"The Religion thread" Part II

[Akivaria]

The major reason why Christianity survived was the rule of Constantine, and his militarization of Christianity over the earlier polytheistic Roman beliefs. Frankly, this event was revolutionary.

My personal opinion is that religions survive (not just Christianity, but all religions) because our minds are incapable of comprehending the innumerable factors that go into the decisions we make every day. In addition, it's much easier for the population to justify the unexplainable by faith, than to wait five hundred years or more for science to find the answer. Unfortunately, technology cannot possibly compete with the speed of human imagination.

______

One thing we can all agree on, is that if there is a Hell (or Tartarus, whatever name you want to give it), it's an awfully sadistic and lazy way for an omnipotent all-loving god to punish people. Besides, how bad can it be when all of the cool people will be there? (like Ghandi, and Jimi Hendrix)

[Mulu]

This whole Christian reality debate can be put to death quite easily: There is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed.

There is. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D.

And you're done. He is writing long after the events. The only conclusions you can draw from the passage are:

1. Christianity had reached Rome by 64 CE and was known to the Romans (and apparently despised by at least some of them).

2. The story of Christ's crucifixion was known to Romans by 115 CE, the time of this writing. It would not have been necessary for the myth to be known by Nero or the other Romans of 64 CE to persecute them (though it's likely they did know it given the proselytizing nature of Christianity).

The second quote from the governor also shows two things.

1. Christianity was much reviled in Rome by 112 CE, apparently meriting the death penalty. Once Nero scapegoated them, the label seems to have stuck.

2. The Christians of that time were total fanatics. Some things never change.

Your third author sure sounds like a Christian to me, and doesn't add much. So, that's really all you can get from those quotes. None of it adds up to proving much of anything, other than that the religion existed, something I never contested. In fact, the Raelians have far more "proof" of their divine beings than Christianity does. It's also a fast growing religion. Beam me up Scotty!

As for the speed with which the faith spread, that proves absolutely nothing other than that they had a really good sales pitch. The Roman myth of the afterlife was rather dreary, and most religions of the time included class issues. Christianity's rainbows and sunshine myth of the afterlife combined with its willingness to include absolutely anybody was a very good marketing strategy. Think about it, you can commit any heinous act you want as a Christian, you can literally be a serial killer, but as long as you confess your sins you are forgiven and get to go to heaven. Want fries with that?

Of course, as pointed out above, Christianity didn't really take off until the Romans took it as their own. Prior to that, it's primary contender in Rome was apparantly Mithraism, hence the similarity in iconography between the two religions. One Catholic website I was reading described the competition as similar to modern soft drink companies competing for customers.

You know, in its day Herbalife sold really well too. I suppose that means it worked. Otherwise, how could it possibly have become so popular?

It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.

It's one guy's opinion. Other historians have come to different conclusions. Now, if most historians, including those of other faiths, have concluded that Jesus existed, well fine. I'm not a historian myself, so I'd trust the weight of expert opinion on the subject, whatever it is, though it sounds like the correct answer is "we'll never know."

BTW, this willingness to believe experts makes me very unChristian, as the weight of expert opinion on Evolution sure isn't followed by Christians, nor is any other expert opinion which conflicts with their beliefs. It is a far more substantial thing that Biologists who spend their lives considering biological facts should affirm the reality of evolution, again and again and again.

Of course, even assuming he did exist, it's still a big step to go from "he probably existed" to "he was resurrected."

These are just a few sources that have been used extensively in broad historical study. They're even sources hostile to the faith. One should not dismiss or discredit them now just because the evidence they provide is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Actually, you are the one ultimately discrediting them. After all, other than the Christian ones none of them claim the resurrection actually occured, despite it being witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. Don't you think *that* would have made the historical record as well? The absence of an affirmation of resurrection in the non-Christian historical record is telling you the resurrection is a myth. One should not dismiss this gaping hole in the relatively recent accounts of the event, just because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

If anything of that magnitude had actually occurred, the extremely superstitious Romans would not have tried to cover it up. They would have no reason to. Not in the face of real god-like beings. Again, they were willing to worship all gods, and some did worship the Judeo-Christian god when it was appropriate. The Roman occupiers also gave large sacrifices to the House of God in Judea, at least until the Jews revolted and they destroyed it.

I've already answered this question. 10 pieces of silver would do the trick quite nicely.

Extremely doubtful.

To you, because it means the myth is a purposeful lie. But given that, according to the myth, the guards left for reasons unprovable, they could just as easily have left due to bribery or threat as due to angelic visage. Seriously, to believe the myth is to believe in the irrational. The non-supernatural explanation is sufficient to explain all of the historical facts known or even suspected.

More to the point, why don't you believe in all the other religious myths being told? In order for this debate to be fair, you need to explain your own atheism regarding other faiths and mythical tales. Do believe that the Buddha maintained his perfect meditative trance despite storms and demons? If not, why not?

Now, for every supernatural myth ever told, both Christian and non-Christian, please state your position on whether or not it is factual, and why. I'll start.

My position: They are all not factual.
Explanation of my position: They all rely on the supernatural, and nothing supernatural is real.

Your turn.

Let's not forget why Jesus of Nazareth was executed and why his tomb was sealed and guarded in the first place. There was a perceived rebellion positioned against Rome because of Jesus and his followers.

No, not because of Jesus and his followers. The Christians themselves weren't that big a threat. Twelve guys and their stragglers were not going to overthrow Roman rule in Judea, especially given their mystical proclivities. More to the point, the threat of Jewish rebellion was continuous and present from the entire population for the entire occupation. It did ultimately occur, twice, though it was quickly reversed both times. The Christians didn't even participate. They didn't care enough about the material world at that time. That sure has changed.

Do you simply not read what I post? A streambed in Texas tells you everthing you need to know about religious people and their willingness to lie to support their beliefs. It's true now and it was true then.

I don't think defining all religious belief by some Texan streambed is very responsible. Those Texans certainly weren't willing to die for their enthusiastic error.

Nice way to try to minimize it and cast it as the actions of others. "Those Texans" are better known as "Christians." You know, *your* people. Christians from all over the nation were responsible for the creation and propagation of that lie, and they still are. What makes ancient Christians less likely to lie than modern Christians? Again, being willing to die for your beliefs doesn't prove them true. There have certainly been many faiths for which people have been willing to die. Christianity does not have a monopoly on fanatical martyrs, unfortunately, and the only thing fanatical martyrdom proves is that they are crazy.

This is fallacy #2. If he existed at all, Jesus was trivial in his lifetime.

Not according to Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD) "Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city....After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

Wow, talk about not proving your point. If I'm reading this correctly, Gaius is talking about the Christians in Rome long after the death of Jesus, thus you are not disproving my point that in his lifetime Jesus was trivial. It was only generations later that the Christians became a scapegoat for Nero and thereafter suffered continuing persecution. Christians were involuntarily playing the part of "the black guy who must have done the crime" to use a modern example.

But, in Christ's lifetime, his following very likely would have been unknown outside of Judea, as it was still very small. Think about it, before the Koreshians had their stand-off with the FBI, had you heard of them? Of course not. Since the Christians didn't have any stand-offs with the Romans, other than Jesus getting the very long end of a stick for preaching sedition, they wouldn't have made the news of the times. Jesus was trivial in his lifetime, from the perspective of the Romans and the Jews, and therefore would not have been the target of any grand conspiracies.

His cult was one of many such cults.

What were these other "such cults"? More please.

Don't be so lazy. I Googled "cults in Judea" and got a ton of hits, one of them from Bible.org that described the Pharisees as a cult, and others called the Sadducees a cult. John the Baptist would have qualified as a separate cult leader before his conversion. The various sects of Zoroastrianism would qualify as well. I've seen specials on other cults that have been discovered through archeology. I'm sure many more were lost to antiquity. In general, any self-proclaimed messiah of the time with a following would qualify as a cult, just like Jesus.

Interestingly I got the assertion, and many others about the life of Jesus, from a History of the Bible special on the History Channel where a bunch of Christian historians claimed that Judea was full of cults at the time of Jesus, and messiahs were rampant. So if I'm wrong, it's another Christian lie. That'll teach me to rely on Christian "historians."

As far as the Romans were concerned, he was just another clueless Jew executed for the crime of sedition, one of hundreds of thousands.

Source? Who were these other seditious Jews?

According to genocide sites, in the days of the Roman occupation of Judea, over a quarter million Jewish individuals were ruthlessly beaten and crucified. What allegedly happened to Jesus did happen to hundreds of thousands of his fellow Jews. It appears most of that was from the failed insurrections, but on that same History Channel special the Christian theologists said that Jesus would have witnessed thousands of Jews being crucified in his lifetime. Apparently I have to stop relying on Christian theologists, as I haven't found the kind of hard numbers year by year I would have liked to back up their assertion for the crucifixion of Jews during the life of Jesus, though they are probably correct. Then again, maybe they made that up. Darn Christian "historians" anyway, I should have known better.

And who were just a few of these many "cult leaders promising deliverence"?

Try Wiki. Though I would have included John the Baptist on that list. Apparently the Christian historians were right about that one, since it's probably safe to assume that for every name listed at least five other guys didn't make the history books. Apparently, Jesus wasn't even the most popular Jewish Messiah wanna be in those days. Bar Kochba gets that title, though it was quite a bit later.

Technically Jesus failed at being the messiah, since the primary aim of the supposed messiah was, "To deliver the nation of Israel and her people from her conquerers and into heaven." Well, I suppose a Christian would say there's still plenty of time, though that means Israel has to be conquered again.

Remember, the story of his execution has no corroborating evidence either

Tacitus, Josephus and the Jewish Talmud.

Given your proclivity for quoting authors who in no way support your position, I'd have to see the actual text.

If they had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their graves proclaiming that it actually happened.

Because they believed their own lie, just like all other cultists.

People do not die for what they know to be a lie.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about human nature.

One word, Koresh.

As for the "borrowing of ideas" in Christianity, looks like it's already been handled by others, though I *would* call it a plagiarism. Just because plagiarism was common among religions doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. It certainly meets the academic definition. Had the disciples been my students working on an assignment to create a "totally new" religion, they would have gotten "F's" and a referral to the ethics committee.

[Vaelahr]

...resurrection was rare but there are examples, the most notable and earliest that I can think off the top of my head would be Osiris.

The most common and complex version of the Osiris myth comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (approx. c.34-125 A.D.) in his work Isis and Osiris;

"Osiris's evil brother Set plotted with others to kill Osiris. This was accomplished by tricking Osiris during a banquet to lie down in a chest that had been especially prepared for him. When Osiris was inside the chest, Set and his cohorts closed it immediately and took it to the Nile and put it into the river. When Isis, the sister-wife of Osiris heard what had happened, she set out to find the chest. The legend is detailed, but to make a long story short, Isis learned that the chest had drifted out to sea and landed on the coast of Byblos. She went there, found the chest, recovered the body, embraced it, and wailed inconsolably. She hid the body in a secret place, which Set discovered, after which he severed the body into 14 different pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. The myth then continues as Isis searched Egypt, found the body parts, put them back together, and then hovered over Osiris and fanned the breath of life back into his body.”

Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes the ruler of the Netherworld. A comparison between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris is misleading and is claiming more than the Egyptian myth allows.

Encyclopedia Britannica writes, "From about 2000 BC onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth. In this universalized form Osiris' cult spread throughout Egypt, often joining with the cults of local fertility and underworld deities.”

This secular source understands that “Osiris did not rise from the dead.” Osiris was originally a vegetation god. The death of Osiris symbolized to the Egyptians the yearly drought and in his rebirth the periodical flooding of the Nile and the growth of grain. This of course, represents the pattern of cyclical recurrences of seasons. Such myths are the expression of ancient nature-symbolism; the spirit of vegetation dies every year and rises every year. This is far different from Christ's bodily resurrection and spiritual ascension.

...the monotheistic god of Christianity began to take on the attributes of the traditional sky/war gods as the faith spread northwards into Europe..."

What attributes (or "trappings") were these?

One thing we can all agree on, is that if there is a Hell (or Tartarus, whatever name you want to give it), it's an awfully sadistic and lazy way for an omnipotent all-loving god to punish people. Besides, how bad can it be when all of the cool people will be there? (like Ghandi, and Jimi Hendrix)

It is ironic that most Christians believe that Adolph Hitler will have everlasting life. You might be thinking: “What?! No they don’t.” But think again—if Hitler is being tormented forever in fire, does he or does he not have everlasting life? It’s a miserable life, but it is everlasting life, right? On the contrary, Romans 6:23 says: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God never says that the wages of sin is eternal torment. No, He says that the penalty for sin is an end to one’s life.

Thinking logically, does it seem fair to you that God, who the Bible says is love, would forever inflict upon wicked people the excruciating agony of constantly burning? Justice would not be served by such an egregious atrocity, and how sad it is that this erroneous belief has contributed to many people turning away from the God whom they were told would do such a thing.

It is important to realize that no verse in the Bible says that the “soul” or “spirit” lives on by itself. No verse says that “hell” is a place of everlasting torment in fire. These falsehoods infiltrated Christianity via biblical mistranslation and the mixing of Greek culture and beliefs with the truths presented in the Bible.

If Revelation 20:10 is coming to your mind as an apparent contradiction to what you've read thus far, great—it should. It speaks of the Devil and a couple of his henchmen being thrown in the lake of fire and being “tormented day and night forever and ever.” However, the Bible was not written in English, and when we dig a bit deeper, we see that “forever and ever” in the Greek is more accurately “for ages unto ages.” Ezekiel 28:18 prophetically declares that the Devil will be “brought to ashes.” Apparently, as a fitting recompense for his monstrous evil, this will take a long time.

[Jeppan]

Heavy hits from the "Infidel Pigdog"! Will the "Champion of Christianity" return blows?

[mxlm]

He says that the penalty for sin is an end to one’s life.

So He's merely genocidal, rather than sadistic.

Well, that's much better, I suppose.

So, what about Daniel 12:2, Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 22:13, Mark 9:43 (Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched), Luke 16:22-24 and John 5:28-29?

[Mulu]

I seem to recall something about a lake of fire myself, and what's the point of having a hell if it's just Satan and his cronies? Makes it into a private resort, doesn't it?

[Vaelahr]

I seem to recall something about a lake of fire myself, and what's the point of having a hell if it's just Satan and his cronies? Makes it into a private resort, doesn't it?

*points to last paragraph of previous post*

[mxlm]

*points to most recent post*

Can you explain those, please?

[Vaelahr]

This whole Christian reality debate can be put to death quite easily: There is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed.

There is. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D.

And you're done. He is writing long after the events.

Historical documentation frequently dates from several decades after the events described. Modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.

Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would not expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening outside of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is outside of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers, Tacitus and Suetonius, we have apparent references to Jesus, even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32 is missing from the manuscript tradition. This is an important fact: all the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus. Notice that this is the opposite situation than is commonly assumed, "If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about him?" In this case, they all did.

Of the Jewish resources, Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash), both make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So all the Jewish sources refer to him.

In addition, there are three other candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus).

As for the speed with which the faith spread, that proves absolutely nothing other than that they had a really good sales pitch. The Roman myth of the afterlife was rather dreary, and most religions of the time included class issues. Christianity's rainbows and sunshine myth of the afterlife combined with its willingness to include absolutely anybody was a very good marketing strategy.

There was no such afterlife preached, only resurrection.

Of course, Christianity didn't really take off until the Romans took it as their own.

Until then, as many as 100,000 of the early Christians were put to death.

Prior to that, it's primary contender in Rome was apparantly Mithraism, hence the similarity in iconography between the two religions.

Any iconographic similarity is the product of the Roman Church. Early Christianity didn't plagiarize, didn't borrow anything from Mithraism. The early Christians followed Christ, firmly convicted, having rested their faith not only on the fact of the empty tomb, but on the fact that they themselves had seen Jesus alive after his burial.

These are just a few sources that have been used extensively in broad historical study. They're even sources hostile to the faith. One should not dismiss or discredit them now just because the evidence they provide is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Actually, you are the one ultimately discrediting them. After all, other than the Christian ones none of them claim the resurrection actually occured, despite it being witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. Don't you think *that* would have made the historical record as well?

Josephus mentioned it.

If anything of that magnitude had actually occurred, the extremely superstitious Romans would not have tried to cover it up. They would have no reason to. Not in the face of real god-like beings. Again, they were willing to worship all gods, and some did worship the Judeo-Christian god when it was appropriate. The Roman occupiers also gave large sacrifices to the House of God in Judea, at least until the Jews revolted and they destroyed it.

News traveled slowly, the distances were great. They had no mass communications. It took months for Rome to learn of events in Palestine, and most of the events there were of little interest to them. Moreover, his work only lasted three years. By the time he was begining to reach the height of his fame in Jerusalem, word of his very existence might just be reaching Rome, where it would have been greeted coldly with no real interest anyway. Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so few would believe or care about this one.

Let's not forget why Jesus of Nazareth was executed and why his tomb was sealed and guarded in the first place. There was a perceived rebellion positioned against Rome because of Jesus and his followers.

No, not because of Jesus and his followers.

Pilate saw the threat of rebellion from the Jewish authorities and their mobs.

What makes ancient Christians less likely to lie than modern Christians? Again, being willing to die for your beliefs doesn't prove them true. There have certainly been many faiths for which people have been willing to die. Christianity does not have a monopoly on fanatical martyrs, unfortunately, and the only thing fanatical martyrdom proves is that they are crazy.

This is of crucial importance. If the early Christians had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their graves proclaiming that it actually happened. Certainly, many have died for lies. Nazis gave their lives for what was false. Plenty of other religious followers die and have died for their faith, but the crucial point here is that the disciples would have known it was a lie, if they had stolen the body or made up the story. They all would have died for what they knew was a lie. Is it plausible to believe that not one of them, under the threat of death would have admitted, "we made the whole thing up?" If Christ's followers had stolen the body to make it look like he had been resurrected, they would have known that they were believing a lie, and men do not become martyrs for what they know to be false.

His cult was one of many such cults.

What were these other "such cults"? More please.

Don't be so lazy. I Googled "cults in Judea" and got a ton of hits, one of them from Bible.org that described the Pharisees as a cult, and others called the Sadducees a cult. John the Baptist would have qualified as a separate cult leader before his conversion.

There was no conversion for him. He was a messianic prophet. The Pharisees and Sadducees weren't considered cultic but were sects of Judaism, Jewish religious authorities (as well as the Essenes).

According to genocide sites, in the days of the Roman occupation of Judea, over a quarter million Jewish individuals were ruthlessly beaten and crucified. What allegedly happened to Jesus did happen to hundreds of thousands of his fellow Jews. It appears most of that was from the failed insurrections, but on that same History Channel special the Christian theologists said that Jesus would have witnessed thousands of Jews being crucified in his lifetime. Apparently I have to stop relying on Christian theologists, as I haven't found the kind of hard numbers year by year I would have liked to back up their assertion for the crucifixion of Jews during the life of Jesus, though they are probably correct. Then again, maybe they made that up. Darn Christian "historians" anyway, I should have known better.

And who were just a few of these many "cult leaders promising deliverence"?

Try Wiki.

And all but Jesus of Nazareth remain dead.

Technically Jesus failed at being the messiah, since the primary aim of the supposed messiah was, "To deliver the nation of Israel and her people from her conquerers and into heaven."

The hope for the Messiah entailed a very wide range of expectations on the part of the Old Testament and 1st Century Jews. His top priority was the forgiveness of sins and the deliverance/salvation of his people, though a national deliverance is a definate part of his commitment. The messiahship of Jesus cannot be thrown out on the basis of currently unfulfilled messianic prophecies. Jesus consistently taught his disciples that his ministry required suffering/obedience to God before he would be enthroned and exalted. It was a fundamental framework in his self-understanding as the messiah:

“He asked them, “What are you discussing with each other as you’re walking along?” They stood still and looked gloomy. The one whose name was Cleopas answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn’t know what happened there these days?” He asked them, “What things?” They answered him, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in the things that he did and said before God and all the people, and how our high priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and had him crucified. But we kept hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel. What is more, this is now the third day since these things occurred. Even some of our women have startled us! They were at the tomb early this morning and didn’t find his body there, so they came back and told us that they had actually seen a vision of angels who said he was alive. Then some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they didn’t see him.” Then Jesus said to them, “O how foolish you are and how slow of heart to believe everything the prophets said! The Christ had to suffer these things and then enter his glory, didn’t he?” Luke 24

Remember, the story of his execution has no corroborating evidence either

Tacitus, Josephus and the Jewish Talmud.

Given your proclivity for quoting authors who in no way support your position, I'd have to see the actual text.

Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment [via crucifixion], again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ." Tacitus is here bearing indirect testimony to the conviction of the early Christians that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.

Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he wrought surprising feats. He was the Christ. When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared, restored to life. And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared."

The Talmud mentions Jesus and his execution: "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

The heraldic accusations are interesting. Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." Such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to "sorcery". Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

If they had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their graves proclaiming that it actually happened.

Because they believed their own lie, just like all other cultists.

People do not die for what they know to be a lie.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about human nature.

One word, Koresh.

He died for what he knew to be a lie?

As for the "borrowing of ideas" in Christianity, looks like it's already been handled by others, though I *would* call it a plagiarism.

Again, early Christianity did not borrow from pagan religions or mythology.

[Vaelahr]

He says that the penalty for sin is an end to one’s life.

So He's merely genocidal, rather than sadistic.

Well, that's much better, I suppose.

So, what about Daniel 12:2, Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 22:13, Mark 9:43 (Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched), Luke 16:22-24 and John 5:28-29?

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sheol means “the state, or place, of the dead,” and is usually translated as “grave” (see Psalms 6:5, 16:10, 49:15, 89:48 ). Because there is not literally any such place, it could also be translated as “gravedom.” The Hebrews recognized that man is an integrated being who is either alive or dead (to us, this is obvious). They understood that man does not have a soul, but rather that, as per Genesis 2:7, man is a living “soul” (the Hebrew word nephesh), that is, a living person. When he dies, he is then a dead soul (Lev. 19:28, 21:1; Num. 5:2, 6:6), that is, a dead person.

In contrast to the teaching of the Old Testament, most Greeks believed that man has “an immortal soul,” which they saw as the non-corporeal essence of his being that was trapped in the temporal, fleshly prison of his body until the wonderful moment when his body “died” and his “soul” could freely wing its way to Mt. Olympus, the land of Shades, or somewhere else. Because of this belief, the Greeks had no word that corresponded with the idea expressed by the Hebrew word sheol. The closest thing they could find was hades, and that is what those who produced the Septuagint (a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek) chose as the counterpart to sheol. As they do with sheol in the Old Testament, some English versions of the Bible erroneously translate the Greek word hades as “hell” in the New Testament.

The impact of translating sheol as hades cannot be overstated. In sheol, everyone is dead, but in the Greek language and culture, everyone in Hades is alive. Thus, by the stroke of the pen of the Septuagint’s translators, all the dead (in sheol) were granted life after death in hades. The Greek-speaking Hebrews, reading their Greek Bible, would naturally come to believe that “the dead are alive” (it was, after all, in their Bible). This explains why, at the time of Jesus, many Jews believed that the souls of the dead lived on after the person died, and why Jesus would speak a parable springboarding off that belief.

Which brings us to Luke 16:19-31 from mxlm's list. (We'll just look at this one for now.)

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Since in death there is no consciousness, this story must be figurative, and it is. In context, Jesus had been addressing the Pharisees in parables from the beginning of chapter 15; the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son and the unjust steward. Luke 16:14 tells us that the Pharisees, who loved money, heard him and ridiculed him. In verse 15, Jesus told them that their values were warped and ungodly. The subsequent parable of the rich man and Lazarus perfectly illustrated for them the difference between what they esteemed and what God esteemed.

Not understanding this as a parable, one might think that Jesus meant to depict an immediate “heaven or hell” kind of afterlife. However, he told this parable to the Pharisees in light of their Talmudic traditions and their belief in immediate reward or punishment after death. It was they who coined the phrase “Abraham’s bosom” as one of several afterlife locations. Jesus did not intend to contradict the entire Old Testament and teach life after death. His primary intention was to show that the Pharisees were so evil that even if someone rose from the dead they wouldn’t listen to him. He did so by hypothetically stating that, even if one were to return from the place of the dead (which the Pharisees, having forsaken the Old Testament in favor of their traditions, believed in), those who refused to believe Moses and the prophets still would not believe (verse 31). How prophetic, as was evidenced by his own resurrection from the dead, which many of them did not believe.

[NickD]

So He's merely genocidal, rather than sadistic.

Well, that's much better, I suppose.

The whole Noah's Ark thing wasn't enough of a clue?

[Mulu]

Notice that this is the opposite situation than is commonly assumed, "If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about him?" In this case, they all did.

Only *after* Nero had scapegoated the Christians. Jesus himself was trivial in his lifetime. Christianity became important because Nero made it important. Just like Koreshians became important because the FBI made them important. Prior to that no historians or journalists were writing about the Koreshians. This is so obvious I don't know why you are still trying to dispute it.

Of the Jewish resources, Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash), both make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So all the Jewish sources refer to him.

Long after he was dead. My assertion, again, was that in his lifetime he was trivial. Nothing you've stated has even disputed that assertion, much less proved it wrong.

There was no such afterlife preached, only resurrection.

Christianity was an oral tradition for what, 30 years after the alleged crucifixion? How do you know what they were preaching? What makes you think they weren't preaching about going to Heaven? That's a pretty big assertion to make with nothing to back it up. Obviously at some point they started preaching about Heaven. They also started using an awful lot of idolatry.

Early Christianity didn't plagiarize, didn't borrow anything from Mithraism.

Well, they obviously did plagiarize concepts from older religions, and Mithraism had halos, the "Bringer of Light" and a struggle between good and evil, though those are fairly generic.

I guess it just seems strange to me that the creator spirit would choose to manifest itself in such a generic way, given the infinite possibilities. Shouldn't every aspect be novel?

Christians followed Christ, firmly convicted, having rested their faith not only on the fact of the empty tomb, but on the fact that they themselves had seen Jesus alive after his burial.

Yep, they were crazy all right, I won't contest it. I would call that a self-reinforcing delusion. In fact I'd call pretty much everything you've posted here a self-reinforcing delusion. A delusion which is capable of considering any contrary evidence as further proving its thesis. It's not a good mental state. Just look at our current President. He is the ultimate example of self-reinforcing delusion when it comes to Iraq.

Don't you think *that* would have made the historical record as well?

Josephus mentioned it.

Josephus was a believer.
[edited as I previously got Josehpus and Tacitus confused]

Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so few would believe or care about this one.

*Yawn* just another appearance of angels. Heard the same thing last week from Egypt.

Let's assume what you just stated is true. What does that tell you about the kind of people who claimed to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion? Perhaps they were the kind of people who make supernatural claims all the time. Perhaps they were willing to die for their lies, because it was natural for them to claim and believe in supernatural events despite their non-occurence. I think you've just defeated your own prior claims regarding the veracity of the resurrection. Supernatural claims were *normal* back then. There is nothing special or valid about the Christian myth, in a world filled with mythical claims.

Modern Christians, on the other hand, have access to superior knowledge and scientific discovery. Modern Christians are not from the ancient world. Modern Christians have no excuse. Think about that.

Let's not forget why Jesus of Nazareth was executed and why his tomb was sealed and guarded in the first place. There was a perceived rebellion positioned against Rome because of Jesus and his followers.

No, not because of Jesus and his followers.

Pilate saw the threat of rebellion from the Jewish authorities and their mobs.

The threat of jewish rebellion was constant, but Jesus didn't have a big enough following to orchestrate a revolt. The revolt came much later, without the Christians. Jesus didn't have to have a shot at causing trouble to merit a death sentance under Roman occupation. A guy with zero followers advocating the overthrow of Rome would get crucified. That's all it took. Anything past that is later Christian writers trying to make the first Christians look important, as writers will tend to do when writing about their own group.

Plenty of other religious followers die and have died for their faith, but the crucial point here is that the disciples would have known it was a lie, if they had stolen the body or made up the story. They all would have died for what they knew was a lie. Is it plausible to believe that not one of them, under the threat of death would have admitted, "we made the whole thing up?"

Yes. Religious people are CRAZY man; haven't you figured that out yet? If you are looking for rational behavior from mystical people who follow around a guy claiming to be the messiah, you are looking in the wrong place my friend. Once fully indoctrinated into the cult, they would absolutely be willing to lie for it, and die for it. Don't you remember Heaven's Gate? How about Ordre du Temple Solaire, Aum Shinrikyo, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in Uganda, the Church of the Lamb of God of Ervil LeBaron, and the Peoples Temple? And let's not forget the Koreshians. Cult membership demands total commitment, and basically all cults claim their charismatic leader has performed miracles which they themselves have witnessed, which are either knowing lies or it's not that hard to perform miracles. Early Christianity was nothing more than a Charismatic cult. In 2000 years, millions of people could be following Koreshianity. I was surprised to discover that the Branch Davidians are alive and well.

The Pharisees and Sadducees weren't considered cultic but were sects of Judaism, Jewish religious authorities (as well as the Essenes).

As I said, anyone claiming to be the messiah and gathering a following would qualify as a charismatic cult. Only the ones who made significant headway would have made recorded history.

And all but Jesus of Nazareth remain dead.

Now you're just being creepy. If you jump off the debate wagon into woohoo land, I don't have anything left to say to you.

The messiahship of Jesus cannot be thrown out on the basis of currently unfulfilled messianic prophecies.

So Jesus, like Bush Jr., doesn't do timetables. Interesting. Maybe Bush is the second coming.

Jesus consistently taught his disciples that his ministry required suffering/obedience to God before he would be enthroned and exalted. It was a fundamental framework in his self-understanding as the messiah:

“He asked them, “What are you discussing with each other as you’re walking along?” They stood still and looked gloomy.

I'd look pretty gloomy too if I was following some killjoy who required suffering and obedience, but the point remains that 2000 years later he still hasn't satisfied the criteria for messiah. Talk about procrastination.

Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment [via crucifixion], again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ." Tacitus is here bearing indirect testimony to the conviction of the early Christians that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.

Well, he's relating the belief of the times that Jesus had been crucified in Judea. Whether the Romans bothered to record every Jew they crucified is unlikely, paper was expensive back then and they killed a *lot* of Jews, so Tacitus may simply be repeating the Christian account of the arrest and execution for lack of other evidence.

And it certainly doesn't support the claim of resurrection.

Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.

Sounds like a believer to me.

The Talmud mentions Jesus and his execution: "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

The heraldic accusations are interesting. Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." Such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats.

In a day when the supernatural was assumed to be real and supernatural claims were commonplace, supernatural claims do not confirm other supernatural claims. In fact, they confirm nothing other than the fact that ancient peoples were highly irrational and believed in demons and witchcraft, not a good foundation for laying claim that their testimony is to be believed.

I suppose these supernatural claims of sorcery also do at least show that the Jews didn't really like Jesus. Then again, they didn't really like anyone not strictly of their own faith.

Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Thus, if read with a strong desire to prove an existing set of beliefs, it confirms those beliefs. Otherwise, all it does is show that Jesus was unliked by Jews, unliked enough that they recorded his demise. not exactly earthshaking stuff.

One word, Koresh.

He died for what he knew to be a lie?

In 1985 Koresh travelled to Israel and it was there that he had a vision that he was the modern day Cyrus.

At least until 1990, he believed the place of his martyrdom might be in Israel but by 1991 he was convinced that his martyrdom would be in the United States. Instead of Israel, he said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mount Carmel center was the Davidic kingdom.

By this time, he had already begun to give the message of his own "Christhood", proclaiming that he was "the Son of God, the Lamb who could open the Seven seals." etc.

Either he was lying, or you are praying to the wrong guy.

An interesting aside from a survivor: "Former Davidian David Bunds said that Koresh's doctrine of polygamy "rose out of his deep desire to have sex with young girls. Once he was able to convince himself that it was God's will then he was able to be free of guilt and have sex with as many young girls as he could get his hands on."

Ah, religion. Upholder of ethics.

As for the "borrowing of ideas" in Christianity, looks like it's already been handled by others, though I *would* call it a plagiarism.

Again, early Christianity did not borrow from pagan religions or mythology.

There is significant evidence to the contrary, as has already been discussed. The virgin birth in particular is a common theme.

[Mulu]

BTW, don't think I didn't notice your dodge:

More to the point, why don't you believe in all the other religious myths being told? In order for this debate to be fair, you need to explain your own atheism regarding other faiths and mythical tales. Do believe that the Buddha maintained his perfect meditative trance despite storms and demons? If not, why not?

Now, for every supernatural myth ever told, both Christian and non-Christian, please state your position on whether or not it is factual, and why. I'll start.

My position: They are all not factual.
Explanation of my position: They all rely on the supernatural, and nothing supernatural is real.

Your turn.

I'm still waiting.

[Vaelahr]

Early Christianity didn't plagiarize, didn't borrow anything from Mithraism.

Well, they obviously did plagiarize concepts from older religions, and Mithraism had halos

I've yet to see evidence of any "obvious plagiarism" and "halos" aren't biblical.

Josephus was a believer.

We can be certain Flavius Josephus was not a Christian, but was a Jew and an apologist in the Roman world for the Jewish people and culture.

The Pharisees and Sadducees weren't considered cultic but were sects of Judaism, Jewish religious authorities (as well as the Essenes).

As I said, anyone claiming to be the messiah and gathering a following would qualify as a charismatic cult. Only the ones who made significant headway would have made recorded history.

The Pharisees, Sadducess, Essenes, and the Zealots did not make messianic claims.

As for the "borrowing of ideas" in Christianity, looks like it's already been handled by others, though I *would* call it a plagiarism.

Again, early Christianity did not borrow from pagan religions or mythology.

There is significant evidence to the contrary, as has already been discussed.

I've seen these assertions of evidence but no such evidence has been presented here except for an earlier claim in the other thread of Mithras having had a "last supper" with "his 12 disciples". To which I replied: The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of food staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funeral societies. As for a suggestion of "12 disciples", the Iranian Mithras had a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helper/companions, tiny torch-bearing likenesses of himself, called Cautes and Cautopatres, that were perhaps meant to represent the sunrise and sunset (or spring and autumn), whereas Mithras represented noon. Mithra also had a number of animal companions: a snake, a dog, a lion, a scorpion -- but not 12 of them.

The virgin birth in particular is a common theme.

Common where? Mithra was born (full-grown) out of solid rock. The Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story. His conception was attributed, variously, to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman, but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of.

[Mulu]

We're speaking past each other a little bit here.

It doesn't have to be in the bible for it to be plagiarism. Are you going to pretend that there are no halos in Christianity? Halos come from Mithraism. They are a symbol of the sun, since Mithras was a sun god. Everytime you see a halo in Christian artwork, just remember that halo was once hovering over the head of a guy who sprang from a rock.

Josephus, as a Jew apologist, seems to be a Jesus apologist also. I don't see him as a credible source, given what I've read so far. Even so, he doesn't add much.

In relation to cults, when I said, "anyone claiming to be the messiah and gathering a following would qualify as a charismatic cult" I meant "anyone" not "Pharisees and Seducees." There was a link of claimed messiahs provided, and the logical supposition is that there were many more such messiahs who never made the history books. Remember, I got this idea from Christian historians.

I've seen these assertions of evidence but no such evidence has been presented here except for an earlier claim in the other thread of Mithras having had a "last supper" with "his 12 disciples".

Actually there's many other assertions, though that one turned out to be bogus when I fact-checked it.

Further, as to Christians "borrowing" pagan ideas, it's beyond just Mithraism. Virgin births and children of gods are particularly common.

1. Hercules, born to Alkmene by the god Zeus.
2. Dionysus was "the son of the virgin"
3. Perseus was a half-god.
4. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest recorded legends of humanity, Gilgamesh claimed to be of both human and divine descent.

Also, the concept of a god being his own father (as Jesus is god, after all), was also not unique. From wiki:
Since Horus, as the son of Osiris, was only in existence after Osiris's death, and because Horus, in his earlier guise, was the husband of Isis, the difference between Horus and Osiris blurred, and so, after a few centuries, it came to be said that Horus was the resurrected form of Osiris. Likewise, as the form of Horus before his death and resurrection, Osiris, who had already become considered a form of creator when belief about Osiris assimilated that about Ptah-Seker, also became considered to be the only creator, since Horus had gained these aspects of Ra.

Eventually, in the Hellenic period, Horus was, in some locations, identified completely as Osiris, and became his own Father, since this concept was not so disturbing to Greek philosophy as it had been to that of ancient Egypt.

The combination of this, now rather esoteric mythology, with the philosophy of Plato, which was becoming popular on the Mediterranean shores, lead to the tale becoming the bases of a mystery religion. Many Greeks, and those of other nations, who encountered the faith, thought it so profound that they sought to create their own, modelled upon it, but using their own gods. This led to the creation of what was effectively one religion, which was, in many places, adjusted to superficially reflect the local mythology although it substantially adjusted them. The religion is known to modern scholars as that of Osiris-Dionysus.

The basic elements of the resurrection myth are all there, resurrection obviously, and the father as the son. It only took me a few minutes to compile these examples, I'm sure there's plenty of other examples.

And I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. You don't get 2000+ years to procrastinate.