Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GenesisNemesis · 08-20-2012, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I think it could have happened that way but I don't see such a made up story to have caught on with others without some other factors.

You should read up on group conformity, then.

TedM · 08-20-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I think it could have happened that way but I don't see such a made up story to have caught on with others without some other factors.

You should read up on group conformity, then.

Perhaps I should. I would assume that in a situation of group conformity there are certain beliefs that the members hold in common. I would think the same would hold for those believing someone had been resurrected. People are not sheep. I don't hold as low an opinion of humanity as you seem to. Something more than a simple claim would have had to exist in order for such an extraordinary claim to have been believed by those that did not know Jesus. And if people became martyrs early on, I would think those subject to persecution would have required a lot more than a claim in order to retain their belief in the face of death. The degree of respect for their leader surely was a factor, for example.

aa5874 · 08-20-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Perhaps I should. I would assume that in a situation of group conformity there are certain beliefs that the members hold in common. I would think the same would hold for those believing someone had been resurrected. People are not sheep. I don't hold as low an opinion of humanity as you seem to. Something more than a simple claim would have had to exist in order for such an extraordinary claim to have been believed by those that did not know Jesus. And if people became martyrs early on, I would think those subject to persecution would have required a lot more than a claim in order to retain their belief in the face of death. The degree of respect for their leader surely was a factor, for example.

If we are dealing with the Jesus character and story then we must at least read what is found in the stories themselves and avoid presumptions.

In the NT, in the short gMark, the disciples of Jesus had abandoned him when he was arrested and Peter had Denied knowing Jesus.

gMark's Jesus did NOT start any new religion. gMark's Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any religion or salvation by crucifixion or resurrection.

It is NOT what we imagine but what is ACTUALLY written.

Whether Jesus lived or NOT we have the Short gMark and it shows that the disciples of Jesus did NOT even understand Jesus when he TAUGHT them about the Resurrection.

Sinaiticus Mark 9

Quote:

31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

The crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in the short gMark was NOT of any signifcance to the disciples.

If Jesus was an actual human being and was Crucified he would NOT have resurrected any way.

No matter if we PRESUME Jesus did exist the story just does NOT make much sense because the very Resurrection destroys the claim that Jesus really died.

outhouse · 08-20-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

And you do? WHy do you say this? There are decent arguments to support a tradition back to the Matthew and Peter (via Mark). And there are decent arguments supporting the author of John as part of the inner circle, so I'm not sure why you have such a strong conviction on this one.

im sorry your ignorant on this topic.

the gospels were written to a roman audience, by romans who followed judism but were not jews. this is not up for debate

Quote:

Jews and Christians were in Rome

facepalm

there were no such thing as christians when the gospels were written.

you dont have a clue what the history was like in the first century, and you have no clue about the movement that slowly evolved into christianity.

jesus and his few followers were jews, teaching jews, NOT romans, they hated romans and the roman infection in the temple.

romans stole the movement, after it failed in judaism. paul started this as he was a roman citizen and we dont even know how jewish he really was.

no use getting into details your not following or even attempting to want to learn real history

best lesson you can take now, is learn the difference between biblical jesus and historical jesus.

outhouse · 08-20-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

So, Pilate caved to strong demands by the Jewish, and he wasn't particularly concerned with following the Roman law.

Absurd

GenesisNemesis · 08-20-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

People are not sheep. I don't hold as low an opinion of humanity as you seem to. Something more than a simple claim would have had to exist in order for such an extraordinary claim to have been believed by those that did not know Jesus.

... Yes they are. There is much evidence throughout history I can point to that demonstrates people are very likely to engage in self-deception, and be suspect to deception.

TedM · 08-20-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

And you do? WHy do you say this? There are decent arguments to support a tradition back to the Matthew and Peter (via Mark). And there are decent arguments supporting the author of John as part of the inner circle, so I'm not sure why you have such a strong conviction on this one.

im sorry your ignorant on this topic.

the gospels were written to a roman audience, by romans who followed judism but were not jews. this is not up for debate

Of course it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Quote:

Luke presupposes a knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish history (1:7; 4:38; 9:9-10 & 9:28-36).[41] In fact, “Luke perceives himself to be a Jew.”[42] Finally, Rebecca Denova concludes her book with these words: “Luke-Acts, we may conclude on the basis of a narrative-critical reading, was written by a Jew to persuade other Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah of Scripture and that the words of the prophets concerning ‘restoration’ have been ‘fulfilled.’”[43] Finally it should be noted that Strelan in 2008 not only concluded that Theophilus was Jewish but also that Luke was a priest.[44]

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Jews and Christians were in Rome

there were no such thing as christians when the gospels were written.you dont have a clue what the history was like in the first century, and you have no clue about the movement that slowly evolved into christianity.

jesus and his few followers were jews, teaching jews, NOT romans, they hated romans and the roman infection in the temple.

romans stole the movement, after it failed in judaism. paul started this as he was a roman citizen and we dont even know how jewish he really was.

no use getting into details your not following or even attempting to want to learn real history

Read this and get back to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans

Quote:

The Church in Rome
Main article: Textual criticism
See also: Early centers of Christianity#Rome

The most probable ancient account of the beginning of Christianity in Rome is given by a 4th century writer known as Ambrosiaster:[13]

It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the Apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law [Torah] … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith, because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any of the apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ, although according to a Jewish rite.[14]

From Adam Clarke:

The occasion of writing the epistle: … Paul had made acquaintance with all circumstances of the Christians at Rome … and finding that it was … partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews, who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentiles to equal privileges with the Jews, and from absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims, unless the Gentile converts become circumcised; he wrote this epistle to adjust and settle these differences.[15]

At this time, the Jews made up a substantial number in Rome, and their synagogues, frequented by many, enabled the Gentiles to become acquainted with the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles was formed at Rome. According to Irenaeus, a 2nd century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.[16] However, many modern scholars disagree with Irenaeus, holding that while little is known of the circumstances of the church's founding, it was not founded by Paul.[17]

Many of the brethren went out to meet Paul on his approach to Rome. There is evidence that Christians were then in Rome in considerable numbers and probably had more than one place of meeting.[Rom 16:14-15]

Jews were expelled from Rome because of Christian disturbances around AD 49 by the edict of Claudius.[Acts 18:2] [18] The conflict developed because Jewish Christians and Jews argued with one another over the validity of Jesus as the Messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus. Both Jews and Jewish Christians were expelled as a result of their infighting.[19] The majority of people left in the Christian church at Rome would have been Gentile Christians. These gentile churches developed along a different trajectory from the Christian circles that grew out of Jewish synagogues.[19]

Claudius died around the year AD 54, and his successor, Emperor Nero, allowed the Jews back into Rome, but then, after the Great Fire of Rome of 64, persecuted the Christians. Gentile Christians may have developed a dislike of or looked down on Jews (see also Antisemitism and Responsibility for the death of Jesus), because they theologically rationalized that Jews were no longer God's people.[20] Fitzmyer argues that with the return of the Jews to Rome in 54 new conflict arose between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians who had formerly been expelled.[21] Historians question whether the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in 96 (Jews paid the tax, Christians did not).

The Roman church would have to accept that the gospel was for the "Jew first and also to the Greek."[Rom 1:16]

TedM · 08-20-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

So, Pilate caved to strong demands by the Jewish, and he wasn't particularly concerned with following the Roman law.

Absurd

I gave the evidence. You just don't like it.

TedM · 08-20-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the NT, in the short gMark, the disciples of Jesus had abandoned him when he was arrested and Peter had Denied knowing Jesus.

gMark's Jesus did NOT start any new religion. gMark's Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any religion or salvation by crucifixion or resurrection....
Sinaiticus Mark 9

Quote:

31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

How do we know the 'secrets' given to the disciples aa? Obviously because they REMEMBERED them at a later date and repeated Jesus' words. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they had become believers and understood at a later date. (if GMark was a historical work--don't get sidetracked on that issue).

Quote:

No matter if we PRESUME Jesus did exist the story just does NOT make much sense because the very Resurrection destroys the claim that Jesus really died.

Come on. Resurrection REQUIRES death. It's the very opposite of what you are saying.

TedM · 08-20-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

People are not sheep. I don't hold as low an opinion of humanity as you seem to. Something more than a simple claim would have had to exist in order for such an extraordinary claim to have been believed by those that did not know Jesus.

... There is much evidence throughout history I can point to that demonstrates people are very likely to engage in self-deception, and be suspect to deception.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying it isn't as simple as simon says..

No need to reply, as we are both repeating ourselves.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.