Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 04-26-2004, 04:30 AM

azuresky,

I think you will find that whilst 'most scholars' agree that there was a Historical Jesus (HJ) - 'most scholars' are also Christians who have already got a firm presuppositian in such an HJ before they even get around to looking at the evidence.

For a good debate on whether there was a Historical Jesus or not I suggest you mosey on over to the Biblical Criticism and History forum. There is a lot of very intelligent and in-depth debate over there about the sources you mention.

(I suspect that it would be a good idea for this thread to be moved there, anyway...)

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen · 04-26-2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azuresky

...
Tacitus was a high government official in the Roman Empire who could have disproven Christianity with a snap of his fingers. He simply needed to point out that there were no crucifixion records contained in the Imperial archives recording that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate--remember, Tacitus hated Christians. Instead, Tacitus declares as a matter of fact that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.
...

Well, as I understand it, Christianity was an illegal religion, because the 'object' of worship , Jesus Christ, was so recent. The recent crucifiction would be proof for this, so he would not be too keen on disproving the crucifiction.

To Tacitus they were despicable atheists. After all, christians refused to acknowledge any real gods, and had no 'real' ( i.e. old, mythical ) god for themselves. Refusing to acknowledge the emperor (as a god ) would also make Christianity a subversive political movement in Tacitus' eyes.

GermanHeretic · 04-26-2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Please remember--Christians at this time were mostly just a nuisance.

They still are, Gregg.

GermanHeretic · 04-26-2004, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Ok, now why would they do that? What motive or gain do they get for making up the date of the crucifixion? Why would they want to hold on to a false messiah, instead of returning to the Judaic roots that knew for so long? And certaintly why would they have done it knowing they would be killed for such beliefs? There is absolutely no reason to follow Jesus, if He lied and wasn't who He said He was.

Perhaps to convince more people of their belief. People are referring to that prophecy even today, even now on this very thread. I call that a damn good motive.

GermanHeretic · 04-26-2004, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Now, ill believe if you tell me who will be the President of the United States in the year 2672, although we can't actually comfirm your prediction

He will come from the House of Bushes, works as a car-salesman in his youth and forgives everyone who has ever cheated the IRS.

Now all I need is a gospel writer in 2736, who confirms that.

Gregg · 04-26-2004, 06:31 AM

Azuresky, I wanted to emphasize something...you have to keep in mind that Christianity simply did not have much significance or influence in the early 2nd century. You act like pagan critics of Christianity recognized the faith as a clear and present danger to the existing order of things (as if they had foreknowledge of its future ascendancy) and would therefore have been highly motivated to investigate the religion thoroughly, digging through archives and visiting Jerusalem to interview eyewitnesses and descendants of eyewitnesses first hand. But 1) At the time, Christianity was just another mystery cult among many, 2) Not all Christians claimed that the Christ had been on Earth, and 3) Groups following this or that prophet were not unusual, nor was making claims that the prophet had performed miracles.

Even if someone had conducted a thorough investigation and found that one of the claims lately advanced by certain Christians, that the Christ had actually been on Earth, was false, it would have had no effect on those Christians whose Christianity wasn't based on a historical Jesus anyway, and most likely the believers in a historical Jesus wouldn't have been swayed either, just as Mormons today aren't swayed by evidence that Joseph Smith was a complete fraud. Finally, Christian copyists of later generations wouldn't have been likely to preserve the writings of our hypothetical pagan investigator (except possibly to hold them up for ridicule).

Magus55 · 04-26-2004, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanHeretic

Perhaps to convince more people of their belief. People are referring to that prophecy even today, even now on this very thread. I call that a damn good motive.

Um, I really don't think a bunch of farmers gave a crap about becoming famous and spreading a false religion. Judaism was quite sufficient for them. I see the only plausible explanation for them following Christianity, is because something happened during their lives that convinced them enough to conclude Jesus' message to be true.

I actually wish I could be famous and a celebrity, but I can tell you right now, I would never create a false religion, or endorse a false religion, to make myself known hundreds of years in the future, knowing full well by doing so, would result in an early and painful demise. And I certaintly don't think a bunch of fisherman would be so inclined to do that for no reason.

And again, why would Jews want to convince people of a completely new belief? Judaism was quite sufficient for thousands of years before hand. Why the sudden change?

Magus55 · 04-26-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Azuresky, I wanted to emphasize something...you have to keep in mind that Christianity simply did not have much significance or influence in the early 2nd century. You act like pagan critics of Christianity recognized the faith as a clear and present danger to the existing order of things (as if they had foreknowledge of its future ascendancy) and would therefore have been highly motivated to investigate the religion thoroughly, digging through archives and visiting Jerusalem to interview eyewitnesses and descendants of eyewitnesses first hand. But 1) At the time, Christianity was just another mystery cult among many, 2) Not all Christians claimed that the Christ had been on Earth, and 3) Groups following this or that prophet were not unusual, nor was making claims that the prophet had performed miracles.

Even if someone had conducted a thorough investigation and found that one of the claims lately advanced by certain Christians, that the Christ had actually been on Earth, was false, it would have had no effect on those Christians whose Christianity wasn't based on a historical Jesus anyway, and most likely the believers in a historical Jesus wouldn't have been swayed either, just as Mormons today aren't swayed by evidence that Joseph Smith was a complete fraud. Finally, Christian copyists of later generations wouldn't have been likely to preserve the writings of our hypothetical pagan investigator (except possibly to hold them up for ridicule).

Christianity was however, a threat to Rome and the Emperor. Hence where the Icythys (sp) came from. To avoid being killed by the Romans for following Christianity. The Emperor demanded being worshipped as a god. I would think it would be in his interest to find out if the man he just had killed, is still walking around and being worshipped.

azuresky · 04-26-2004, 08:08 AM

Hey Gregg, how's it going?

I've read your posts, but unfortunately, I can't respond to them for at least one week. I have nearly 30 billion tons of homework to complete--and this is only the conservative estimate. Worst case scenario is that I won't be back for a month. After this month, though, I'll have a 21 day break.

I promise that I will notify you when I come back on the site so that we can finish our debates. We will begin once again right where we left off. So, you didn't post for nothing! I'll definitely be back to debate. Sorry about my stupid time constraints!

Afghan · 04-26-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Um, I really don't think a bunch of farmers gave a crap about becoming famous and spreading a false religion. Judaism was quite sufficient for them. I see the only plausible explanation for them following Christianity, is because something happened during their lives that convinced them enough to conclude Jesus' message to be true.

I actually wish I could be famous and a celebrity, but I can tell you right now, I would never create a false religion, or endorse a false religion, to make myself known hundreds of years in the future, knowing full well by doing so, would result in an early and painful demise. And I certaintly don't think a bunch of fisherman would be so inclined to do that for no reason.

And again, why would Jews want to convince people of a completely new belief? Judaism was quite sufficient for thousands of years before hand. Why the sudden change?

So presumably, by the same argument, we should accept the claims of the Falun Gong sect in China.

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

04-26-2004, 04:30 AM	#31
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	azuresky, I think you will find that whilst 'most scholars' agree that there was a Historical Jesus (HJ) - 'most scholars' are also Christians who have already got a firm presuppositian in such an HJ before they even get around to looking at the evidence. For a good debate on whether there was a Historical Jesus or not I suggest you mosey on over to the Biblical Criticism and History forum. There is a lot of very intelligent and in-depth debate over there about the sources you mention. (I suspect that it would be a good idea for this thread to be moved there, anyway...)

04-26-2004, 06:31 AM	#36
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	Azuresky, I wanted to emphasize something...you have to keep in mind that Christianity simply did not have much significance or influence in the early 2nd century. You act like pagan critics of Christianity recognized the faith as a clear and present danger to the existing order of things (as if they had foreknowledge of its future ascendancy) and would therefore have been highly motivated to investigate the religion thoroughly, digging through archives and visiting Jerusalem to interview eyewitnesses and descendants of eyewitnesses first hand. But 1) At the time, Christianity was just another mystery cult among many, 2) Not all Christians claimed that the Christ had been on Earth, and 3) Groups following this or that prophet were not unusual, nor was making claims that the prophet had performed miracles. Even if someone had conducted a thorough investigation and found that one of the claims lately advanced by certain Christians, that the Christ had actually been on Earth, was false, it would have had no effect on those Christians whose Christianity wasn't based on a historical Jesus anyway, and most likely the believers in a historical Jesus wouldn't have been swayed either, just as Mormons today aren't swayed by evidence that Joseph Smith was a complete fraud. Finally, Christian copyists of later generations wouldn't have been likely to preserve the writings of our hypothetical pagan investigator (except possibly to hold them up for ridicule).

04-26-2004, 08:08 AM	#39
azuresky Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Whittier, CA Posts: 27	Hey Gregg, how's it going? I've read your posts, but unfortunately, I can't respond to them for at least one week. I have nearly 30 billion tons of homework to complete--and this is only the conservative estimate. Worst case scenario is that I won't be back for a month. After this month, though, I'll have a 21 day break. I promise that I will notify you when I come back on the site so that we can finish our debates. We will begin once again right where we left off. So, you didn't post for nothing! I'll definitely be back to debate. Sorry about my stupid time constraints!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.