The Man Who Is Thursday said:
Even granting your points, though, if Jesus did rise (and it doesn't somehow prove the Christian God), it would prove at least *a* God. ... Even if it isn't Christianity.
Agreed. Or alternatively some 'higher', supernatural power that necessarily isn't a god. It might very well be that we ourselves would be unable to distinguish between a sufficiently power entity and God. But from a certain point of view there might not even be a difference between them and there is no problem at all if do not demand God to be all-powerful.
Yes, we would have pretty strong evidence of a God. But we would, based purely on that, have no idea of the attributes of this God.
Very true. What's fascinating is that the disciples clearly believed Jesus was God, yet they did not ever put the words "I am God" in His mouth. I find this very odd. If they were inventing the records, I'd expect something like that to happen.
Who knows, I for certain wouldn't do it, precisely for the reason that it would be expected and not doing it makes it sound more authentic. But we can never solve to possible quandry of falsified accounts in this manner, because we have no way of knowing what the diciples, and those who wrote their teachings down, thought at the time.
Instead, Jesus' claims to divinity must be anchored within a specific Jewish context. From that perspective, it's very clear what He means.
On this we agree. But I still think it a bit odd, if nothing else. Perhaps it is even somehow tied down to the Old Laws and of not naming the God in vain? Who knows?
They definitely would not have come to that conclusion lightly.
They were humans, just like us. We ourselves would naturally believe that we are rational and not easily mislead or that we can spot frauds with ease etc. But we can't. Humans are pack animals, we go where others go. Gain enough of a following for any movement and it begins to feed itself for as long as you stay in the spotlight. And some impressive sleigh of hand, enough charisma and some epic enough speeches can convince many. Certainly, your point stands, but my point is that what convinced them might not have been all that difficult to achieve for a determined person (of divine origin or not).
I don't think there are any real answers to your questions, unfortunately.
Yes, something I still lament at times.
But as for improving the planet, the Christian revolution did a lot to aid the poor,
I am not denying that. But since we supposedly had the son of the God, creator of the universe, down here with us, one would expect far far more from him. Assuming what we are told of his miracles are true, what he did was impressive on a local scale and effective at convincing humans. But it is not even noticeable on a global scale and as a whole humanity has not benefitted too much from his direct actions.
His followers later on across the centuries have done plenty of good as well as evil. Just like all humans.
and managed to overtake the entire Roman Empire from within.
Christianity emerged as a leading religion for a variety of reasons. The teachings of Jesus and Christian ideology, including the revolutionary concept of equality in the afterlife, were obvious draws. However, people gravitate towards anything that would offer a new hope, especially as the Roman Empire crumbled around them.
The monotheistic concept was nothing new to Romans either, though Christianity did initiate a change in philosophy; One where God stood above both the Emperor and Rome. Because of this, early Christians faced scorn at best and persecution at worst (depending on Emperor, the era and local magistrate) were forced to blend in with their pagan counterparts. In order to celebrate the 'holidays' of their religion, the Christians used pre-existing holidays and festivals to blend in. Christmas, for example, was originally part of the festival of the Winter Solstice, or the Saturnalia. By adopting this grand event as the celebration of Christ's birth, their revelry was allowed to take place largely unnoticed. The early church also manipulated customs and traditions of the Pagan Empire to make their faith more adaptable and acceptable, both to the magistrates and the common man.
One of the more difficult challenges was getting people to believe in a single god and no others. In overcoming this obstacle, the church began to adopt Patron Saints of various daily life functions, to allow an easier conversion. Though these Saints weren't gods in the pagan sense and were never claimed to be, having multiple choices for the population to look to for guidance helped ease the transition considerably. Even the office of the Pope as the head of the faith began to replace the Emperor in the eyes of the people as the living incarnation of God on earth.
As the church began to become an institution of considerable power in the later 3rd century, they used tactics as brutal as the anti-Christian Emperors. While the teachings of Christ taught love and compassion for humanity, the church was run by men. Like with all powerful organizations, some of these men were just as motivated and power hungry as any political official of the time. Some turned a blind eye to apparent hypocritical behavior in order to advance the Church. Unlike the beliefs of the pagans before it, this new power was unified under a mostly single set of rules and concepts. There was one God, one set of rules and broadly speaking, one way to practice the faith. By the time Christianity took a firm grasp on a large part of the population, people who followed Christ knew these rules and customs without the interference of other gods and their practices. The pagans with so many different ideas and traditions were unable to put up any sort of unified resistance to the juggernaut that the church became.
By the fall of the western Empire (around 460-470 AD), christianity was not only the official religion of the Roman world, but it had supreme authority in matters of morality and human behavior. Censorship played a large role as well. Historical documents of an incalculable number were destroyed or edited in order to prevent anti-Christian, or perceived anti-Christian thought. As the Empire of Rome and the Legions that held the peace fell, the world shifted into a turbulent dark age. Political and social instability was only countered by the constant nature of the church. It offered a perfect escape for the minds and hearts of humanity.
So they really didn't take the position of the official church by their merits over other religions, but rather by adapting themselves to existing beliefs and some very shrewd political brokering, moral flexibility on part of the early chruch leaders and then of course, there was Constantine the Great as the first christian emperor. By the time he was done, as much as 30% of the Roman Empire population was estimated to be christian.
I was trying to treat the Bible not as the Word of God, but just as a historical document.
So was I. Just as with any historical document, we seek confirmation on the events described from other sources. If no other sources can be found, then the information contained within cannot be confirmed or denied. Certainly, we have insight into the cultural upheaval and conditions among the general populace thanks to the Bible. But these are not under scrutiny, it is the historical Jesus and the religion built around his teachings.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to do this. They are, after all, (supposed) eyewitness accounts of events.
Yes. However, as we agreed there is a long time from the events happening and them being written down. And as any human knows, memory is an iffy thing. Then we add the oral tellings to this, aka "broken telephone" style.
Assuming the first gospel (discounting Paul's letters as he didn't witness Jesus himself and only briefly mentions crusifixion.) was written around 60-70 AD. Let us go with 65 AD. Jesus died around 33 AD at an age of around 37 years old. His ministry began supposedly at 27 AD.
Assuming his youngest diciple at the time was a measly 15 years old, he'd have been born in 12 AD. With a life expectance of under 40 years, this diciple would have died around 52 AD of natural causes. This is at least 10 years before his version of the events was written down. Because of this, we have no first-hand eyewitness accounts and possibly not even second-hand accounts.
It's examining the Bible's internal and external historical evidence.
But the religion of christianity is not based upon the historical evidence, outside of the crusifixion and the resurrection. Crusifixion was by no means uncommon (Spartacus and 6000 slaves crusified alongside a main road, anyone?) and we have no mention of resurrection outside of the bible.
Certainly, bible tells us of life at the roman empire during the first century. But we can also collaborate much of that without using the bible.
And if the writers of the Bible can be found to be reliable reporters of history, shouldn't we take their claims that much more seriously?
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Certainly we know that Rome existed, Westminster Abbey exists, Sir Isaac Newton is a historical character and Rosslyn Chapel, properly named the Collegiate Church of St Matthew, still stands. Should people, because of this, take the Da Vince Code by D. Brown at face value and as truthful historical account? How about in few centuries? A millenia?
Certainly, historical dates and mentions of true historical places and happenings allow us to study bible in greater detail, but they are by no means evidence that the bible is true.
the fact of the matter is that they do corroborate the claims of the gospels.
Ah, no. They collaborate what the christians of the time would have been saying and what was happening at the time the pagan passages were written. At best we can say that a self-declared prophet (as they all were) was causing trouble and was crusified and later their followers were turning things upside down within Rome itself. Nothing more.
The entirety of the Tacitus passa of christians read as:
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods,
availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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. "
Nothing more is said by Tacitus of christians and Jesus is only mentioned as 'Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate'
It's most likely that it was "passed on to him" when he went to visit Peter and James in the 30s AD, which he references in Galatians. If that's true, then we have an excerpt of Christian doctrine that goes all the way back to just within a few years after Christ's crucifixion. That is *far* too short a time for any hoaxes, conspiracy theories, or alternative Christianities to spring up.
But again, it is not an account of Jesus the Christ, it is an account of human doctrine within a religious movement. A doctrine created by men, who have been sticking together for several years. For them to decide that perhaps their great teacher didn't die, a single day can be enough.
We will never know.
Snipped a lot of it, as I believe I have made my point clear on those matters: We have little if any evidence of reliable extra-biblical evidence of the historical Jesus as depicted by the bible. We have plenty more of the cult that formed around his supposed teachings and the acts of the followers of this cult-to-be-religion.
My only point is that, from a historical standpoint, the New Testament is unparalleled.
Mostly agreed. But it is not the commonplace things that are in question, it is the extraordinary claims made in it.
I'll go the Socrates route and realize that I know nothing.
An interesting choice. You know that you know nothing, therefore you hope? That is refreshingly agnostic, coming from a theist. Most of the time I seem to meet believers who are convinced byond anything else that they know for certain Jesus is with them. And then, paradoxically, evidence is a great sticking point for them.
While I don't agree with your conclusion, I can certainly respect that.
I myself went a step further and a bit to the side so to speak: Since I know nothing of the supernatural, I cannot acertain the truth value of any supernatural claim. Therefore the logical choice is to adopt a netural stance of non-belief.
This is because truth and honestly are great sticking points for me personally. Since I cannot know the truth, I have no belief in anything.
This is a most refreshing and invigorating discussion, it has been some time since I have been able to discuss religion in non-flamewar environment. For that alone, I thank you.
