The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent “fine tuning�, and others, which has brought the world’s most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[Danmark]

You have claimed that Christians who 'challenge the Bible' are 'devoid of understanding of the rules of evidence.'[/i] This is a clumsy phrase, but it is your own.

No, it's clumsy because you misquoted me.

Again, you are wrong on your facts, even those that deal with what you wrote. Here's your exact quote:

"They are almost always devoid of understanding of the rules of evidence, how to use logic, and when evidence supports a conclusion (and when it does not)."
Post 98: Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:47 pm Re: Why do Christian apologists persist with bad arguments?
Claiming you did not write what you did does not enhance your reputation or your cause.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 123 by The Me's]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

What "eye witness accounts" are you referring to?

Matthew, Mark and John were eye-witnesses.
Luke interviewed eye-witnesses.

(Actually, all four of them likely relied on accounts that were written while Jesus was still alive. There is literally no disagreement whatsoever between the four different sources. It's not just impossible, it's really boneheaded to think that they were written from memory decades after the fact. I'm surprised any time I see scholars try to pass this off as a legitimate argument.)

You are obviously completely ignorant of Christian apologetics.
You claim these anonymous works were not written decades later than the events they purport to describe. When do claim they were written? What is your authority?
What is the basis for your claim that the authors of 'Matthew, Mark and John were eye-witnesses, and that the names attributed to those books were actually written by the disciples bearing those names?'
Do you have anything other than that those are the names appended to the books?

What is your evidence that Luke interviewed 'eyewitnesses?'
At least, even by your unsupported account, Luke's rendition is hearsay. Since you are an expert on the Rules of Evidence, perhaps you can explain to us what 'hearsay' is.

[dianaiad]

[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"]


You really are having a difficult time wrapping your mind around this. As you certainly should be, considering that it only contradicts your lifetime of programing.
Moderator Warning


Please restrict your responses to the content of the post, and don't make personal remarks about the writer.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[WinePusher]

Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.

You seem to be confusing two different concepts here. Being deluded does not necessarily entail mental health problems. People who are not mentally healthy can still be delusional, all you have to do is look at Congress for tons of examples of delusional people who have no mental health issues. I think what you meant to say was that the disciples were hallucinating, and this is a mental health issue.

This kind of thinking is very easily refuted. A popular example would be John Forbes Nash, the Nobel Prize winning mathematician and economist on whose life the book and movie A Beautiful Mind was based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

John Nash wasn't delusional, he had a mental health problem (ie: schizophrenia).

But we do not need to look at examples from the outer limits of the bell curve. As I have pointed out previously on this thread there are millions of people who believe in various delusions about human beings being God, virgin births, talking donkeys and winged horses flying people up to some paradise above the clouds.

The only difference between some religious delusions and other delusions is the popularity of religious delusions and the fact religious delusions, generally, are learned.

Perhaps. The most basic definition of a 'delusion' is holding a belief without any evidence for it, so in this case I guess all of us would be considered delusional.

[Danmark]

Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.

You seem to be confusing two different concepts here. Being deluded does not necessarily entail mental health problems. People who are not mentally healthy can still be delusional, all you have to do is look at Congress for tons of examples of delusional people who have no mental health issues. I think what you meant to say was that the disciples were hallucinating, and this is a mental health issue.

Not confusing anything. My very point is exactly what you said, that Christians and Congressmen can be wholly delusional without having identified mental health problems. Believing in a man being a god who floated up into the sky to 'heaven' is clearly a delusion. Many people believe this as if it were a fact, but they are not otherwise seen as mental health cases. The entire science denying wing of the Republican party is delusional, but not considered crazy. That is my point.
One need not hallucinate to have a fixed delusion.

[dianaiad]

Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.

You seem to be confusing two different concepts here. Being deluded does not necessarily entail mental health problems. People who are not mentally healthy can still be delusional, all you have to do is look at Congress for tons of examples of delusional people who have no mental health issues. I think what you meant to say was that the disciples were hallucinating, and this is a mental health issue.

Not confusing anything. My very point is exactly what you said, that Christians and Congressmen can be wholly delusional without having identified mental health problems. Believing in a man being a god who floated up into the sky to 'heaven' is clearly a delusion. Many people believe this as if it were a fact, but they are not otherwise seen as mental health cases. The entire science denying wing of the Republican party is delusional, but not considered crazy. That is my point.
One need not hallucinate to have a fixed delusion.

I would like to point out, carefully and with great respect, that your opinion of the delusional nature of a belief in deity does not mean, necessarily, that it IS delusional. History has shown us, time after time, that one man's 'delusion' is another man's self evident fact....and reality is that reality is, no matter what anybody's opinion might be.

I hope you do not mind, then, that while I support your right to consider me delusional, that I not accept your judgment on that matter as binding on me?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 134:

John Nash wasn't delusional, he had a mental health problem (ie: schizophrenia).

I don't wish to diagnose or comment on the good Mr. Nash, but...

As one blessed with schizophrenia, though in this day and age doctors and such don't so much give you a diagnosis, as they just go on and try to treat ya, I can tell one and all that some of us with it, if not all of us, suffer delusions. Mine are typically of the "I'm morally superior" variety, nigh up to holding myself as a god among men (only my atheism precludes me making that final step, I s'pose). As evidence, I propose my delusions have been spilt across the pages of this site. I can't tell you how shamed I am of how I treated Miss dianaiad when she first came here, among others. This is not to be confused with the simple, "I'm sure proud of my morality", but is more of "How can you be such a cuss-word, you cuss-wording cuss-word, when here I am, Mr Morality himself, telling you how it is".

So, among the voices that were never spoken, every now and then I get to feel superior to each and every one of you, and ain't y'all proud of me for it

'Til I crash, and then, well, the shame of my highs can be suicidal.

Perhaps. The most basic definition of a 'delusion' is holding a belief without any evidence for it, so in this case I guess all of us would be considered delusional.

I won't object to "the most basic definition" here.

My (non?)diagnosis however, indicates I get to keep the "more complicated definition" 'til I go to my reward.

[Danmark]

Your argument is based on ignorance of the nature of delusion. It's based on the irrational "all or nothing" thinking that says if a person has a specific mental heath problem, he is completely dysfunctional and nothing he does is functional or effective.

You seem to be confusing two different concepts here. Being deluded does not necessarily entail mental health problems. People who are not mentally healthy can still be delusional, all you have to do is look at Congress for tons of examples of delusional people who have no mental health issues. I think what you meant to say was that the disciples were hallucinating, and this is a mental health issue.

Not confusing anything. My very point is exactly what you said, that Christians and Congressmen can be wholly delusional without having identified mental health problems. Believing in a man being a god who floated up into the sky to 'heaven' is clearly a delusion. Many people believe this as if it were a fact, but they are not otherwise seen as mental health cases. The entire science denying wing of the Republican party is delusional, but not considered crazy. That is my point.
One need not hallucinate to have a fixed delusion.

I would like to point out, carefully and with great respect, that your opinion of the delusional nature of a belief in deity does not mean, necessarily, that it IS delusional. History has shown us, time after time, that one man's 'delusion' is another man's self evident fact....and reality is that reality is, no matter what anybody's opinion might be.

I hope you do not mind, then, that while I support your right to consider me delusional, that I not accept your judgment on that matter as binding on me?

Quite right, D! The central point in this particular argument is simply that the fact someone is willing to die for what he or she thinks is true is a test of sincerity and moral courage, not a test of the truth of the belief.

I confess the idea that belief in ideas that are contrary to nature and science is ancillary to the argument, but fun.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 120 by Ooberman]

Since we have eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, I think you're grasping at straws, not "we".

You're welcome to believe or not believe, but you're going to have trouble everything you try to deny reality. Just my opinion.

They arent eyewitness accounts. So, where does that getcha?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

I have absolutely no interest in reading all the posts you've written over the past four years. I've only read the posts you've written in this thread, and you've been flip flopping like crazy and changing your position every chance you get. First you were complaining about how my facts aren't facts. And when you were pressed on it you later admitted that you actually agree with my facts. If you don't want to cause anymore confusion then try being a little bit more clear.

Never have I flipped, nor have I flopped. I have been laying down this exact same message for years. Many of your facts ARE unsustainable. Your insistence that the apostles all uniformly died horrible martyrs death in defence of their faith, for example. This is based on propaganda produced by the Catholic church for centuries, but it is NOT based on verifiable facts. It's Christian mythology. I agreed with you that the tomb was empty. I have no problem acknowledging it When we are in agreement.

I'm sure we butted heads once or twice but I don't really remember debating that much.

You probably do not remember because you abruptly disappeared from the discussion every time.

I agree with you about radical Islam. As for America, the same is true for every single other special interest group. Feminists seek to impose feminism on 'the rest of us.' Socialists seek to impose socialism on 'the rest of us.' Libertarians seek to impose liberty on 'the rest of us.' Atheists seek to impose atheism on 'the rest of us.' Christians seek to impose Christianity on 'the rest of us.' Why are you only complaining about Christians? Every single person that votes is essentially seeking to impose an agenda or belief system on the rest of society. The way this can be prevented is by ensuring that the government doesn't have the means or power to implement other people's belief systems and enact them into law.

Yes, and in this country when one opposes another's ideology one has every right to attack it mercilessly and seek to undermine it. Only with words of course, using fact, reason and logic. When the Christian right chose to become a political force they made themselves a political target. My response is to seek to undermine the very foundation of Christian assumptions by exposing exactly how and why they are unfounded. Christians have traditionally sought to actively convert others to their beliefs, often in ways, historically, that left the prospective convert little or no choice in the matter. I am simply responding by showing exactly why those claims are and always have been NONSENSE. Something that would have gotten me burned at the stake for most of the last 2,000 years. Which serves to explain how Christian claims, so obviously nonsense, have managed to become so very deeply entrenched in western society.

I never said you don't have the right to engage in political debate about social issues. It's one thing to argue about religious institutions and the American religious right, but it's another thing entirely to be arguing and obsessing about an entity that you don't believe exists. I think it's perfectly fine for atheists to argue and spend time fighting Christians who want to prevent gays from getting married, or who want to impose creation science in public schools. Those are legitimate issues to be concerned about. But, it's weird, creepy and somewhat sad to have tons of atheists arguing and obsessing about something they don't believe in. Like I said, I don't waste my life arguing and obsessing about unicorns, fairys or bigfoot.

You might waste your time on unicorns, fairies and bigfoot if they had organized into political groups and were actively seeking to impose some sort of ancient supernatural make believe based view of reality on the rest of modern society.

As for the problem of evil, perhaps I can help you with that. Evil DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD. There, feel better? Evil it is not a tangible force, like say, gravity. It is a concept which is rooted in the mean and horrible things that humans do to each other. It occurs because some individuals believe that it is their right to physically impose their will on others.

It doesn't seem like you're aware of any of the philosophical scholarship that's gone into studying the problem of evil (theodicy). Evil does exist in the real world and philsophers have categorized evil into two sets: moral evil (evil committed by humans) and natural evil (evil committed by nature).

Natural evil is when you get eaten by a bear, as opposed to good, when you get to eat the bear. I'm certain that the bear has an entirely different point of view on this foolish system of thought. But bears are not foolish philosophers. In either case the question of good and evil is entirely a concept determined by the point of view of who it is that is getting to do the eating. And in either case it is simply an event to the universe at large, neither good nor bad.

And you think evil occurs because some individuals believe that it is their right to impose their will onto others? Is this really your definition of evil? I hope you're joking since voting would qualify as an evil act under your absurd definition.

Notice that I said "physically impose their will on others." Words actually do have meaning you see, and changing the words, or leaving them out to suit your purposes, is rather less then pointless when the original statement is right there for all to see. Makes you appear to be disingenuous. Something I am NOT generally accusing you of, by the way.

Yes, and that's what I find weird. I don't understand why you find this satisfying and entertaining when you don't believe in it. Do I find arguing about the existence of unicorns and fairys to be satisfying and entertaining? No. Yet, you find arguing about the existence of God (a being you don't believe in) to be satisfying and entertaining.

Are you now accusing ME of being disingenuous? Why would I pursue a cause I did not believe in? In many ways I consider this to be simply a history lesson. But mainly it's simply the dogged pursuit of the truth.

What I am presenting here is not exactly Christianity 101 as taught in Sunday School, or Catechism, is it? It completely overturns the doctrinaire Christian assertions and Christian assumptions that each generation of Christian seeks to impregnate the next generation with. It exposes the myth of Christianity for the myth that it has always been, and causes you believers to face facts that you have been programmed to believe do not exist, and which you would rather not be confronted with. That's what I meant. I have no power to change what you choose to believe, but I can certainly expose the unfounded assertions and assumptions that your beliefs are predicated on as fallacious.

I'm sure I would pause and re-evaluate my belief if I was presented with a compelling argument or thesis. I considered the late Christopher Hitchens to be the best atheist intellectual in all of history and much of what he said and wrote caused me to re-examine my views (and even caused me to abandon some beliefs all together). But the same isn't true with your argument. Sure, what you're saying obviously isn't in sync with Christianity. But your argument is tantamount to the ravings of a conspiracy theorist like Dan Brown. I don't find conspiracy theories compelling or persuasive. I'm sure many of your fellow atheist friends on here do, but I don't.

I'm not much of a fan of Dan Brown, exactly because a conspiracy theory as large and elaborate as the one's he has constructed in his books would, in real life, disintegrate under their own weight. Here's how elaborate my "theory" is: A group of associates gain possession of the body of their friend. After using a crypt that belongs to one of them to wash and prepare the corpse, because the crypt happened to be convenient, they quietly took the body of their friend home to be buried. Then later when they return, and using the now empty crypt as a source of mystery, they begin to spread the rumor that their friend had come back to life. Surprisingly, and seemingly against all odds, the rumor eventually begins to attract converts. Try reading up on the origins of the Mormon religion sometime. It sounds like a poorly conceived work of fiction, but it actually occurred. Could people really be THAT gullible? Now look at Jonestown, and the only obvious answer is yes. I don't understand it either. But then I have always had the ability to think for myself and I do not have the capacity to understand such abject gullibility.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels represent religious doctrine predicated on supernatural assertions. None of which is to be found in association with the established historical record. Christian claims ARE NOT taught as factual history in the public schools and universities. Because they are religious beliefs.

Never said otherwise. But you did dodge the point though. The Gospels are the primary sources of information that historians use to derive information about Jesus. Even the Jesus Seminar, which represents the far left of the biblical scholarship community, realizes that there are many pieces of information within the Gospels that are accurate and likely to have happened. My claim in the topic was that the Gospels are semi-reliable, and biblical scholarship agrees with this position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that there is nothing in the New Testament that can be correlate with the established historical record. In other words there's no truth to be found in the New Testament. Sorry, but this view has no intellectual support for it.

You keep using the word "historians," but you are really talking about religious scholars. That groups of people hold supernatural beliefs is a matter of history. That any of these beliefs are valid is a matter of metaphysical belief, not history. Christian declarations that it is so are no more historically valid then are Islamic claims, for example, simply because Muslims declare it to be so.

Way to dodge the point again. You, for some reason, decided to add the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events. Many other atheists do the same so I assume it must be a cherished talking point among you guys. Well, the fact that the Gospels were only written decades after the event lends them greater credibility. In other cases (such as the biographies of Alexander the Great) the texts themselves were written centuries after the event, and since decades are shorter than centuries, the Gospels would actually be considered more reliable than those other texts. So do you realize that the Gospels being written only decades after the fact is a positive piece of information that helps establish their credibility?

How do Christian claims that a corpse came back to life and flew away, or that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets in any way begin to compare to any other generally recognized historical event? What can you name that would serve as an example of a direct historical comparison? There is a clear difference between stories of actual events, and stories of pure myth and make believe. For example Hesiod, Homer, Euripides, Theocritus and Virgil all wrote of a race of one-eyed giants known as the cyclops. The cyclops were not only believed in ancient times to be historical, they were thought to be fully extent... the inhabitants of a far off island and unable to sail to the "civilized" world because of their size. Conspicuously however, what we do NOT have are many various and varied eyewitness accounts of individuals claiming to have had an encounter with one eyed giants. Similarly there are no breathless eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus, or stories of hordes of reanimated dead people invading the streets of old Jerusalem, an event seen by "many" according to Gospel Matthew, but corroborated by NO ONE at the time it was supposed to have occured! Should we today reasonably expect such accounts to have been written? To even BEGIN to give such unrealistic claims any potential for actually being true, the answer is a resounding YES! Despite the fact that the were once believed to be fully real, and despite the fact that stories WERE written of their existence, it's well understood today that the cyclops were in fact never anything other than stories of pure myth and make believe. Because it pleases people to make up fantastic stories almost as much as it pleases other people to listen to fantastic stories. But in the full light of modern reason and logic, it's understood that some stories are simply too fantastic to have any reasonable potential for being true. Especially when not accompanied by any actual genuine hard factual evidence.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. What evidence do you have for this?

Will this do?

Matt. 27:
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Sounded like a conspiracy to the priests as well.

What does this have to do with anything?

It has EVERYTHING to do with your challenge. YOU asked for evidence of a conspiracy. And it's right there in Matthew, and even that you summarily reject. Because it does not correspond to your ideology. The priests believed that a conspiracy existed among the disciples to spread the false rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. And there is the evidence you requested, right there in scripture.

Your claim is that the disciples kept the body and never put it in the tomb to begin with. Where is the evidence for this? The verse from Matthew 27 does not support your claim at all.

Are you being disingenuous here, or are you purposely pretending to be just that thick? Because I very clearly and precisely have never once claimed that the disciples never put the body in the tomb to begin with. A bit of fraying around the edges is detected here.

All of the points I presented to you are taken directly from scripture. Even you admit that the story of the resurrection is unbelievable.

In terms of science it is. Not in terms of history.

Lots of well established historical examples of corpses coming back to life and flying away, are there? History's just rife with them?

The natural explanation you've presented here isn't historically viable. Which is why I said that only at face value does your explanation trump the resurrection. When you take background information into account your hypothesis lsoes more and more credibility.

The natural explanation that I have presented here does not correspond to Christian claims. It works perfectly well on every other level.

I think you have it backwards. If the whole resurrection narrative was a concocted lie then they were not 'true believers.' The only case where the disciples and apostles would have been 'true believers' woul dbe if Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appear to them. This event would have caused them to genuinely and sincerely believe in Jesus' divinity even to the point of death. But if we're using your conspiracy theory scenario then there would have been no 'true believers.'

Paul underwent his conversion some years after the execution of Jesus and was not a party to any conspiracy. He was a true believer. Mark was a follower of Peter but did not personally know the Lord, according to Papias. Mark was not a conspirator. He was a true believer. Luke was a follower of Paul, and neither of them were personal witnesses to any of the events detailed by the Gospels. Luke was not a conspirator. Luke was a true believer. You were not personally a witness to the events detailed in the Gospels. Nor are you a party to any conspiracy. You are a true believer. And if required, you would write down the story of the life and death of Jesus just as you believe that it transpired, including any and all details that you had heard, because you are not a conspirator. You are a true believer with no reason to suppose that there was any NEED to omit any details.

You've answered this point by ignoring the facts? You think writing off all of ancient history strengthens your case? Since you're citing Acts I'm sure you're aware of the martyrdom of Stephen, which is explicitly stated in Acts. I'm sure you're also aware about the reigns of the Roman Emperors Diocletian, Domition and Nero. I'm also sure you're aware about the great fire of Jerusalem that was primarily blamed on the Christians and caused further tensions to break out between Jews and Christians. Or, are you just going to deny all these facts just because they're inconvenient and cut against your beliefs?

Diocletian (Latin: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus) (245–311) was Roman emperor from 284 to 305. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

Domitian (Latin: Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus;[2] 24 October 51 – 18 September 96) was Roman emperor from 81 to 96. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domitian

Nero was Roman emperor when the great fire of Rome occurred in 64 AD.

Now, allow me to restate what I said in my previous post to you.

"The practice of Christianity was not a violation of Roman law at all during the time frame we are discussing here, circa 30's and 40's AD. That would be the time frame that Acts is concerned with. There is no indication, historically or in scripture, of Christians being persecuted by the Romans during this time frame. Persecution of all things Jewish began after the great fire in Rome which occurred in 64 AD, and became much more virulent after the Romans reconquered Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the holy land in 70 AD. Christianity was still basically a Jewish splinter cult at this point. And certainly during the second and third centuries, Christian persecution was widespread. It depends on exactly who you would consider to be a Christian today of course."

Notice how what I actually said actually corresponds to the facts?
Attempting to muddy the water will not help you. Because what I actually said previously is still right here for all to read.

That really doesn't matter. All that matters is that the disciples in question died cruel deaths for their beliefs.

Please provide evidence for this repeated claim on your part.


DC&R Forum Rules:
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.