|
Author
|
Topic: The evolution of an atheist.
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
Message 3 of 280 (573663)
08-12-2010 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Bikerman
08-11-2010 3:01 PM
|
|
Thanks Bikerman. Interesting story. I was agnostic for years and then in my thirties I was visiting in England and for various reasons had to make a decision of just what it was I believed. I was given a copy of Mere Christianity by C S Lewis and came to the conclusion that I could accept Christianity on faith and even if it wasn't true the message of love of neighbour etc. was a good basis for life anyway. Since then I have maintained my faith but over the last few years I have done on my own a considerable amount of reading to determine what it is I actually believe. Actually this forum has been part of that exploration of my faith. Through this I have changed my views on a number of things about Christianity. In the end it seems to me to boil down to the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus was not resurrected bodily to new life after death then the whole Christian faith comes apart. Even Paul was clear on that in his letters. If Jesus was bodily resurrected then so much of the rest of it starts to fall into place. It then becomes a matter of sorting out what has been added on by the institution of the church and what really is of God. I have read and watched debates by theologians as to whether the resurrection was historical or metaphorical. I personally have found the argument for it being historical more convincing than the argument against it and have become convinced of it. I enjoyed going through your account and I admire you for actually thinking the whole business through at a relatively young age. I was a lot further on in life before I seriously though about it at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Bikerman, posted 08-11-2010 3:01 PM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 14 of 280 (573968)
08-13-2010 10:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Bikerman
08-12-2010 11:23 AM
|
|
Bikerman writes: Thanks for that. As I've got older I've actually gone the other way - I've become quite sceptical about most of Jesus' deeds, to the point where I couldn't even say I was sure he existed as a single identifiable character. I think on balance he probably did, but there are some pretty major problems with the gospels. The readiness to invent the Bethlehem story is quite a shocker. That was one of the things I read-up on as a 17 year old. The whole census idea struck me as odd then - why would the Romans ask men to return to their place of birth? That would be crazy. Then I realised that it was done to fit the prophecy in Micah (5:2) about being born in Bethlehem. The fact that Matthew and Luke both reported this story was quite shocking to me and that then led to me looking at the authorship of the cannonical gospels, which led to more uncertainties, a lot of reading on the Q source and the conclusion that it made sense that there was indeed a Q 'original' from which Matthew and Luke were taken later. Once I started picking at the thread, it pretty quickly started to unravel - dates, times, places. So much was either not known or falsely reported... Anyway, this is pre-empting part 2 :-) I'm inclined to not believe that there was a Q source. It appears to me from what I have read is that there were much shorter early writings on which the authors of the gospels drew but I don't think that there was one source, (Q), that predominated. In my view the gospels don't read like something that is being fabricated. I think that would hold true even by today's standards but even more so as stories being told by 1st century Jews. Just for example why would you make up the idea that one of the pillars of this early movement denied Jesus 3 times. Also the stories the Messiah's resurrected body read like this is weird but here is what happened. If it had been based on the Jewish scriptures you would think that they would have a resurrected Jesus bathed in light and shining for all to see. There were all sorts of messianic wannabes that were put to death by the Romans but out of all that came one where the movement continued on afterwards. The gospel accounts have all of his followers giving up on him at the resurrection, (again if it was being made up why would that be included in the story), but subsequent to that they gave up their lives to carry on with the movement. As I said earlier for me the whole Christian faith centres on the resurrection. If I am convinced of that, which I am, then I am prepared to take on faith the Bethlehem story and the virgin birth while at the same time realizing that those stories aren't essential to Christianity anyway. It never seemed important to Paul at all. Paul was concerned about explaining Christ’s message of love and hope and about how the resurrection fit into that. I am opening myself up to being accused of circular reasoning but so be it. We all base our lives on something, and as I said Christianity, with all of its warts rings true for me.  Thanks for the dialogue.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Bikerman, posted 08-12-2010 11:23 AM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 29 of 280 (574316)
08-15-2010 10:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 5:43 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes:
Paul is, of course, very disinterested in the actual life of jesus and his works contain almost no details of that. I think that points to a jesus who was nothing more than one of a number of prophets and leaders of small sects. Paul is anxious to concentrate on the spiritual message of the 'risen' Christ (spiritually risen not physically) because he is trying to build a power-base and expand his version, the Pauline Christianity. I don't see this at all. In the first place Paul's "power-base" existed prior to his conversion to being follower of Jesus. He lost his power-base and spent the rest of his life in poverty with a good chunk of the time in captivity. I read Paul as being much more concerned with spreading the message of loving your neighbour, of forgiveness, and what this meant for the world to come. Also I don't agree with the thought that Paul would believe that Jesus was just spiritually risen. They believed that about Judas Maccabees but nobody after he had been killed by the Romans ever suggested that he had really been the messiah let alone God incarnate. Even after defeating their enemies and maintaining power for an extended period of time he was just another failed messiah. During and after the crucifixion Jesus followers had gone back to their everyday lives. He was just another failed messiah. Something then happened to change all of that and I believe that the account they gave for why that changed as being true. They had no reason to make the whole thing up. Preaching a message that was counter to the power structures of the time wasn't a route to wealth or power. It was extremely hazardous to your health to put it mildly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 5:43 PM | | Bikerman has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 30 of 280 (574327)
08-15-2010 11:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 11:16 AM
|
|
Bikerman writes: No non-partisan source even mentions a resurrection until 2 centuries later - in Lucian. Pliny never mentions it in his 110CE account of the religion. Martyredom - dying for one's beliefs - is also not a theme of the Gospels. The only two accounts are the stoning of Stephen and the execution of James. Stephen is convicted of a trumped-up charge, so the question of dying for a belief isn't relevant - recanting his faith would not have achieved anything. We are told little about James and what he died for so no conclusion is possible there. The whole theme of death as sacrifice for belief just isn't present in the gospels so the whole theological underpinning of the death/resurrection seems to me to be a later concoction. There is also good reason to think that the early Christians didn't actually believe in a physical resurrection - it was a spiritual one. Paul is the source closest in time to Jesus and he doesn't mention empty tombs, or in fact any physical resurrection and later ascension of Jesus. That, to me, is very telling ideed.
Sorry I missed this post. I covered part of this in what I just posted. I think this thread is ok as it is a discussion of why you believe what you believe so it is likely appropriate to discuss why I came to a different conclusion. If that is wrong I'm sure one of the mods will let me know. Why would a non-partisan write about the resurrection? It would only be the partisans, the ones who actually witnessed a resurrected Jesus that would write about it and probably most of them were illiterate. If there was no physical resurrection I can't imagine that there would be non-partisan people writing about it 200 years later. As I mentioned they weren't writing things like that about Judas Maccabees immediately after his death let alone 200 years later. It wasn't just about dying for a belief. He was one of many who claimed to be the messiah and in the end they were all put to death by the Romans. I can see why Paul wouldn't mention the resurrection directly as his letters were to the specific groups of believers who would have already known about it. He did write the following in his first letter to the Corinthians.
quote:
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
That goes back to the point I made earlier. It is the bodily resurrection of Jesus that is key to Christianity. If it is true then the rest starts to fall into place. If it isn't true then Christianity is at best a Jewish sect. Cheers
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 11:16 AM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 47 of 280 (574399)
08-15-2010 5:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 12:29 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: Surely you are joking? So, this chap who was dead has now been spotted alive, and you don't think that would interest anyone? It would be banner-headline news in EVERY contemporary writer's account of the times. It would be plastered all over Senica, Philos et al. It would be the most significant event ever. Here's a surprise. I don't see it that way. Jesus was a subversive in every way. The Jews at the time were looking for a messiah to lead them militarily against the Romans or those like the Herodians made out very well by cozying up to them. There would be a risk attached to be seen to be supporting this new movement, and besides there was no appetite for a god that supported the idea of loving your enemy. As for the Romans they would be unlikely to write about it as in the first place they probably wouldn't believe it and secondly the followers of Jesus were preaching a message that Jesus is king and Caesar isn't. That was not a message that would endear them to the powerful people that they had to answer to. One other minor thought is that most of the writing from that era was lost anyway. We don't actually know what might have been written. We know about what we have.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:29 PM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 48 of 280 (574400)
08-15-2010 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 12:38 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: I wondered if you would raise this. OK now, doesn't the letter have a pleading quality? Notice also the choice of words 'if it is preached that....'. What Paul is saying is 'look, you HAVE to believe in the resurrection, otherwise it all falls apart'. BUT he offers nothing to help. He might have said 'Look, I have just talked to James and he witnessed the resurrection', or he might have offered any number of witness testimonies as evidence. What does he actually do? He says please, just accept it, otherwise.... I think this actually is evidence against, rather than evidence for...
This is a letter to believers. The point would already have been made. I don't see it as pleading. What he is saying is that this is absolutely central to what it that the church is founded on. He then goes on, (after my previous quote), in much detail about resurrection and what it means.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:38 PM | | Bikerman has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
bluescat48 writes: Which would be more likely that they would print about an event they would think was pure junk. I think that either suggestion I made would be sufficient reason for them not to write about it. There would be no upside for them. As I said, unless they had seen the resurrected Jesus themselves they probably wouldn't believe it and besides they didn't believe in the Jewish God anyway. As for the god that Jesus represented why would they worship Him. Jesus presented a God who preached love and forgiveness as opposed to what they were looking for which was power and wealth. In their mind the Caesar's would be a much better alternative.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 08-15-2010 5:34 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 53 of 280 (574439)
08-15-2010 10:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 7:06 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: It was Philo who, as an ambassador, reported to the emperor about Jewish happenings, complaints, events, beliefs etc. The notion that he would have been either disinterested or scared is baloney. I won't try and be something I'm not. I haven't read Philo so I had to do some research. Rather than just use wiki which isn't always reliable I found this PBS piece on him. Frankly from reading this it would seem that from the perspective of Philo he had much bigger fish to fry. This doesn't seem to agree with your take on him. He went to the Romans to persuade them to quit persecuting the Jews. He was an ambassador chosen by Alexandrian Jews and lived in Alexandria and not in Jerusalem.
quote:
A Jewish leader and scholar, Philo (circa 20 BC — 40 AD) risked his life to plead for greater tolerance for Jews in the Roman Empire. Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish leader, philosopher and scholar in the first century. Born in 30 BC to a wealthy Jewish family in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, he was an important spokesman for Jews throughout the Roman Empire. Religious tolerance Under the Emperor Augustus, Jews in Rome were allowed to live together and were treated fairly. Philo wrote that they could practice their religion and received the same help as any other Roman. But Augustus died, and within decades the situation was very different. In 39 AD, when Caligula was emperor, religious intolerance erupted in Alexandria. Non-Jews had placed statues of human gods in the city’s synagogues. Religious riots Furious at this desecration, the Jews tore them out and violence erupted. Philo writes of how mobs of men killed Jews and set fire to Jewish properties. Only emperors could resolve situations this big and, unfortunately, Caligula didn’t care. A group of Jewish leaders, including Philo, left Alexandria for Rome to see the emperor and make their case. However, Philo wrote that he knew the trip was pointless as soon as they entered Caligula’s presence. A new god? Caligula did not give them a warm welcome. He mocked the Jews and their beliefs to the point where the Jewish leaders thought they would be executed. In fact, they escaped, only to find out that Caligula had ordered a statue that portrayed himself as a god. He planned to put it up in the temple at Jerusalem. The temple was the most sacred place for Jews: a statue of Caligula placed there was a sin against the Jewish faith and was bound to cause more riots. Philo wrote that the Jewish elders swore to die on the spot rather than see their temple defiled. A lucky escape Luckily, this sacrifice was not needed. Before the statue was even built, Caligula had been murdered and a new emperor — Claudius — was in power. Philo continued to speak for the Jewish people. He told senior Romans of his experiences and published his complaints against the Roman treatment of Jews in Alexandria. Later in life, his work combining Greek and Jewish philosophy would prove a major influence on Jewish and Christian religious studies.
—PBS
I can see where he would be disinterested in a break- away group from traditional Jewish belief that was in his lifetime hardly known at that time in Egypt where he lived, and it also sounds like he had every reason to be scared. Edited by GDR, : typo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM | | Bikerman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:05 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 55 of 280 (574520)
08-16-2010 10:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 7:06 PM
|
|
PBS writes: Have you ever read Seneca? That's what I love about this forum. Great place to learn. After reading about Seneca I would see no reason for him to write about Jesus or Christianity. He was a stoic and politician who lived in Rome except for a short stint in Egypt, and a time in exile in Corsica.
PBS writes:
Statue of Seneca A philosopher, writer, orator and statesman, Seneca (4 BC — 65 AD) was Rome's leading intellectual during the middle of the first century AD. Brought back from exile, he and his friends would virtually rule Rome in the first years of Nero's reign. The second son of a wealthy family, Seneca was educated in the philosophy of the Sextii. This was heavily influenced by stoicism, whose followers believed that virtue is based on knowledge and that the ups and downs of everyday life should be accepted calmly. As a young man, Seneca fell very ill and visited Egypt to recover. He returned to Rome in 31 AD and began a career in politics. Seneca soon fell foul of Emperor Caligula, who only let him live because he was told that Seneca's health meant that he would probably die soon anyway. Banished When Claudius took the throne, things got even worse. Accused of adultery with the emperor's niece, Julia Livilla, Seneca was banished to Corsica in 41 AD. He was already famous as a writer and thinker. He continued his work in exile, writing philosophy and drama. Taking the classic stoic line, he wrote that "one man's exile was but a drop in the sea of human upheaval". Claudius stayed in Corsica for eight years until Agrippina, Claudius' third and final wife, arranged his return to Rome to tutor her son, Nero. This raised ethical problems: stoics avoided extravagant living and believed in a brotherhood of man long before Christians preached the same message. Living under absolute rule of an emperor, stoics were forced to walk a fine line between integrity and hypocrisy. Position of power Back in Rome, the murder of Claudius propelled Seneca's student, Nero, to the top job. As a key member of his court, Seneca found that he and his friends were, in effect, governing Rome. His job was to help Nero become a reasonable emperor — a difficult job given his young age and his murderous mother. For a while, Seneca succeeded in controlling Nero's darker side. As an influential courtier, he also introduced important reforms to taxes and the courts. He also promoted a more humane attitude to slaves. Boundaries becoming blurred As Nero grew older, however, he proved much harder to control. His cruelty and depravity became more common. For Seneca, the line between integrity and hypocrisy became blurred. As one of Nero's key advisors, Seneca had condoned (or may even have been involved in) the emperor's murder of his own mother. After repeated requests, Seneca was finally allowed to retire in 62 AD. But it was not to last long. Three years later, he was accused of taking part in a plot to assassinate Nero. Despite thin evidence, an officer was sent to demand his suicide. As a stoic, Seneca met his end calmly. One of the leading philosophers of ancient Rome, Seneca left behind a large body of essays, letters, tragedies and poems that have preserved his thoughts for almost two thousand years. Although he knew that his actions had not lived up to his ideals, he hoped that history would forgive him. The following talks about Seneca's writing and is from wiki. His writings were largely his philosophical thoughts and his stoicism.
quote:
Works attributed to Seneca include a dozen philosophical essays, one hundred twenty-four letters dealing with moral issues, nine tragedies, a satire, and a meteorological essay. One of the tragedies attributed to him, Octavia, has been argued as having been written by another. His authorship of another, Hercules on Oeta, has been questioned, though not to the extent of the Octavia. Seneca generally employed a pointed rhetorical style. His writings contain the traditional themes of Stoic philosophy: the universe is governed for the best by a rational providence; contentedness is achieved by a simple, unperturbed life in accordance with nature and the duty to the state; human suffering should be accepted and has a positive effect on the soul; study and learning is important; et cetera. He emphasized practical steps by which the reader might confront life's problems. In particular, he considered it important to confront the fact of one's own mortality. The discussion of how to approach death dominates many of his letters.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM | | Bikerman has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 58 of 280 (574527)
08-16-2010 11:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by Bikerman
08-16-2010 8:05 AM
|
|
Bikerman writes: Yet there is nothing in his extensive writings about Jewry that mentions Jesus, or in fact ANY of the supposed events in the New Testament. That isn't just strange, it is actually pretty unbelieveable UNLESS Jesus was either a myth or a very small time rebel who was later blown up into the mythical Jesus of the gospels. The notion that Philo would have ignored this new 'King of the Jews' who makes a triumphant entry into Jerusalem, where the crowds worship him - well, that is not even remotely believable.
Philo wrote about Jews. The original Christians were Jews and essentially still held to Jewish scripture. The first Christian writings that have been maintained are by Paul after Philo's death. They were essentially a small Jewish sect along with a number of other Jewish sects. Philo's mission in life was to preserve Jewish interests within the Roman empire. I just can't see any good reason for him to write about the early Christians. Frankly, I can see no reasonable explanation for the Christian church to grow out of that era if Jesus wasn't resurrected. His ministry was a mere 3 years before he was executed by the Romans. He preached an unpopular message and his followers were almost exclusively lower class and illiterate. Yet somehow out of that has come Christianity. Compare this with the Bar Kokhba revolt years 100 years later. Simon bar Kozeba wasa declared as the messiah and led a revolt against the Romans. They established an independent Israel for a couple of years before being crushed by the Romans. They even minted coins which declaring years 1,2 and 3. After the death Simon bar Kozeba's death there was no thought of his being the messiah or anything else. It just ended. Jesus was put to death very publically. When all other messianic wannabes were put to death their movement just ended. Why didn't this one? I believe the answer is because Jesus was resurrected, and that this movement was blessed by the one who created life in the first place. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:05 AM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 60 of 280 (574752)
08-17-2010 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Bikerman
08-17-2010 1:41 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: Philo did indeed write about the Jews. A Jew entering Jerusalem who was greeted by massive crowds worshipping him as the son of God is a pretty newsworthy event. Did Philo even mention it? Nada...not a single word. Conclusion - didn't happen. He didn't write about newsworthy events according to what I read. He wrote about the Jews to the Romans in a way that was intended primarily to keep the Alexandrian Jews safe from persecution. He only visited Jerusalem once in his life, and that would have been at least a decade after the crucifixion. In his life time the early Christians were only a small part of the Jewish community, representing Yahweh in a way that the majority of Jews didn't want to hear. Philo had no reason to write about the resurrection as in all likelihood he wouldn't have believed it in the first place.
Bikerman writes: The rest - 'i can see no reason..;..' is simply an appeal to ignorance. Why did the Christians succeed where other similar cults failed? It just did. The reasons are numerous and complex. Probably the most important would be the Christian dogma asserting that anyone, including Gentiles, could be saved. That created a much larger target for the cult and allowed it to grow more rapidly than the more traditionally based cults which insisted that gentiles were 'not allowed'. But it's all an appeal to ignorance. Neither of us can know conclusively what the truth is. It's true that the Jews weren't evangelistic with their beliefs except among fellow Jews, but there were the religions of the Greeks and Romans that were, in the sense that they had the support of those in power and were even in a position to impose their religion on others. That's where the power was. Compare that to a small band of working class Jews proposing a God that was telling them to deal with the Romans by loving them and turning the other cheek. It was a traitorous message. Part of what forms our acceptance or rejection of this is our belief in how we came to exist at all. I can't muster up sufficient faith to accept that we are here because of some huge cosmic good fortune that allowed for anything to exist at all, to have atoms form and then combine to form complex molecules, to have these combine by good fortune into incredibly complex living cells, to have these cells combine into the animal life that we see today, and then to continue to evolve into sentient beings with consciousness. It seems far more likely to me that there was a pre-existing intelligence behind all of this. With that in mind, it seems far more likely to me that this intelligence would have an on-going interest in how the whole project turned out. If my view is correct then there had to be at least one miracle that occurred at the time of creation. If one miracle has taken place there is no reason to not believe that there could be more miracles. If then that is correct, we have to accept it as possible that the story of the resurrection could be true. Now all we can do is look at what we do know and then it is a leap of faith to either accept it as true or to reject it as false. I have come to the conclusion that based on what I know I am prepared to take a leap of faith and say that I am convinced that it is true, partly based on the argument in favour of the truth of Jesus, partly due to experience and partly due to the fact that Christ's message of love, forgiveness, hope, justice etc. makes so much sense of my life and the world. By the way, thanks again for getting me digging into this stuff. Cheers
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 1:41 PM | | Bikerman has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 63 of 280 (574799)
08-17-2010 9:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Bikerman
08-17-2010 5:15 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: Err..so if we assume you are right, and the Christians were so minor and insignificant, who exactly were the multitude described in the gospels? Eg John tell us I don't know where Barclay got his figures from but this is what is what Time says about the population at the time.
quote:
There is a debate regarding exactly how citified the young Jesus would have been. Excavations of the city of Sepphoris, near Nazareth, reveal a bustling town, suggesting that he may have been less of a country lad than previous scholarship posited. But his native Galilee certainly had nothing to compare with this. Jerusalem was one of the biggest cities between Alexandria and Damascus, with a permanent population of some 80,000. During Passover, Succoth and Shavuoth, the great festivals during which Jews were obligated to make sacrifices at the Temple, between 100,000 and 250,000 visitors (historians differ) would stream down the long city thoroughfare.
Also, according to the gospel accounts it appears that the resurrected Jesus was only seen by the women at the tomb on the Sunday and then in a private room by the apostles during the passover period. All other times were after the passover period. The period when there were crowds greeting him were all before the crucifixion, and who knows how many people it takes to make up a crowd anyway.
Bikerman writes: Doesn't sound minor to me....sounds like the sort of reception a King or conquering hero might receive, and certainly a noteworthy event... but no notes...from ANY source... They were greeting Him as the hoped for messiah who would hopefully lead them against the Romans. That is what a messiah was supposed to do. These crowds were there all before the crucifixion. Once Jesus was crucified it was obvious to all that He wasn't the messiah so there was nothing more to take note of, let alone report.. He had been put to death like all the other hopefuls. There weren't crowds hanging around the cross expecting anything but His permanent demise. Afterwards Jesus appears to have only met with His disciples, other for the one case where he met with 500. I recently read the book Macabees and the whole account was of one war after another. That's the sort of thing they wrote about. Some guy who was crucified and who preached a mesage of peace, love and co-operation was not newsworthy even if there were stories around that he had been resurrected.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 5:15 PM | | Bikerman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 10:31 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
Dr Adequate writes: What was different about Christianity was that it succeeded in becoming the state religion, a position from which it successfully suppressed the alternatives. As you put it: "They had the support of those in power and were even in a position to impose their religion on others. That's where the power was." But that didn't become the case for 350 years. It was nearly 300 years before it was even legalized by Rome. It started out from a very rag tag group of individuals with the exception of Paul. It has to be sustained through all that time and through a great deal of persecution as well. And once again, people were interested in wealth and power and that was not the Christian message. (Certainly over the years the church has perverted that message and used the Christian faith to further national or personal ambition, but that is far from the message that we get from Jesus, or Paul for that matter. ) In spite of all that it did eventually become established broadly throughout the Roman Empire and even beyond. I know I'm sounding like a broken record but look at it this way. Put yourself in the shoes of a Roman citizen. Someone comes and tells you that you should convert to this religion based on the life of a man who was a Jew from Judea. This man was crucified but his followers say he showed up bodily again a couple of days later but in a bodily form that was somehow different. He was a god that washed his disciples feet and said that serving others is something to aspire to. Does that sound like something that would sell? I don't think so but just the same it did. There were all the other religions that you named that had a message that offered strength, power and wealth in a culture that thrived on those things. Once again it makes sense to me that things went the way they did for 2 reasons. First the resurrection of Jesus was an actual historic event and that the church was blessed by God.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 10:52 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 66 of 280 (574834)
08-18-2010 2:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Bikerman
08-17-2010 6:57 PM
|
|
Bikerman writes: There is no faith required. We know what is takes for atoms to form from physics. Chemistry describes how atoms combine to give complex molecules. Experiments show how those molecules form the precursors to RNA. The only 'leap of faith' is to suppose that the precursors to RNA actually combined to form RNA. Not a huge leap by any means, and far less so than presuming some complex intelligence, origin unknown and un-askable, did it all. For someone like myself that has no scientific background I am in awe of the minds of those who have worked out how these things and others have come about. The thing is though, although we may know how, we don't know why atoms or molecules formed. Either it is by random chance or by a designer. Neither can be proved so choosing either option requires a leap of faith.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 6:57 PM | | Bikerman has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
Dr Adequate writes: Ah, the good ol' religious false dichotomy. Chance doesn't come into it.
OK. If not chance then what is it? I keep hearing that evolution happens by natural selection and random chance. I believe that evolution happened by natural selection and design. Why is that a false dichotomy? It's one or the other.
|
™ Version 4.2