Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-25-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And if a HJ did perform miracles it doesn't follow that the demographics of early Christians would've been any different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I'm proposing you need to look into the sociological pressures which makes it difficult for a conversion to take place in different societies. For the Jews in the first century accepting Christ would hypothetically entail great difficult, lack of status, being outcast from the synagogue/community, persecution etc.

On the contrary, in "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark says that Christianity was "a bargain" for a number of reasons. If you have the book, you either did not read all of it, or you did not understand what you read.

I'm having trouble understanding the following from the book, could you please explain?

Quote:

In my judgment it was the martyrs of the sixties who eased the crisis of failed prophecy and small numbers, by adding their suffering to that of Jesus as proof of atonement. In the context of this chapter's earlier discussion of credibility, it seems appropriate to ask how much more credible witnesses could be found than those who demonstrate the worth of a faith by embracing torture and death. . . It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging, Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact a bargain.

The rise of Christianity: a sociologist reconsiders history
By Rodney Stark

Toto · 02-25-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
I'm having trouble understanding the following from the book, could you please explain?

...

IMHO -

Sociologists of religion look at society, and assume that if something exists, it must have a function, some payback. Otherwise it would die out. There is an underlying assumption that people are smart enough to know their own interests and to follow them.

So Stark and other sociologists of religion see that religions that require the most of their followers - mutiliating the body, semi-starvation, etc. - seem to be the most successful, while easy going religions like Unitarianism are not doing so well these days. Their explanation is that the sacrifices that a religion might require are part of the mechanism for creating group cohesion.

Stark actually has no evidence of Christian martyrdom, and no interviews with early Christians that showed how successful it was, or not. He's just working from a model that says that is how things work.

Actual empirical evidence shows that people often do not know their own best interests and do all sorts of outrightly stupid things, repeatedly. But that's another subject.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I'm having trouble understanding the following from the book, could you please explain?

Quote:

"In my judgment it was the martyrs of the sixties who eased the crisis of failed prophecy and small numbers, by adding their suffering to that of Jesus as proof of atonement. In the context of this chapter's earlier discussion of credibility, it seems appropriate to ask how much more credible witnesses could be found than those who demonstrate the worth of a faith by embracing torture and death.......It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging, Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact a bargain."

Sure, after you explain the following:

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey...istianity.html

The Rise of Christianity
by Rodney Stark - published by Princeton University Press, 1996

A Book Review by Father John McCloskey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Father John McCloskey

The author [Rodney Stark] goes on to ask a further question, "How could a rational person accept grotesque torture and death in exchange for risky, intangible religious rewards?" The answer he gives is the sensible one although not necessarily the one that one would want or expect. "First of all, many early Christians probably could not have done so, and some are known to have recanted when the situation arose. Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred.......There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecutions occurred, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out." Thus according to Stark and other sociologists, only some thousands were martyred over the course of two and one-half centuries and not the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are sometimes claimed by enthusiastic Christian historians.

After you reply to that, and after you explain why there was a crisis of failed prophecy, we can discuss what motivated Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and what motivates Muslim terrorists.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.......why wouldn't Jews in the first century reject miracles by simply attributing them to demonic forces or simply claiming that the witnesses to these miracles were inebriated/hallucinating?

If Moses performed many miracles in Egypt, why would any Jew complain if Jesus performed miracles too?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2010, 02:16 PM

Message to arnoldo: If as the New Testament claims, Jesus actually performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and performed many miracles that the texts did not mention, he would have easily been a unique man in human history, his miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would have become a big celebrity throughout not only Palestine, but also throughout the Middle East and beyond. Josephus would have been all over those claims like a dog on a steak bone, but he wasn't, and neither were any other first century historians, which indicates that the claims were not circulating during the time of Jesus, and were made up later, perhaps decades later. No one can make a good case for Christianity without providing reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

Christianity, Mormonism, and all other religions that have books grew for secular reasons, some that are well understood, and some that are not well understood.

How could a religious book be adequately understood over thousands of years of human social evolution? Christians have even killed each other over arguments about interpretation. The majority of Christians used to endorse slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, but now they don't because of secular human social evolution. What did the Bible do to help prevent those wrong beliefs? If a God exists, surely he could communicate with people much more effectively by means of telepathy and/or verbal messages than with a book.

arnoldo · 02-25-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If as the New Testament claims, Jesus actually performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and performed many miracles that the texts did not mention, he would have easily been a unique man in human history, his miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would have become a big celebrity throughout not only Palestine, but also throughout the Middle East and beyond. Josephus would have been all over those claims like a dog on a steak bone, but he wasn't, and neither were any other first century historians, which indicates that the claims were not circulating during the time of Jesus, and were made up later, perhaps decades later. No one can make a good case for Christianity without providing reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

Nobody can provide absolute evidence that Peter performed the following miracles also;

Quote:

Acts 3:7 says that Peter cured a lame beggar at the beginning of his missionary career. This led to many converting to Christianity. People were even cured when Peter's shadow happened to pass over them (Acts 5:15-16).
According to Acts 9:36, Peter resurrected Tabitha, a good woman and a disciple, who was certainly dead and her body had already been washed. This miracle became known throughout Joppa and, as a result, many were converted.
A double miracle was the killing of Ananias and his wife (Acts 5:1ff). Ananias had sold all his property, but lied about giving all the proceeds to Peter. He fell dead when Peter confronted him with the deceit. Later, just by telling the wife she would die, Sapphira fell dead as well.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_three..._Peter_perform

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Christianity, Mormonism, and all other religions that have books grew for secular reasons, some that are well understood, and some that are not well understood. .

Christianity existed before the creation of the NT writings while Mormonism was created after the Book of Mormon was published. If you disagree when do you think was the earliest date that any particular writing in the NT was written?

andrewcriddle · 02-25-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:24 says

Quote:

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

This was most probably a punishment inflicted on Paul for being (allegedly) disruptive in synagogue.

Andrew Criddle

Is this a recorded punishment for misconduct?

39 strokes is laid down as the appropriate maximum for corporal punishment in Mishnah tractate Makkot 3:10. (On the basis of a lenient reading of Deuteronomy 25:2-3 which at face value gives a maximum of forty.)

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 02-25-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is this a recorded punishment for misconduct?

39 strokes is laid down as the appropriate maximum for corporal punishment in Mishnah tractate Makkot 3:10. (On the basis of a lenient reading of Deuteronomy 25:2-3 which at face value gives a maximum of forty.)

Andrew Criddle

But there is no indication that this is an appropriate punishment for "disruption" :huh:

andrewcriddle · 02-25-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

39 strokes is laid down as the appropriate maximum for corporal punishment in Mishnah tractate Makkot 3:10. (On the basis of a lenient reading of Deuteronomy 25:2-3 which at face value gives a maximum of forty.)

Andrew Criddle

But there is no indication that this is an appropriate punishment for "disruption" :huh:

You are quite right that it is not made clear why Paul was beaten.

However many of the possible options (such as various offences against ritual purity) seem unlikely to be involved and there is reference in Tosefta Makkot 4:17 to floggings for contempt of an official ruling.

If Paul was ordered by a synagogue leader to be quiet and kept on preaching regardless, then this might end with him being flogged for rebellion against the synagogue authorities.

Andrew Criddle

arnoldo · 02-25-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.......why wouldn't Jews in the first century reject miracles by simply attributing them to demonic forces or simply claiming that the witnesses to these miracles were inebriated/hallucinating?

If Moses performed many miracles in Egypt. . . ,

The jews complained to Moses about the harsh conditions they were experiencing, some wanted to go back to Egypt, or replace Moses with another leader altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

. . .why would any Jew complain if Jesus performed miracles too?

He refused to perform miracles/signs for certain jews who only wanted to see signs/miracles ;

Quote:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. . . A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Matthew 16:1-4

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

02-25-2010, 02:16 PM	#45
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: If as the New Testament claims, Jesus actually performed many miracles in Jerusalem, and throughout all of Galilee, and throughout all of Syria, and performed many miracles that the texts did not mention, he would have easily been a unique man in human history, his miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would have become a big celebrity throughout not only Palestine, but also throughout the Middle East and beyond. Josephus would have been all over those claims like a dog on a steak bone, but he wasn't, and neither were any other first century historians, which indicates that the claims were not circulating during the time of Jesus, and were made up later, perhaps decades later. No one can make a good case for Christianity without providing reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles. Christianity, Mormonism, and all other religions that have books grew for secular reasons, some that are well understood, and some that are not well understood. How could a religious book be adequately understood over thousands of years of human social evolution? Christians have even killed each other over arguments about interpretation. The majority of Christians used to endorse slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, but now they don't because of secular human social evolution. What did the Bible do to help prevent those wrong beliefs? If a God exists, surely he could communicate with people much more effectively by means of telepathy and/or verbal messages than with a book.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.