Johnny Skeptic

Upon what evidence did early Christians conclude that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind? No human could possibly verify any of those claims, and without reasonable proof of those claims, Christianity is not valid. The eventual "success" of Christianity does not prove anything, nor would the probable eventual "success" of Islam prove anything if it were to one day become the world's largest religion. I am sure that you have heard of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, which basically says that the truth does not depend upon how many people believe it. Galileo would tell you that the truth does not depend upon how many people believe it.

If a moral God exists, he would not depend upon inept humans to advertise his existence and will according to the grossly inefficient prevailing human means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. He would personally take care of doing his own advertising in a timely fashion, and he would personally advertise his existence and will to everyone in every generation. It that doesn't happen, then the result is what we have had during human history, which is many religions, many worldviews, hatred and wars among Christians, and a world that it in constant chaos, all caused by a God who refuses to do his own advertising in person to everyone in every generation, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Chili

You are right that Christianity is not a valid religion.

Jesus died for the sins of his world and told us to do the same for the sins of our world before we become Christian.

spamandham

Why would we take seriously 2000 year old stories of people rising from the dead?

Libanius

Why would we take seriously 2000 year old stories of people rising from the dead?

There, that is better for me. People do not rise from the dead. People don't cure dead people. The FSM, and the unicorn, Santa...it IS appropriate to compare Jehovah/Jesus, or any god/gods to these entities.

When people report they had a vision of Jesus that should be taken seriously, it is time to discard anything that person says. Honestly, how can anyone take Paul seriously?

Jane H

Thank you for your comments.

Spamandham/Libanius- by using appropriate historical tools, we can establish some historical occurrences to a very high degree of probability. That Nero was an emperor of the Roman Empire is a statement that generally passes unchallenged, but which is contemporary to the events we are considering. So 2000 years is not the issue per se. I can only apologise for my dense and poorly explained posts, if the historical methodology I am using is unclear.

Johnny Skeptic- again agreement!!! The early success of Christianity proves nothing- as you said in post 30, there are sociological explanations. My analysis goes back before that time, to the unprecedented change in understanding of the nature of resurrection, the action of the expected Messiah, and the meaning of the Kingdom of God.

Indeed, although your comments in the last paragraph lead more to a PoE philosophical type discussion than the historical viewpoint I’m looking to examine, they do link to an idea developed by Dom Crossan in the last couple of years. From within Jewish belief, after the resurrection, the first Christians developed the notion of collaborative eschatology. That is to say it is Christians need to work in God’s power to implement the victory Jesus won. Basically, God’s cleanup of the world has begun, through Jesus resurrection, and we need to get on and participate in it. We need to transform the present in the light of the future resurrection.

The framing of collaborative eschatology came about after Jesus resurrection, and for obvious reasons couldn’t be framed without it.

Libanius

Jane, historical tools (a book) can assert miracles, but asserting miracles occurred does not establish they occurred. I don't care that you believe people rose from the dead and are god, in 3 parts no less, but it is wishful thinking, at best. People do not rise from being dead. People do not cure others once they are dead. Am I being unreasonable making that statement? Historical methodology has nothing to do with biological processes.

spamandham

I'm not going to argue how good our tools are at establishing ordinary historical facts.

Regardless of how good they may prove for that purpose, they have never been demonstrated to accurately establish outlandish historical claims. The claim that someone rose from the dead is not adequately established by any historical tools we have at our disposal.

If we accept that Jesus rose from the dead, based merely on claims to that extent in some ancient texts, we are then obliged to accept that Horus raised Osiris from the dead, and that Appolonius raised several people from the dead. We are obliged to believe that Pythagorus, Plato, Alexander the Great, and many others were immaculately conceived.

Isn't the simpler explanation simply that ancient people believed this sort of thing, and so authors could get away with these wild claims?

Libanius

I am having a very hard time understanding that sentence. A victory for Christians or Jesus? Does proclaiming Jesus as savior enable one to 'work in God's power'? Is this more of a function of the Holy Spirit?

How long exactly do you think it takes God to clean up the world? Two millienia has past since the promise the second coming would be forthcoming to the people listening to Jesus. It's a big world to clean, I admit, but God? 2000 years? The project is suffering from neglect, I think.

That is scary unless you intend to spend your life on a Mother Theresa type trip. I am quite sick of busy christians trying to transform the present.

Men do not rise from the dead. If he is not dead, there was not much of a sacrifice. A victory in Jesus' terms would be more along the lines of casting the Romans out of Israel, in my opinion. This he could have easily done with his alleged powers. That would have sealed the deal for jews and gentiles alike.

Jane H

Thank you again for your comments.

For many of you, the history vs. biology/ Hume miracles issue is crucial, as I accept. As in post 33, it’s one I wish to postpone, for now, as it is simply too important to do alongside something else.

Libanius- 1) the victory is/was Jesus'; the present power is God’s through the Spirit, if I understand your question. 2) The ‘cleaning job’ will never be finished; as with all cleaning jobs, as soon as you clear up one area, someone makes a mess in another. 3) Are you opposed to things like “Make Poverty History” which I won’t apologise for; or are you opposed to some of the ‘transformations’ attempted by some of the more excitable 'saved ones' in certain sorts of churches, in which case you have my support?

4) You’re doing Johnny Skeptic’s thing now! Again, I agree, and again this is the theme I have been trying to stress. Before Jesus ministry began, the messianic expectation was precisely that of a King who would throw out the pagans, establish God’s kingdom in Israel, and establish true religious praxis. (A bit of a simplification of the diversity, but it’ll do). Along comes Jesus, who says that’s not wrong, but not right either. ‘Victory then peace’, the inauguration of God’s kingdom, and the Messiah’s action are all happening, was his message, but it looks very different to what you’re all expecting. It looks like the blind seeing, the pariahs welcome and “Line on the left. One cross each.”

Now this completely radical interpretation came out of the blue, and on Easter Saturday it was heading back there. A dead Messiah means a wrong Messiah. Something happened which said to the disciples “No, he MUST have been right”.

spamandham

According to Robert Price, this isn't exactly true. There were several people running around claiming to be messiah's, but there was not a unified expectation of a messiah anything like what modern Christianity tends to portray. The expectation was for the political resoration of the nation of Israel, which would of course require a king, but not a kingdom headed by god. That's an anachronism.