changed now?

and referred to other Scriptures that clearly demonstrated that the only ones who performed, "mighty works" were the Apostles Jesus was conversing with. So then, if you believe there is a problem, I would love to hear it.

Kindly list the "mighty works" accomplished by the apostles. Did they move mountains or have mountains cast themselves into the sea?

The Clergy Project currently lists twenty-seven stories from former Christian ministers. There is great variation among them.

Okay, thus far I have read two more of these stories on top of the one I had read earlier, and thus far two of the three, speak of the "peace they now have" which again has nothing to do with determining truth. There are many Christians who claim to have peace, so what?

I find MUCH more than just "find peace" in what is presented by those former clergy accounts – and encourage readers to form their own opinions based on reading accounts at http://clergyproject.org/ .

Others of us HAVE found peace (and contentment and fulfillment and satisfaction) in "this life".

Promoters of religion, however, often seem to prefer that their customers be dissatisfied with real life in order to sell them "hope" for better things in a proposed "afterlife" (that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary).

Again, so what? What of the Christians who claim to have "found peace?" I believe it boils down to who is correct, right?

One need not be correct (in anyone else's opinion) to "find peace".