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 But remember we are 2000 years out of date.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?

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

But so much can be done in public that can carry a crowd; whilst everyone involved is living under a false consciousness of what is going on. We have faith healers who performs ministries on stage. And for every faith healer you will find their devoted believers. Bob Larson is on our TVs over here. He does exorcism. Again he has his own following. There seems to be plenty of people who swallows this stuff whole. So If Jesus were a real historical character then street preaching and “miracles” is not up for falsification for the original believers in the same way the folks who attend faith healings are not trying to falsify what they see, or even hear a negative word against.

And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disprove.

How come we’ve still got faith healers, how come Bob Larson? People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of reality or the evidence.

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?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Goebbels was a poor excise for a human being but he knew human beings and their weaknesses. And anyhow all this is from second hand reports after the event.

How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas,

It did not convince “the Jews” it may have convinced the odd crowd. But as for most crowds only a few get to stand at the front. And how many Jews in total of who were there became followers? What’s the estimate number of Jewish born Christians per capita AD 10?

[achilles12604]

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.

But so much can be done in public that can carry a crowd; whilst everyone involved is living under a false consciousness of what is going on. We have faith healers who performs ministries on stage. And for every faith healer you will find their devoted believers. Bob Larson is on our TVs over here. He does exorcism. Again he has his own following. There seems to be plenty of people who swallows this stuff whole. So If Jesus were a real historical character then street preaching and “miracles” is not up for falsification for the original believers in the same way the folks who attend faith healings are not trying to falsify what they see, or even hear a negative word against.

I don't quite agree that today's soothsayers are not tested. I think they are. And as they have not passed the tests, their followings are small and unwilling to believe the tests. Remember the test that was conducted in hospitals to determine if prayer actually helped people and the study showed that those who knew they were being prayed for actually did WORSE than either of the two control groups?

Today's claims are tested. And generally they fail. I say that the claims made by early christians would have been even more known and available than today's preachers and soothsayers.

And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disprove.

How come we’ve still got faith healers, how come Bob Larson? People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of reality or the evidence.

This is true enough. But I don't see Bob Larson performing any miracles which are testable or falsifiable. Now if he claimed to raise someone from the dead, or heal a blind man that could be a different story. But having an unknown member of HIS audience claim that they have a headache, and then ol Bob made it go away is hardly comparable with the claims made by the followers of Jesus.

The difference once again is falsifiability. Jesus claims were so outstanding that they were either true or false. There is no way to fake a dead person coming back to life. Ol Bob is able to fake his healings with just a tiny bit of cooperation.

I went to one of these healing thingys once. I was actually offended by the obvious forgery and most of the people around me were either bored, or a pissed as I was. This is hardly the right environment to spread the good news about what ever his name was abilities. And hence, he is small and unheard of.

On a LARGER and more important note, you are avoiding the little detail about comparing Jesus with the other so called messiah's of the time. Some of them claimed to be able to do little things like calling for rain. But these people can not have been to convincing as they didn't develop a following and one they were killed, their followers disappeared. So what do you think is the difference between these other guys and Jesus? Why even after his death did his following defy history and actually explode rather than disappearing?

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?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Goebbels was a poor excise for a human being but he knew human beings and their weaknesses. And anyhow all this is from second hand reports after the event.

And how many people will believe a second hand account of someone being raised from the dead when according to Jewish beliefs the ONLY resurrection could occur at the end of time? Not only did this go against the knowledge of the people of the time, but it was a totally new and for them impossible idea. It would be like me telling you that I saw a guy teleport himself up to the roof of a 20 story building like in the new movie "Jumper".

How many people would believe me? How convincing would I be?

The more impossible the lie, no matter how many times it is told, the less likely it is to be believed by anyone. His comment is applicable to non-falsifiable lies. It is not applicable to lies which can easily be disproven.

How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas,

It did not convince “the Jews” it may have convinced the odd crowd. But as for most crowds only a few get to stand at the front. And how many Jews in total of who were there became followers? What’s the estimate number of Jewish born Christians per capita AD 10?

[/quote]

Good question. The Nazarenes numbered about 120 in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus resurrection. This is pretty good for a dead guy.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/nazarenes.html

How many other cults can boast 120 followers immediately claiming their leader rose from the dead after a public execution?

[Goat]

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.

But so much can be done in public that can carry a crowd; whilst everyone involved is living under a false consciousness of what is going on. We have faith healers who performs ministries on stage. And for every faith healer you will find their devoted believers. Bob Larson is on our TVs over here. He does exorcism. Again he has his own following. There seems to be plenty of people who swallows this stuff whole. So If Jesus were a real historical character then street preaching and “miracles” is not up for falsification for the original believers in the same way the folks who attend faith healings are not trying to falsify what they see, or even hear a negative word against.

I don't quite agree that today's soothsayers are not tested. I think they are. And as they have not passed the tests, their followings are small and unwilling to believe the tests. Remember the test that was conducted in hospitals to determine if prayer actually helped people and the study showed that those who knew they were being prayed for actually did WORSE than either of the two control groups?

Today's claims are tested. And generally they fail. I say that the claims made by early christians would have been even more known and available than today's preachers and soothsayers.

And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disprove.

How come we’ve still got faith healers, how come Bob Larson? People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of reality or the evidence.

This is true enough. But I don't see Bob Larson performing any miracles which are testable or falsifiable. Now if he claimed to raise someone from the dead, or heal a blind man that could be a different story. But having an unknown member of HIS audience claim that they have a headache, and then ol Bob made it go away is hardly comparable with the claims made by the followers of Jesus.

The difference once again is falsifiability. Jesus claims were so outstanding that they were either true or false. There is no way to fake a dead person coming back to life. Ol Bob is able to fake his healings with just a tiny bit of cooperation.

I went to one of these healing thingys once. I was actually offended by the obvious forgery and most of the people around me were either bored, or a pissed as I was. This is hardly the right environment to spread the good news about what ever his name was abilities. And hence, he is small and unheard of.

On a LARGER and more important note, you are avoiding the little detail about comparing Jesus with the other so called messiah's of the time. Some of them claimed to be able to do little things like calling for rain. But these people can not have been to convincing as they didn't develop a following and one they were killed, their followers disappeared. So what do you think is the difference between these other guys and Jesus? Why even after his death did his following defy history and actually explode rather than disappearing?

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?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Goebbels was a poor excise for a human being but he knew human beings and their weaknesses. And anyhow all this is from second hand reports after the event.

And how many people will believe a second hand account of someone being raised from the dead when according to Jewish beliefs the ONLY resurrection could occur at the end of time? Not only did this go against the knowledge of the people of the time, but it was a totally new and for them impossible idea. It would be like me telling you that I saw a guy teleport himself up to the roof of a 20 story building like in the new movie "Jumper".

How many people would believe me? How convincing would I be?

The more impossible the lie, no matter how many times it is told, the less likely it is to be believed by anyone. His comment is applicable to non-falsifiable lies. It is not applicable to lies which can easily be disproven.

How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas,

It did not convince “the Jews” it may have convinced the odd crowd. But as for most crowds only a few get to stand at the front. And how many Jews in total of who were there became followers? What’s the estimate number of Jewish born Christians per capita AD 10?

Good question. The Nazarenes numbered about 120 in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus resurrection. This is pretty good for a dead guy.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/nazarenes.html

How many other cults can boast 120 followers immediately claiming their leader rose from the dead after a public execution?[/quote]

Outside of the bible, what evidence do you have that the 'Nazarenes' had 120 members at the death of Jesus.

[Confused]

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.

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.

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).

Or they just feared for their life.

[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.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

[Confused]

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.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

[Confused]

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.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christians

Contemporary Jewish Christians

"Jewish Christians" is sometimes used as a contemporary term in respect of persons who are ethnically Jewish but who have become part of a "mainstream" Christian group which is not predominantly based on an appeal to Jewish ethnicity or the Law of Moses. This term is used as a contrast to Messianic Jews, many of whom are ethnic Jews who have converted to a religion in which Christian belief (usually evangelical) is generally grafted onto Jewish ritual which would, to outsiders at least, typically resemble Judaism more than Christianity.

The term could thus be used, for example, of Arnold Fruchtenbaum, the founder of Ariel Ministries. Another group which could be described as Jewish Christians is "Jews for Jesus".

[edit] Modern Jewish Christians and Messianic Jews

There are important similarities and differences between "Jewish Christians" (or "Hebrew Christians") and "Messianic Jews". Jewish Christians identify themselves primarily as Christians. They are (mostly) members of Protestant and Catholic congregations, (usually) are not so strict about observing Kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) or the Sabbath, and are (generally) assimilated culturally into the Christian mainstream, although they retain a strong sense of their Jewish identity which they, like Messianic Jews, strongly desire to pass on to their children. In Israel, there is a growing population of Orthodox Christians who are of Jewish descent and conduct their worship mostly in Hebrew (the most prominent language in Israel, as well as the official language). Messianic Jews consider their primary identity to be "Jewish" and belief in Jesus to be the logical conclusion of their "Jewishness". They try to structure their worship according to Jewish norms, they circumcise their sons and (mostly) abstain from non-kosher foods, and (often) observe the Sabbath. Many (but by no means all) do not use the label "Christian" to describe themselves. The boundary between the two movements is blurred, but the differences between the two movements are such that it may not be fair to treat them as one (cf. Baptists and Methodists, for example).

[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.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

[Confused]

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.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?