Kosh

Exactly. Chrisitianity didn't "take over"
the Roman Empire. In fact, it was still
insignificant. It converted the leader, who
then forced it down the throats of the
Roman Empire.

BIG difference.

Using this analogy we would have had to
conclude that Communism was the right way
since there were so many "communists" in
the Soviet Union... or simply that many were
being forced to follow the ideology (as
we later found out to be true).

lpetrich

Nomad:
And still we do not have an argument being made. Now I hope Dennis better understands why I thought he was not being serious in this post. Is it his contention that "they just made it up"? If so, then he sees the rise of Christianity as nothing more than active promotion of lies. This strikes me as both unlikely, and implausible, yet it is the best that he has to offer.

LP:
However, the same argument can be made in defense of other religions -- religions who sacred books Nomad considers made-up, such as Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology. Nomad has gone on record in this thread as claiming that the Koran was made up by Mohammed and his followers, and I'm sure that he also believes that the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, that the book Science and Health was made up by Mary Baker Eddy, that the book Divine Principle was made up by Sun Myung Moon, and that the book Dianetics was made up by L. Ron Hubbard.

And if one is willing to impute suspicious motives to Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Sun Myung Moon, and L. Ron Hubbard, then why let the early Christians off the hook?

Dennis:
Nor do we have eyewitness accounts.

Nomad:
You appear to have the same problem here as did eh. Paul is an eye witness. So is John. Peter and the disciples and the 500 were eye witnesses. If you have evidence that leads you to reject that any of these people existed, then please offer it.
quote:

LP:
Paul and that supposed 500 were all vision-witnesses; Paul never claimed to have known of a human Jesus Christ with the career described in the Gospels.

Also, it's generally thought that Gospels were written well after the fact, at 70 CE at the earliest, meaning that they were not eyewitness accounts.

Dennis:
Nor was there anything particular remarkable about growth of the Christian church for the first three centuries. Christianity remained a minor religion, rejected by the one people who were truly in a position to judge it, the Jews.

Nomad:
And here I can only assume that you have already forgotten what I have told you in previous posts. By the end of the 2nd Century Christianity was considered to be one of the major religions in the Roman Empire. Even before this it was drawing considerable attention, especially in the East.

LP:
Christianity was far from alone in being a cult that spread far and wide in the Empire; consider cults like Mithraism, the Isis cult, and the Apollonius of Tyana cult.

And its celebration of a dying and rising god, Jesus Christ, made it much like the numerous cults of dying and rising gods that were practiced in the Empire.

Nomad:
... All that we know is what DID happen, and in the span of less than 300 years Christianity went from a small religious sect within Judaism, to taking over the greatest Empire in the hisory of the Western World.

LP:
However, Islam and Buddhism had had similar amounts of spreading; does this mean that Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are all equally true?

GunnerJ

turtonm-

I'd also like to point out Nomad's accusation of "pretty thin stuff" is the most hilarious irony I've ever seen. Why does he assume that the idea of a man being killed and then magically coming back to life is "thicker" and a more plausible explaination of the success of the Xian cult? Just about any tale that doesn't appeal to the supernatural has better explainatory power.

lpetrich- see above. "Unlikely" and "implausible?" Is Nomad talking about Christ's ressurection as an historical fact?

[Edited to ass second part]

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]

Sauron

"Virtually all"?

Overstating your case again, Nomad. Tsk, tsk.

The principal Olympian gods were split 7 to 5, between male and female.

(m) Zeus - Fate, Kingship, Weather
(f) Hera - Women, Marriage, Childbirth
(m) Poseidon - The Sea, Horses, Earthquakes, Rivers
(f) Demeter - Agriculture, The Afterlife
(f) Athene - Crafts, Counsel
(m) Hephaistos - Metalworking, Fire
(m) Ares - War
(f) Aphrodite - Love, Sex
(m) Apollon - Music, Prophecy, Healing & Disease
(f) Artemis - Hunting, Wilderness, Children
(m) Hermes - Travel, Trade, Livestock
(m) Dionysos - Wine, Madness, The Afterlife

7 to 5 is hardly the same as "virtually all" male.

Sauron

Still kicking this theory around, Nomad?

For those of you who don't know, last spring/summer Nomad (taking his cue from some xtian writer) tried to claim that the rapid rise of xtianity in the Roman Empire demonstrated something about the veracity of its claims. He was soundly pummeled for making such a connection, and for not being able to answer the objections that others raised to such a preposterous claim.

But now, a little time has gone by. And what do we see?

Evidently he's dusting off this old hobbyhorse, and is preparing to ride it for us again.

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

Family Man

I'm grateful for Nomad's reply, for I needed a good laugh. Others have already made my arguments for me (thank you everyone) so my comments will be brief.

First, the idea that people in the first century were credulous isn't unsupported. The point of bringing up credulousness in today's society was simply to show that it is universal condition. Surely Nomad isn't suggesting that people in the 1st Century were totally rational people who wouldn't accept an idea unless it was thoroughly investigated.

Most tellingly, Nomad blithely dismisses the notion that dreams and visions were important means that ancient people interpreted their lives. There are several examples of this in the Bible, and I've even provided a Christian scholar, E.P. Sanders, who baldly stated in his book on the historical Jesus that much of the New Testament stories weren't true, not because people were lying (please don't twist my words, Nomad), but because they believed their dreams and visions were true. Nor is Sanders the only NT scholar to advance this theory; he is simply the one I'm most familiar with.

In short, Nomad, my contention that the resurrection story probably got started as a result of a vision is fully supported by logic, by common sense, and by historical evidence. Your failure to recognize that only drives the fair-minded to conclude that you're a bit blind when it comes to this issue.

Finally, eyewitness testimony means we get the information directly from the people who saw the event, in this case the events surrounding the aftermath of the crucifixtion. Paul isn't an eyewitness; he merely claims to have seen Jesus years afterward. All of your other "eyewitnesses" never wrote a word; it is all filtered through second-hand sources.

For someone who appears to be educated, your failure to recognize the most basic rules of evidence is astonishing.

So no, Nomad, I don't see why you ignore the obvious. Apparently, nor can anyone else. I'm not saying any of this proves the resurrection didn't occur, but it certainly blows a hole in your favorite argument that if we can't come up with a plausible alternative it must have occurred.

So, unless you can come up with a more effective counterargument, because to date all you've done is to demonstrate your inability to judge evidence properly, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

Sauron

"Widely rejected in scholarly circles"? Evidently not. Britannica, on Osiris:

Varieties of salvation in world religions

Ancient Egypt
The Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt provide the earliest evidence of man's quest for salvation. They reveal that by about 2400 BC a complex soteriology connected with the divine kingship of the pharaohs had been established in Egypt. This soteriology was gradually developed in concept and ritual practice and was popularized; i.e., the original royal privilege was gradually extended to all of the classes of society, until by about 1400 BC it had become an elaborate mortuary cult through which all who could afford its cost could hope to partake of the salvation it offered. This salvation concerned three aspects of postmortem existence, as imagined by the ancient Egyptians, and, in the concept of Osiris, it involved the earliest instance of a saviour-god. An elaborate ritual of embalmment was designed to save the corpse from decomposition and restore its faculties so that it could live in a well-equipped tomb. This ritual imitated the acts that were believed to have been performed by the gods to preserve the body of Osiris, with whom the deceased was ritually assimilated. The next concern was to resurrect the embalmed body of the dead person, as Osiris had been resurrected to a new life after death. Having thus been saved from the consequences of death, the revivified dead had to undergo a judgment (presided over by Osiris) on the moral quality of his life on earth. In this ordeal, the deceased could be saved from an awful second death only by personal integrity. If he safely passed the test, he was declared maa kheru ("true of voice") and was admitted to the beatitude of the realm over which Osiris reigned.

This Osirian mortuary cult, with its promise of postmortem salvation, was practiced from about 2400 BC until its suppression in the Christian Era. In some respects, it constitutes a prototype of Christianity as a salvation religion.

Bill

When assessing the "rapid rise" of belief in Christianity within the Roman Empire, one should never forget that, at the time that Constantine converted to Christianity, the bulk of his equestrian followers (who made up the bulk of the Roman legions) believed in Mithraism. And Mithraism was so close to Christianity as to be virtually the same religion (at least, for the lesser educated). In fact, many would assert that much of the dogma of Christianity was actually imported from Mithraism sometime during the first or second centuries (or maybe even the third century, depending upon what evidence you might wish to consider).

When considered in view of Mithraism, the "rapid conversion" of the Empire to Christianity isn't all that remarkable after all.

== Bill

lpetrich

Although Christianity had likely borrowed a fair amount from Mithraism, the two were nevertheless distinct. Mithraism was male-only, required that one be initiated with some sort of hazing, was far from being a Jewish heresy, and was non-exclusivist.

joedad

Nomad,

I'm not going to go back and address every point in your reply. Thanks for the virgin birth corrections.

I do find it interesting in your reply, however, your inability - perhaps unwillingness - to connect the appearance of another religious sect with the historical presence of supernaturalism, religion, and myth in all human cultures and at all levels.

You must also remember that christianity has enjoyed fifteen centuries of state sponsorship, often used to exterminate the competition. Very useful that way. That fact alone needs to be calculated into your thinking.

Other than as just another human invention to augment personal and collective survival, religion and myth are without utility. But that does not mean that their stories cannot also be interesting, engaging, beautiful, moving, emotional, enjoyable, and a window into our pasts. Santas for the adults, very attractive and satisfying.

joe