Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Crucifixion wasn't begun to be practiced as capital punishment until around the 6th century BCE. There is no mentioned of it being used by the Egyptians, and the Greeks hardly ever used it either.

Isis had normal relations with Osris before Hourus was born, as did Zeus with Dionysus' mother, whereas Mary did not have relations with anyone.

One important facet of Jesus' death is missing from this list.

 

ROFWSLMAO

 

Actually your right. Isis put back together a chopped up Osiris, and had sex with him to concieve Horus. Which if you ask me is a much more Awesome myth than the virgin birth story.

 

This is all ridiculous. The story of Jesus Chris was not "invented". Some of the checks in that table are outright lies (like Horus' mother being a virgin) and others are severe stretching of the truth. I'd like to see clear references that these things were actually believed about those gods.

He was a real, living person, whose existence was validated by Tacitus, Josephus (possible interpolation), and Suetonius. Many other primary sources, such as the three synoptic gospels, the gospel of John, the gospel of Thomas, the entirety of the New Testament, and many, many other early Christian writings confirm. He sent out apostles from India, to Ethiopia, to Spain, and possibly as far north as Kiev. He spawned a movement which grew so rapidly as to envelop an Empire within 300 years.

You're telling me that this person didn't exist?

We have in our possession the physical remains of all the closest of his followers. His followers have a constant succession of writings, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement - and you think this religion was invented to "appeal to the masses"?

My religion is ridiculous. I believe that the Prime Mover became one Moved, that I literally chew on and swallow his blood every week. That someone put to death in an ignoble and awful way is actually a wonderful thing? My religion is foolishness to those who do not believe. It was not invented to artificially appeal to anyone, and it wasn't formed by any mishmash.

Christianity descends from Judaism, and it is completely true that Judaism, in an obvious and verifiable way, has overlaps with other Semitic indigenous religions. The creation myth in Genesis is a retelling of Babylonian creation myths written while the Jews were in captivity. It doesn't mean that the God of the universe is not the God of the Jews (they are still here, after all). This is simply silly.

 

Again, the Gospels are not primary sources. I guess you could make the "faith" argument, but at the very least Matthew, Luke, and John were not written by eyewitnesses. There's very little historical evidence for Jesus. While Josephus was an actual eyewitness to the events he most famously chronicled, Roman historians don't exactly make the best secondary sources and their mentions of Jesus were very short.

The historical Jesus probably existed (mostly because it's simpler), but even allowing that there's no evidence he was anything like the man portrayed in the New Testament.

 

I think every reputable biblical scholar (except for some who want to be 'controversial' so they get invited to skepticon) accepts that Jesus existed, but as Guy says, there is no evidence which is historically reliable which supports the claims that Jesus was the son of God and was resurrected after death and performed miracles.

 

No one that I know of is doubting the existence of Jesus as a man. What we are doubting is his existence as the son of a god. There is zero evidence for that.

 

He did, you know, rise from the dead.

I'm completely serious. We have evidence from many historical sources that he rose from the dead, and not any (that I know of) contradicting it.

 

Such as?

 

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

(Althought not all of these refer directly to his resurrection)

 

lol

 

Yep, using the Bible to prove the Bible. Just like using a Spider-Man comic to prove that Spider-Man exists.

 

I love the little disclaimer at the end. Solid gold.

 

I'm not using this to prove the Bible. My faith isn't based in the Bible.

Jesus Christ rose from the dead and everyone close to it attested to it, including John and Matthew. The people who saw him after his resurrection were numerous and credible enough that by the time the followers who knew him died, there were Christian communities in India, Ethiopia, and Spain.

No one who was there or close to those there at those events contradicts the narrative that he rose from the dead. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict his resurrection.

"lolwut people cant rise from the dead" is not evidence.

This is as stupid is saying, "You can't use a George Washington biography to prove that George Washington existed."

A contemporary biography of George Washington is evidence that he existed.

 

you'd think if he did rise from the dead tho we'd have some romans making note of that. like "oh and by the way, freakin' zombies reported in the palestine"

 

Yes, they attested it so much that there are 4 mutually contradictory accounts of the resurrection.

 

nope. the difference is even george washington's enemies will attest to his existence and major deeds. the romans didnt seem to take much notice at all of jesus, and certainly dont attest to him rolling around undead

 

And also, the accounts of George Washington's life were written while he was still alive. The gospels were written 20-40 years after Jesus' death.

 

Which makes is seem more organic and likely that they believed and witnessed the empty tomb than not. If it was a myth constructed by them, they'd all have agreed on which story to tell... as well as making the first witnesses more credible in the eyes of people of the ancient world (instead of women).

 

Who knows what they saw? The myth was not constructed by those that were there. It was constructed by those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories from those who retold stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard storiesfrom those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories frpm hose who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who heard stories from those who were there.

And that leads us to the first Gospel of Mark (although the real author is anonomous) who then recorded the story as retold above in writing approximately 30 to 40 years after the event. That story was then copied word for word by anonomous scribes for a further two hundred years before the first extand copy was discovered. That was then translated from Greek into various languages and then assembed with other Gospels and writings which were created even later.

 

If they accounts were perfectly in agreement you would say that they were obviously from a single (and unbelievable) source.

So? It doesn't mean that those records do not exist, and it doesn't mean that those records aren't legitimate evidence of his existence and his actions.

Our temporal proximity to George Washington as well as the development of better storage media and facilities provide us with a plethora of resources about. Historical figures of note, even Muhammad, don't have anything written about them until after their death. I didn't say that it was exactly the same - but the records of Jesus Christ's followers are certainly evidence that he existed, just as the records of Muhammad's followers are records that he existed.

This is human history in a nutshell. Even if it's written down, there's still a daisy chain. There's a daisy chain of educators, a daisy chain of differing textbooks and differing interpretation of primary sources.

We're all linked to the past by someone who was linked to the past etc.

 

well, in muhammad's case its kind of his fault for actually conquering everyone around him. there are plenty of sources among those he conquered

 

I do give him mad props for that.

 

Yes, but this daisy chain can stretch from Earth to the Moon and back 12169 times.

 

The Christianity one?

St. Matthew and St. John - direct, St. Mark to St. Peter, St. Luke to the Holy Apostles and the Holy Theotokos and St. Longinus and everyone else he interviewed while writing Luke and Acts. All of the attestations of the Apostles in their letters are direct, with the exception of St. Paul, who is one step removed.

Furthermore, Christian groups founded by the Apostles have tended to teach the exact same things about Christianity - hence by the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch occupied such high prestige in the early church and were able to emerge as the dominant form of Christianity, when groups such as the gnostics were completely unable to trace themselves back to the Apostles. Who are you going to believe? St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by St. Peter and discipled by St. John, or someone who never knew the Apostles?

That's hardly "to the Moon and back 12169 times".