They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[achilles12604]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

Care to show me where it can tell me that those who adopted these views held traditional views, originally, before they were made to? Maybe they were pagans who thought this was easier than worshiping multiple Gods.

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

Darn, I keep forgetting you use scripture to validate scripture. Your only other source here suggests Josephus, which hasn't been proven, Papias, who we have no writings of, and church elders.

First off, please point to anything in Acts and explain to us why it should be discounted. Acts is generally thought to be fairly accurate. It has passed the archeological test 100%. In fact it cause Sir William Ramseys to begin believing. So please show me why I should discount the writings of this book

As for the church fathers, they were writing in PROTEST of the Nazarene beliefs. Not in favor. Hardly a biased source this time. So why should I disregard them? They are exactly what you were demanding in the other thread. An anger, hostile, unfriendly and totally unbiased source who comments directly on the question you wish to examine.

Please tell me, if this doesn't suffice, what on earth are you looking for?

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

Had it not been made a state religion, you would have a case. But having it be made so, it is impossible to say what would have happened. Your grasping at pure speculation working backwards like that.

Not at all.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity ends right before it is made a state religion.

Can't.

You would still need to explain how the original followers managed to

1) Believe such a load of bullox since they were standing in Jerusalem during the time

Charismatic sociopaths have gained quite a few following on their own. If he was preaching to those already miserable, why not follow an ordinary man and then make him extraordinary?

Ok. Let's compare him to the others and see if we can observe any differences shall we?

Who shall we compare and contrast him with? The Egyptian? Appolinius? Simon bar Kokhba? you pick one. Let us see if you can answer why the followers of Jesus stuck by their dead leader and the rising story if it was all bogus and they knew it.

2) Managed to spread the religion enough for Tacitus to take note of it in 116 AD.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

The Christian church would remain outlawed for another 200 years after this.

So your argument of the Catholic church exploding the church is out of date by at least 200 years. It frankly doesn't apply.

And besides, I was talking about the original believers. Those who lived in Jerusalem and as the OP states, "Should have known better."

Explain how no first hand accounts exist. If you want to refer to the "original believers" then let me hear one of their accounts. In their own penmanship, or is this an unreasonable, illogical request for impossible evidence?

Well it is impossible since all of their original writings were destroyed by the other churches who viewed them as Heretical. But I would first like you to explain why Acts and the writings of the early church fathers (unbiased and hostile) should be thrown away.

[Goat]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

Care to show me where it can tell me that those who adopted these views held traditional views, originally, before they were made to? Maybe they were pagans who thought this was easier than worshiping multiple Gods.

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

Darn, I keep forgetting you use scripture to validate scripture. Your only other source here suggests Josephus, which hasn't been proven, Papias, who we have no writings of, and church elders.

First off, please point to anything in Acts and explain to us why it should be discounted. Acts is generally thought to be fairly accurate. It has passed the archeological test 100%. In fact it cause Sir William Ramseys to begin believing. So please show me why I should discount the writings of this book

As for the church fathers, they were writing in PROTEST of the Nazarene beliefs. Not in favor. Hardly a biased source this time. So why should I disregard them? They are exactly what you were demanding in the other thread. An anger, hostile, unfriendly and totally unbiased source who comments directly on the question you wish to examine.

Please tell me, if this doesn't suffice, what on earth are you looking for?

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

Had it not been made a state religion, you would have a case. But having it be made so, it is impossible to say what would have happened. Your grasping at pure speculation working backwards like that.

Not at all.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity ends right before it is made a state religion.

Can't.

You would still need to explain how the original followers managed to

1) Believe such a load of bullox since they were standing in Jerusalem during the time

Charismatic sociopaths have gained quite a few following on their own. If he was preaching to those already miserable, why not follow an ordinary man and then make him extraordinary?

Ok. Let's compare him to the others and see if we can observe any differences shall we?

Who shall we compare and contrast him with? The Egyptian? Appolinius? Simon bar Kokhba? you pick one. Let us see if you can answer why the followers of Jesus stuck by their dead leader and the rising story if it was all bogus and they knew it.

2) Managed to spread the religion enough for Tacitus to take note of it in 116 AD.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

The Christian church would remain outlawed for another 200 years after this.

So your argument of the Catholic church exploding the church is out of date by at least 200 years. It frankly doesn't apply.

And besides, I was talking about the original believers. Those who lived in Jerusalem and as the OP states, "Should have known better."

Explain how no first hand accounts exist. If you want to refer to the "original believers" then let me hear one of their accounts. In their own penmanship, or is this an unreasonable, illogical request for impossible evidence?

Well it is impossible since all of their original writings were destroyed by the other churches who viewed them as Heretical. But I would first like you to explain why Acts and the writings of the early church fathers (unbiased and hostile) should be thrown away.

Well, there is plenty of evidence that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source. However, having historical details in something doesn't mean it is ALL historical. As for the Nazarenes, well, the book of wisdom, an Nazarene writing from Alexandria, is from the 1st century bce, and therefore predates Jesus.

That means, since the movement existed before Jesus, it would not be surprising that there would be members in Jerusalem in the early 1st century.

[achilles12604]

Well, there is plenty of evidence that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source. However, having historical details in something doesn't mean it is ALL historical. As for the Nazarenes, well, the book of wisdom, an Nazarene writing from Alexandria, is from the 1st century bce, and therefore predates Jesus.

That means, since the movement existed before Jesus, it would not be surprising that there would be members in Jerusalem in the early 1st century.

Bold claims. Any proof? Any source at all? Evidence?

[Goat]

Well, there is plenty of evidence that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source. However, having historical details in something doesn't mean it is ALL historical. As for the Nazarenes, well, the book of wisdom, an Nazarene writing from Alexandria, is from the 1st century bce, and therefore predates Jesus.

That means, since the movement existed before Jesus, it would not be surprising that there would be members in Jerusalem in the early 1st century.

Bold claims. Any proof? Any source at all? Evidence?

Pardon, you are right. Just because a few of their books were written earlier (the book of wisdom), doesn't mean that they predated the 1st century.

On the other hand, other than the fact that they were particularly devoted to a very strict form of Judaism, can you say for sure what they did or did not believe?

[Furrowed Brow]

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

NO. However it does say much about group psychology. It also says much about both the attractiveness of the myth and how some people respond when called upon them to give stuff up and maybe even sacrifice themselves. This is not peculiar to Christianity. I think it also says something about the kinds of people the early Christianity attracted. There are always those who like the feel of being outside the norm. After a couple of generations then that beds in. Especially when the shared psychology of the group that makes them feel special, anointed etc. The fact you got to keep things secret or out of sight makes it seem even more important. Danger and self sacrifice does turn many people away, but it also attracts the kind of hardcore people that can keep an early religion going. And all you need is to maintain a hardcore base of a couple of hundred, with more who dabble on the edges, and then maybe after two or three hundred years, when the real facts cannot be checked and any different accounts are literally buried and squashed, then you have a movement moving together in the same direction and getting organised.

I’d say the core theme that probably sustains such a religion is the emphasis on love and prayer. Common attributes I’d say of any of the long lived religions.

[Goose]

Sorry to jump in. This looked interesting.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

NO. However it does say much about group psychology. It also says much about both the attractiveness of the myth and how some people respond when called upon them to give stuff up and maybe even sacrifice themselves...

People that would sacrifice themselves for something they know to be a lie we would probably call insane or at least delusional. Is that your critique of the disciples' psychological state?

This is not peculiar to Christianity. I think it also says something about the kinds of people the early Christianity attracted. There are always those who like the feel of being outside the norm.

Sure, but there's no evidence to suggest the disciples were not, for all intents and purposes, normal. They seemed like run of the mill first century Jews. Paul was very interested in keeping things "normal" for the Jews before his experience with the risen Lord. That's why he persecuted the christians.

Danger and self sacrifice does turn many people away, but it also attracts the kind of hardcore people that can keep an early religion going.

Except the evidence suggests that before the crucifixion the disciples were cowards, denied Jesus, and abandoned Him. Hardly "hardcore people." Yet they changed after the crucifixion. Why? You might describe Paul as "hard core." But he was "hard core" against Christianity, not for it.

I’d say the core theme that probably sustains such a religion is the emphasis on love and prayer. Common attributes I’d say of any of the long lived religions.

Except the early evidence suggests the fledging Christian movement was moved forward by the preaching of the apostles. Their preaching emphasized Jesus was the Christ, his death, and his Resurrection.

[achilles12604]

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

NO. However it does say much about group psychology. It also says much about both the attractiveness of the myth and how some people respond when called upon them to give stuff up and maybe even sacrifice themselves. This is not peculiar to Christianity.

I am afraid I disagree. I shall compare the early followers of Islam to those of Christianity.

The early followers of Islam, were admittedly ignorant. By this I mean that they did not demand proof. They never had reason to doubt to words of Muhammad simply because they never had the opportunity to examine or test his claims. Muhammad went into a cave by himself, and came out later so his followers could write down what Muhammad said on bark.

Christian followers on the other hand, were presented with the opportunity to deny the fantastic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not perform in a dark cave with no witnesses. His ministry was public and therefore open to scrutiny.

Therefore, I must disagree with you statement that the situation of Christians was not particular to Christianity. Can you offer another religion who's founder and early followers claimed that the entire ministry, including supernatural events, took place in full view of the public?

I think it also says something about the kinds of people the early Christianity attracted. There are always those who like the feel of being outside the norm. After a couple of generations then that beds in. Especially when the shared psychology of the group that makes them feel special, anointed etc. The fact you got to keep things secret or out of sight makes it seem even more important. Danger and self sacrifice does turn many people away, but it also attracts the kind of hardcore people that can keep an early religion going. And all you need is to maintain a hardcore base of a couple of hundred, with more who dabble on the edges, and then maybe after two or three hundred years, when the real facts cannot be checked and any different accounts are literally buried and squashed, then you have a movement moving together in the same direction and getting organised.

I’d say the core theme that probably sustains such a religion is the emphasis on love and prayer. Common attributes I’d say of any of the long lived religions.

I would agree if we were discussing the followers of Paul, or those not living in the area t the time.

[Furrowed Brow]

Christian followers on the other hand, were presented with the opportunity to deny the fantastic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not perform in a dark cave with no witnesses. His ministry was public and therefore open to scrutiny.

But this does not get to the heart of my point. We’ve mentioned the healers and so forth that ply their trade even today. There’s one guy who comes to London every year and fills Wembley stadium (well maybe half fills). I think you’ve made the point they are not very convincing. But they are convincing to a small minority of people. In some case half a football stadiums worth. And that’s the point. The kind of questioning I would apply or you would apply is not their kind of questioning. Okay so lets say JC did it in public. If he was so convincing how come there were only a few followers after his death and not everyone who came to see him. Why were there not immediately thousands of followers, or if not fully fledged followers at least those impresssed enough to record "the miracles" they saw? How many were fed with the loathes and fishes. Where did they all slink off to? No one tell someone who knew a scribe who thought that makes a good story? Plus all the other public miracles. No corroborative source extra the gospels, written by the kind of characters who see a "healing" and really believe it is a healing.

And the answer I came back to is just like the case of modern day healers and exorcists. Some people will always be convinced. That does not make their convictions justified or reasonable. Moreover it all sounds like a record of an evangelical healing meeting written by those few who want to believe some real healing went on the night before.

Therefore, I must disagree with you statement that the situation of Christians was not particular to Christianity.

Is that what I said?. I thought it was more like the core theme that probably sustains such a religion is the emphasis on love and prayer. Common attributes I’d say of any of the long lived religions. Didn’t mention what was unique at all.

Put it this way: Keep the unique message of ressurrection, son of god, died for our sins, but remove the message of love. Replace it with something more balsy like he who throws the first stone brings justice. I can't say for sure but I suspect that religion would not have the legs.

Can you offer another religion who's founder and early followers claimed that the entire ministry, including supernatural events, took place in full view of the public?

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

[achilles12604]

Christian followers on the other hand, were presented with the opportunity to deny the fantastic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not perform in a dark cave with no witnesses. His ministry was public and therefore open to scrutiny.

But this does not get to the heart of my point. We’ve mentioned the healers and so forth that ply their trade even today. There’s one guy who comes to London every year and fills Wembley stadium (well maybe half fills). I think you’ve made the point they are not very convincing. But they are convincing to a small minority of people. In some case half a football stadiums worth. And that’s the point. The kind of questioning I would apply or you would apply is not their kind of questioning. Okay so lets say JC did it in public. If he was so convincing how come there were only a few followers after his death and not everyone who came to see him. Why were there not immediately thousands of followers, or if not fully fledged followers at least those impresssed enough to record "the miracles" they saw? How many were fed with the loathes and fishes. Where did they all slink off to? No one tell someone who knew a scribe who thought that makes a good story? Plus all the other public miracles. No corroborative source extra the gospels, written by the kind of characters who see a "healing" and really believe it is a healing.

And the answer I came back to is just like the case of modern day healers and exorcists. Some people will always be convinced. That does not make their convictions justified or reasonable. Moreover it all sounds like a record of an evangelical healing meeting written by those few who want to believe some real healing went on the night before.

Ok. Perhaps I misread you. So you are of the position that perhaps Jesus was a bit of a trickster, but that his tricks were not very convincing except to a small percentage of people who saw them.

I could probably agree with this except that the "tricks" alluded to in early Christianity are not small slight of hand magic tricks. I doubt that raising the dead, or healing the blind, or the lame are tricks which could be faked.

As for why didn't Jesus have throngs of faithful followers? Well one obvious reason is according the most of Jerusalem he was dead. Kinda tough to keep believing in someone you saw die. The number of people Jesus appeared to after his death was quite limited. Less than 600 for sure even if you take Paul's estimations without reservation.

Also, following Jesus was both social suicide, and held the potential for physical repercussions after his death.

There are two reasons I consider valid.

[Goose]

Jumping in again I'll let achilles address the rest of FB's post.

Top of my head. No. but for some reason whilst you feel this weighs heavily in its favour, I can’t but help but see this as a most revealing aspect of the Christian group psychology, and that no one else bothered to recorded these miraculous events the most telling point against.

This, is really an argument from silence. These types of arguments would carry a lot more weight if you could name the source and where in that source we should expect to see references to Jesus' miracles and why we should expect to see them there. Further, the two main historians for the fist century Josephus and Tacitus both report Jesus as allegedly having a supernatural aspect to his life. Josephus calls Jesus a wonder worker, Tacitus calls Jesus the founder of a mischievous superstition and even the Talmud apparently accuses Jesus of sorcery. This is all we should expect from neutral and enemy sources. I don't think we should expect non-believers to be affirming Jesus' miracles, divinity, or resurrection. If they were affirming them, you would probably be accusing those sources of either being Christian or forgeries.