Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayco · 07-20-2007, 09:42 PM

I was having a conversation with one of my Christian buddies and I was trying to tell him the resurrection of Jesus Christ more than likely never happened, and this was his response:

Quote:

Why would the story be accepted by so many across all levels of their society as real? The story requires people with wealth to take on responsibilities that their society didn't require of them. The poor were told that their reward was in the future, rather than immediate. Accepting what the Gospel teaches was very likely to result in persecution and suffering. Many of the early Christians, particularly in Israel, were persecuted severely. They could not expect to find gain in their belief if the story was not true. They has no compelling reason beyond it being the truth to accept it.

As for the writers of the Gospel, they committed treason to Rome and the rulers of Jewish society in writing what they wrote. If they did not believe it, they were crazy to write it because the results of their writing placed them at odds with the power that be and the material they wrote only promised them more of the same in the short term. It all boils down to the idea that there is no compelling reason for this to have been recorded and believed by so many unless it is true.

Now, I highly doubt he's done research on any of this -- and was probably spoon-fed it by his preacer -- and I know I've done very little research of my own. In fact, I would absolutely love to know more about the lives of early Christians, especially the immediate generations of the Gospel authors. Any input would be fantastic, thanks a lot.

Toto · 07-21-2007, 12:11 AM

Check these old threads:

How much persecution did the early Christians suffer?

Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity.

GenesisNemesis · 07-21-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Why would the story be accepted by so many across all levels of their society as real? The story requires people with wealth to take on responsibilities that their society didn't require of them. The poor were told that their reward was in the future, rather than immediate. Accepting what the Gospel teaches was very likely to result in persecution and suffering. Many of the early Christians, particularly in Israel, were persecuted severely. They could not expect to find gain in their belief if the story was not true. They has no compelling reason beyond it being the truth to accept it.

As for the writers of the Gospel, they committed treason to Rome and the rulers of Jewish society in writing what they wrote. If they did not believe it, they were crazy to write it because the results of their writing placed them at odds with the power that be and the material they wrote only promised them more of the same in the short term. It all boils down to the idea that there is no compelling reason for this to have been recorded and believed by so many unless it is true.

Isn't this basically saying "why do so many people believe it if it isn't true"?

Axismundi · 07-21-2007, 04:32 AM

Well, it is absolutely known that the first three centuries of Christianity as it existed were actually a huge array of autonomous sects. Many of these groups incorporated this new mythos (that a Jewish carpenter had actually been a divine presence on earth with a "radical" message) into their own beliefs, others adopted it on its own merit. There was no given set of rules or laws or universal dogma regarding these sects. It wasn't until the 300's AD that things began to get organized. That's when your friend's point would come into play, that people read these texts and believed in their validity.

But keep in mind: three hundred years had passed. The primary texts that the early Christians focused upon were the Gospels. Critical scholarship suggests the gospels were written a century after the apparent death of the religion's central figure, even Christians themselves put the writing at around 59-70 AD.

That means that early followers weren't people who saw all this happen, or read it in the paper, or saw it on YouTube. They read it, or more likely heard it, and decided it made sense. It would be like discovering an account of events that happened far from your home, 50-100 years ago. To complicate matters, imagine you discovered several accounts of these alleged events, and they did not coincide with each other all that much. Next, you had to trust some human authority to tell you which accounts were "valid" and actually happened, lending further doubt into the mix. (Not to mention that the human authority that decided on which of the many gospels were "true" did not appear until the 300s.)

So, no, early followers did not see anything. They were just people tired of the status quo, who thought this new cult's religion of peace would help their troubled world. Heh, so much for that.

Magdlyn · 07-21-2007, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Why would the story be accepted by so many across all levels of their society as real? The story requires people with wealth to take on responsibilities that their society didn't require of them.

Such as? It required philanthropy? So, it feels good to give, when it's no skin off your back.

Quote:

The poor were told that their reward was in the future, rather than immediate.

Which contradicts the first statement which implies the rich Xtians giving to the poor ones. Plus, a pie in the sky was better than no pie at all.

Quote:

Accepting what the Gospel teaches was very likely to result in persecution and suffering. Many of the early Christians, particularly in Israel, were persecuted severely.

Some Xtians in and near Rome were persecuted, but the extent has been highly exaggerated (BTW, there were very few Xtians in "Israel" [ie: Judea]. When Jerusalem fell, all Jews [Xtianity would've been seen as one more Jewish sect at the time] were kicked out of it. Xtianity spread in the Diaspora and especially amongst Gentiles.) Martyrdom became a fad. The Romans suggested to the Xtians who were demanding execution to take advantage of a nearby cliff if they were so determined to die.

Quote:

They could not expect to find gain in their belief if the story was not true. They has no compelling reason beyond it being the truth to accept it.

Logic needed:

Believing a wild story to be true, and it being actually true, are 2 different things.

Muslims detonate suicide bombs on a regular basis these days. Is their religion true? More Muslims martyr themselves for their faith now than Xtians. Has Xtianity become untrue and the True Faith of Islam rightfully taken its place?

Quote:

As for the writers of the Gospel, they committed treason to Rome and the rulers of Jewish society in writing what they wrote.

Wrong. The evangelists wrote after Jerusalem fell. They did not "commit treason" to the Jewish state. It had been under Roman rule for some time.

Acts of the Apostles was written to suck up to Rome and make Xtianity seem beneficial and non-threatening to society and the emperor.

Quote:

If they did not believe it, they were crazy to write it because the results of their writing placed them at odds with the power that be.

Wrong, see above. Plus, the evangelists wrote anonymously anyway.

Or, let's say the writers and the believers were all seditious. Are all revolutionaries "crazy?"

angelo · 07-21-2007, 04:57 AM

Not one of the gospel writers was an eyewitness to the events, inc. Paul, the real founder of Christianity. The message of eternal life was a strong incentive for the oppressed people of the time to ingest, and is the reason it found support among the peasants [mainly] The fables and myths were around for hundreds of years before the so called Jesus cult come along. It was only the acceptance by Constantine, [for whatever reason] that Christianity became accepted in the Roman Empire.

Seeker630 · 07-21-2007, 05:14 AM

for Jayco--------

What your friend is doing is what is called the "appeal to the numbers" IE:

X number of people around the world believe it, and many have died for it, so it must be true.

The problem is the exact same thing can be said of other religions. That being the case, then those other religions must also be true, using the same numbers theory---right? But that can't be so because they can't all be correct, and sometimes are diametrically opposed to each other. So how do you determine which one is true, and which are false? Why is one holy book any more credible than any other?

For a long time 10's of millions of people in the U.S. had solid faith in the fact that Saddam Hussein was hiding huge stockpiles of WMD's someplace in Iraq, flying in the face of a complete lack of credible evidence. Why? Because they WANTED to believe it. Not because of any rational, proof-based information. Because the Vice President went on national television and flat out stated that he knew exactly where they were, talking almost like a lunatic about mushroom clouds ----and a lot of people swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

"Dying for their religion" is another one not unique to Christianity. You can bet not one of the 19 bastards responsible for 9/11 were atheistic. Not one. They were Islamic martyrs--------so Islam must be the one true religion-------right? On a daily basis around the world teenaged Muslim boys strap explosives around their waist and then blow themselves into dogfood because of their beliefs-------so that means Islam must be the one true religion-----right? I mean they're dying for it aren't they?.

People can believe a lot of improbable things when guided by superstition, ignorance and fear-------a real powerful combination. Ask your friend the questions I have posed and see what he comes up with then. You might also want to point out that he almost certainly got his religion because of a quirk of geography. Had he been born elsewhere he might just as easily been a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu.

Makes me wonder--------how can parents let their own child do this? What does that say about them? If it's such a good idea why don't they hang a bomb on their own backs and go with the kid?

Johnny Skeptic · 07-21-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayco

I was having a conversation with one of my Christian buddies and I was trying to tell him the resurrection of Jesus Christ more than likely never happened, and this was his response:

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristian

Why would the story be accepted by so many across all levels of their society as real?

More importantly, if God exists, and wants to promote Christianity, why has he withheld evidence that would convince more people to become Christians? In the first century, God could easily have provided evidence to everyone in the world that would have caused far more people to become Christians than was the case. As it was, Christianity was spread entirely by human effort according the prevailing means of communciation, transportation, printing, and translation, which is a strange way indeed for God to spread the supposedly most important message ever told and written. Is the spreading of the Gospel message not much more important than the spreading of a cure for a disease? In God's opinion, obviously not since there is not any credible evidence that he has ever personally told anyone about the Gospel message. In addition, it is obvious that God is not much interested in the timely devolpment of the discoveries of cures for diseases. Is there anything that God is much interested in? Well, we can be sure that he is interested in withholding helpful evidence.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Jesus had gone to Rome and performed miracles in front of the Emperor and his entire court, and in front of everyone in Rome? If some miracles are beneficial, then surely a lot more miracles are a lot more beneficial. If Jesus performed miracles, why did he perform them? If he appeared to some people after he rose from the dead, why did he do that?

Roger Pearse · 07-21-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axismundi

Well, it is absolutely known that the first three centuries of Christianity as it existed were actually a huge array of autonomous sects. Many of these groups incorporated this new mythos (that a Jewish carpenter had actually been a divine presence on earth with a "radical" message) into their own beliefs, others adopted it on its own merit. There was no given set of rules or laws or universal dogma regarding these sects.

Do the letters of Ignatius agree with this, tho? Does Irenaeus? Does Tertullian? Does Cyprian?

I suspect that you've been misled by some not very honest revisionist. The existence of heretics can hardly demonstrate the non-existence of non-heretics.

Quote:

It wasn't until the 300's AD that things began to get organized.

Again, are you sure about this? On what do you base this?

Quote:

But keep in mind: three hundred years had passed. The primary texts that the early Christians focused upon were the Gospels.

On what ancient statements is this based? Or (in fairness) perhaps you are repeating someone here, in good faith; but if so, who?

Quote:

Critical scholarship suggests the gospels were written a century after the apparent death of the religion's central figure,

The gospels were written from 130 on, you say? Can I ask whether you can say which modern scholars assert this? What evidence is there that this date is the consensus of "critical scholarship"?

I really believe that you've been tangoed here by some source that you've read. Most of this isn't based in any important respect on the historical record.

(I've not seen what the thread is about; I'm merely commenting on these points of detail).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon · 07-21-2007, 05:57 AM

"why is it not true if so many people believe it ?":wave:

The earth was flat, some centuries ago...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-21-2007, 12:11 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Check these old threads: How much persecution did the early Christians suffer? Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity.

07-21-2007, 04:32 AM	#4
Axismundi Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Brunswick, NJ Posts: 39	Well, it is absolutely known that the first three centuries of Christianity as it existed were actually a huge array of autonomous sects. Many of these groups incorporated this new mythos (that a Jewish carpenter had actually been a divine presence on earth with a "radical" message) into their own beliefs, others adopted it on its own merit. There was no given set of rules or laws or universal dogma regarding these sects. It wasn't until the 300's AD that things began to get organized. That's when your friend's point would come into play, that people read these texts and believed in their validity. But keep in mind: three hundred years had passed. The primary texts that the early Christians focused upon were the Gospels. Critical scholarship suggests the gospels were written a century after the apparent death of the religion's central figure, even Christians themselves put the writing at around 59-70 AD. That means that early followers weren't people who saw all this happen, or read it in the paper, or saw it on YouTube. They read it, or more likely heard it, and decided it made sense. It would be like discovering an account of events that happened far from your home, 50-100 years ago. To complicate matters, imagine you discovered several accounts of these alleged events, and they did not coincide with each other all that much. Next, you had to trust some human authority to tell you which accounts were "valid" and actually happened, lending further doubt into the mix. (Not to mention that the human authority that decided on which of the many gospels were "true" did not appear until the 300s.) So, no, early followers did not see anything. They were just people tired of the status quo, who thought this new cult's religion of peace would help their troubled world. Heh, so much for that.

07-21-2007, 04:57 AM	#6
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Not one of the gospel writers was an eyewitness to the events, inc. Paul, the real founder of Christianity. The message of eternal life was a strong incentive for the oppressed people of the time to ingest, and is the reason it found support among the peasants [mainly] The fables and myths were around for hundreds of years before the so called Jesus cult come along. It was only the acceptance by Constantine, [for whatever reason] that Christianity became accepted in the Roman Empire.

07-21-2007, 05:14 AM	#7
Seeker630 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: North America Posts: 1,624	for Jayco-------- What your friend is doing is what is called the "appeal to the numbers" IE: X number of people around the world believe it, and many have died for it, so it must be true. The problem is the exact same thing can be said of other religions. That being the case, then those other religions must also be true, using the same numbers theory---right? But that can't be so because they can't all be correct, and sometimes are diametrically opposed to each other. So how do you determine which one is true, and which are false? Why is one holy book any more credible than any other? For a long time 10's of millions of people in the U.S. had solid faith in the fact that Saddam Hussein was hiding huge stockpiles of WMD's someplace in Iraq, flying in the face of a complete lack of credible evidence. Why? Because they WANTED to believe it. Not because of any rational, proof-based information. Because the Vice President went on national television and flat out stated that he knew exactly where they were, talking almost like a lunatic about mushroom clouds ----and a lot of people swallowed it hook, line and sinker. "Dying for their religion" is another one not unique to Christianity. You can bet not one of the 19 bastards responsible for 9/11 were atheistic. Not one. They were Islamic martyrs--------so Islam must be the one true religion-------right? On a daily basis around the world teenaged Muslim boys strap explosives around their waist and then blow themselves into dogfood because of their beliefs-------so that means Islam must be the one true religion-----right? I mean they're dying for it aren't they?. People can believe a lot of improbable things when guided by superstition, ignorance and fear-------a real powerful combination. Ask your friend the questions I have posed and see what he comes up with then. You might also want to point out that he almost certainly got his religion because of a quirk of geography. Had he been born elsewhere he might just as easily been a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu. Makes me wonder--------how can parents let their own child do this? What does that say about them? If it's such a good idea why don't they hang a bomb on their own backs and go with the kid?

07-21-2007, 05:57 AM	#10
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	"why is it not true if so many people believe it ?":wave: The earth was flat, some centuries ago...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.