|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2006 : 22:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Suggestion to Bill, What is the definition of evidence, Scott:
Before you reply again. Why don't you try giving sources for all of your claims. Outside of the Bible. Everyone who has addressed you has asked for your evidence and you have either played dumb as in your responses to Pleco. Or dodged the whole thing without addressing it. This is a good way to become branded as raving background noise, such as GK Paul, Ergo123, etc.
I think that Bill has confused the accounts of Jewish persecution of christians shortly after the death of Christ, as given in Acts, with the Roman persecution of Christians a generation or two later. There is non-biblical evidence for the latter, but not for the former.
And really, it doesn't matter to his central claim that the resurrection was responsible for 1000's of conversions shortly after Jesus's death, and that many (most?) died because of it. The Acts of the Apostles itself does not support Bill's claims. I alreadt showed that Acts does not indicate many deaths. In addition, I discovered that, according to Acts, the 3000 conversions were not direct a result of the resurrection. Rather it resultef from the actions of the apostles, and a speech by Peter. At the Pentacost the apostlesspoke in tongues, and a great crowd that gathered all heard them speeking in the native language of the listener. This greatly impressed the crowds. When some in the crowd suggested the apostles were drunk, Peter addressed them with a rather long winded speech saying that this was fulfilling a prophesy by Joel, and that the patriarch David fortold of the resurrection of Jesus, and that "This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses". Then the 3000 converted. He claimed that they all witnessed it, but they weren't impressed enough, I guess, to convert.
So even the account in the Acts of the Apostles does not support Bill.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 00:50:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Sources), the earliest Roman persecution of Christians came under the rule of Nero in 64 AD. Thats 34 years or so after the resurrection.
And as I noted in another thread what we know about the reign of Nero is mostly written by historians loyal to his enemies, half a century later. quote:
From Wikipedia on Nero
Because of historical slander, it may be impossible to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction regarding Nero's rule.
What we know is that around 117 AD there was a claim that christians had been persecuted by Nero, a claim used by historians hostile to Nero.
My guess is that the source of this claim, whether it is exactly true, partly true, exaggerated or even false, is the christian sect of that time (117 AD), always keen on martyrs and their torment.
Edit: Adding source to quote for clarity. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 12/01/2006 02:01:43 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 05:53:05 [Permalink]
|
In a book by "There are those who call me, Tim" Callahan, "The Secret Origins of the Bible". He talks about the death of Caesar Cladius Nero who died in 68 CE and about how within the next year another person claimed to be the resurrected Caesar Cladius Nero. And that this claim was made two more times within the next 19 years. Further claiming that resurrection beliefs were not uncommon during that time. But in a previous post we see that life-death-rebirth was not an uncommon thing for gods to do. So we are probably looking back to a time and at a people who were predisposed to believe in resurrection and probably expected it from their gods.
At this point I am not able to support Tim's claim made in his book, and I don't recall that Tim did either (edited here). I may try again later. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 12/01/2006 05:56:49 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 09:13:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
I only mentioned the hurricanes because I just read about them since we are at the end of the season. I mean if I can't point to this season as evidence against GW then why can others point to last season as evidence for GW?
What was significant about hurricanes like Katrina was their intensity, which has been growing for years. Category 5 hurricanes were once a very rare occurrence. But yes, one year doesn't really say a lot. What the climatologists, oceanographers and meteorologists look at is trends.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 23:04:30 [Permalink]
|
I'd appreciate a reply, Bill, to my previous response to you, when you get a chance.
To others, especially leonofno (who seems to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject), we have seen here in these forums before a claim not of thousands dying for their beliefs, but just of Jesus' Disciples dying for what they really would have known to be false, had the resurrection not happened. I don't happen to recall the outcome of the previous discussions here, but it's probably better to drag such a claim - much stronger, to my mind, than Bill's wimpy one - through the wringer again, fresh, rather than to simply post a link. So, did most of eleven Disciples (we won't bother with Judas) choose death instead of admitting that Jesus wasn't brought back from the dead? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 00:08:20 [Permalink]
|
| There is no evidence that any of the disciples, if they even existed, faced death after Jesus' cruci-fiction. Rome had freedom of religion laws and almost any religion could be granted legality. Christian trouble makers, however, may have been jailed and flogged if they were seen as a threat to the government. The same way we would jail an anarchist starting trouble in America, probably without the beating however. Many religions that were exactly the same as Christianity in principle were already legal and being practiced within Rome (see this article: The difference being that Christianity stated that anyone that did not belief in their way would burn in Hell. In alot of ways, Rome was in a similar state as we are now in America. If you are the magistrate of a province and someone comes to town saying everything you believe is wrong and you should believe in my religion or be cast into the fire for not bearing good fruit etc. Also keeping in mind that the zealots and other rogue groups of Jews preaching similar intolerance and anti-establishmentarianism against Rome had already posed threats and requied military attention. Also, it was a sort of rule that if the person in charge was unable to squelch the internal threats and had too many riots and rebellions they would be displaced. All of this is in accordance with Western Civilization by Jackson J. Spielvogel as well as books such as The secret origins of the Bible already cited by Leoofno. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/02/2006 00:09:03 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 01:04:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
...
No, no, no. I insert God based on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.....
There is no historical evidence of this at all. There are claims in the Bible. The Bible has some historical content. But in no way is the Bible a reliable historical account. There is nothing in the story of the resurrection in the Bible that provides any evidence the story is more than fiction.
For example, where are collaborating accounts of a person, Jesus, floating up into the sky, witnessed by many? You would expect to find this incredible story repeated by many and therefore in more historical accounts than merely one. Think of what such a real event would have impressed into the memory of all witnesses, not just Christians. There is no historical record of any such event. Only a story. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 01:17:16 [Permalink]
|
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the Catholics have sainted all but Judas, meaning the other 11 were all (allegedly) martyred - killed for their belief in Jesus as divine. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they all existed, and actually examine how they allegedly died.
For example, Wikipedia has this to say about Mark:When Mark returned to Alexandria, the people there are said to have resented his efforts to turn them away from the worship of their traditional Egyptian gods. In AD 68 they killed him, and tried to burn his body. But no attribution is given for these claims. Are the traditions about Mark true in any way, or just traditions? In Mark's case, Wikipedia alone isn't up to the task of assuring us that this is just some concocted story - having nothing to do with the Roman government, either. What is? Is there a source which identifies when these stories about Mark began to be told? Was it anywhere close to 68 AD?
Let me frame this particular subject another way: the death of the Disciples for their beliefs seems to be a question upon which the Catholics and the Protestants agree. Since many "casual" Fundamentalist Protestants ("causal" being a relative term) seem to think that the Catholics are all going to Hell for their beliefs, I think it would be pretty funny if it could be shown that a Fundamentalist belief rests upon nothing but the Roman Catholic tradition of sainthood. When examining such a question, "there is no evidence" doesn't suffice: only the conclusive demonstration that this extremist Protestant dogma is based upon Catholic ideas (and nothing more) will make this the ironic knee-slapper that I think it is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 01:40:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
...
No, no, no. I insert God based on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.....
There is no historical evidence of this at all. There are claims in the Bible. The Bible has some historical content. But in no way is the Bible a reliable historical account. There is nothing in the story of the resurrection in the Bible that provides any evidence the story is more than fiction.
For example, where are collaborating accounts of a person, Jesus, floating up into the sky, witnessed by many? You would expect to find this incredible story repeated by many and therefore in more historical accounts than merely one. Think of what such a real event would have impressed into the memory of all witnesses, not just Christians. There is no historical record of any such event. Only a story.
Alot of the bible's history is wrong. In fact, it compares to equivalent books written around the same times. Which is fine for us mortals, but to be divinely authoritative it should be 100% correct. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 11:05:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
No, no, no. I insert God based on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.....
I offer this for your consideration Bill.
quote:
From letters to Shermer regarding the Sci Am article
Can a Conservative Christian Accept Evolution?:
As an evangelical Christian with a biology background, I appreciate and agree with most of Michael Shermer's article on why Christians should stop opposing evolution. However, he missed what is in my experience the main reason so many Christians hold so strongly to creationism. This is the belief that if we throw out the literal Creation account, then we are opening the door to throwing out the very basis of Christianity, the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. As long as the two are linked, conservative Christians can never accept evolution. Only by decoupling the two issues can Christians accept evolution. Fortunately, this has already happened once in Christian history, when the Protestants of the Reformation dropped the belief in the literal transformation of the Eucharist in the Mass. Once they realized that they could rationally take the Eucharist passages non-literally and still take the Resurrection literally, they followed the physical evidence and never looked back. Conservative Christians will not accept evolution until they make the same intellectual leap. How long that will take, only God knows.
— Blake Adams San Antonio, TX
Any comments Bill?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 20:42:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd appreciate a reply, Bill, to my previous response to you, when you get a chance.
To others, especially leonofno (who seems to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject), we have seen here in these forums before a claim not of thousands dying for their beliefs, but just of Jesus' Disciples dying for what they really would have known to be false, had the resurrection not happened. I don't happen to recall the outcome of the previous discussions here, but it's probably better to drag such a claim - much stronger, to my mind, than Bill's wimpy one - through the wringer again, fresh, rather than to simply post a link. So, did most of eleven Disciples (we won't bother with Judas) choose death instead of admitting that Jesus wasn't brought back from the dead?
I really don't know all that much. I have read a few books and know how to search the web. I am very interested in the early church, and christian origins, but don't have near the ammount of free time that I would like to learn about it. (I appreciate the compliment, though)
I do know that much of what we know about the fate of the apostles is not from the Bible, but from Church tradition, and is often contradictory. I suspect that most are not factual.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
