Baldseagull
Well-known member
You don't have a problem with faith being the reason a Palestinian activist has a fight for his homeland?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people
- Thread starter Mustafa II
- Start date
That's precisely the point. The resurrection is the "test case" for Christianity.
My contention is that most scholars accept that:
1. Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in the first century
2. He was crucified
3. His disciples sincerely believed that he rose from the dead (which is why they went to such lengths to spread Christianity far and wide, and why there were so many Christian martyrs).
These three things shouldn't be controversial. Even atheists among the scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, agree with all of them.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
Are you still banging this drum?
Still quoting Ehrman while misrepresenting his views?
The problem you have here is that you require your targets to accept your three points as fact. Then you can jump off your platform to your hallelujah moment.
The trouble is we don't accept your points as facts because they are not. How can they be facts? The ancient texts are unreliable so most people concerned with truth will only go so far as a range of probabilities to the points you call truth. I am guessing that the table you drew is a trained strategy for trying to recruit followers. Is that what worked on you?
Not enough for your next strategy though is it?
Yes
How am I misrepresenting his views? All I am saying is that he believes that the disciples believed in the resurrection, which is true, he does.
If you disagree with that then you are the one misrepresenting his views.
The 3 points are fact, as Ehrman would agree, but they would then still have to believe the fourth point, which is that the disciples were right, which Ehrman disagrees with.
It's your prerogative not to accept them, just as it's mine to state them.
The very existence of Christianity in the world is the result of the blood of the martyrs who established Christianity in the early days of the church. They were sincere and passionate in their faith. Someone on this thread made a funny reference to the lions that ate Christians in the arena.
The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.
Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson. The unpopularity of the Christians with other Romans is made clear by letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (modern-day north Turkey) and the emperor Trajan in the early second century A.D. Pliny reported that the provincials had been denouncing others to him and even anonymously posting the names of suspected Christians. Trajan replied as follows: "They must not be searched for, but if they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished…"
Polycarp was persecuted before an enthusiastic crowd in Smyrna. Polycarp from S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna/Wikimedia Commons
In the event that a Christian agreed to sacrifice to the Roman gods, the emperor decreed that all would be forgiven.
Trajan’s letter effectively expressed the Roman state policy regarding Christians – a sort of ancient “don’t ask, don’t tell” – which lasted until A.D. 250. However, this did not put an end to denunciations by provincials who felt uneasy or threatened by Christians in their communities. We can see this in the case of Polycarp of Smyrna and the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, who were harassed by members of the local population and subsequently brought to trial. This is how emperors such as Marcus Aurelius earned the label of persecutors.
No, I just came up with it.
I became a Christian as a teen. I was seeking the truth, and was reading the Bible. That's what started me off on this journey.
I think you are running away from the truth. You can squeal as much as you like, but like I said, there's not really anything controversial about these facts.
Did Jesus live? Obviously.
Was he crucified? Yes.
Did his followers believe he rose from the dead? Well, it's apparent that they did since it is through them that the New Testament ended up being written, although Paul got converted through an experience that he had on his way to Damascus.
The evidence of the third point is the fact that Christianity exists in the world today. If the disciples hadn't been very convinced of the truth of the gospel, Christianity would have fizzled out very quickly.
So, the final question, were they right? I think they must have been. That's my opinion, and the opinion of billions of others. It's not the sort of thing the disciples were likely to have made a mistake about. That's my opinion. I don't buy Ehrman's group hallucination theory. Perhaps you do.
Last edited:
However, the initiative to punish Christians did not come from the emperors at all, but from below. In the case of Polycarp, who was burned alive, the people of Smyrna are even said to have joined in enthusiastically to find wood for the fire. This was mob violence at its finest.
Later in the second century, beheading was a privilege to which only the highest-ranking citizens were automatically entitled. The “lesser sort”, as they were known, were subject to more violent punishments. These included being crucified, burned to death, and attacked by beasts.
Being condemned to the beasts was a particularly grisly end. It meant that you and your companions would be exposed in the arena to a variety of wild and ferocious animals, such as leopards, boars, and yes, lions, and required to fight for your lives.
Condemnation to the beasts was a popular punishment for criminals, and not just unique to Christians. Rached Msadek/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
This was one part of a day-long festival of violence and slaughter, and was usually scheduled during the lunchtime interval to provide some light relief. During the birthday celebrations for the emperor’s son at Carthage, it was evidently thought amusing to match the female martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas with a maddened heifer, who tossed them in the air and crushed them.
theconversation.com
Not Just Lions…
The punishments meted out to Christians who admitted their religion and refused to sacrifice varied enormously. In the first and early second centuries A.D., Christians who were Roman citizens, including the apostle Paul, were executed by beheading, which was a quick and merciful end.Later in the second century, beheading was a privilege to which only the highest-ranking citizens were automatically entitled. The “lesser sort”, as they were known, were subject to more violent punishments. These included being crucified, burned to death, and attacked by beasts.
Being condemned to the beasts was a particularly grisly end. It meant that you and your companions would be exposed in the arena to a variety of wild and ferocious animals, such as leopards, boars, and yes, lions, and required to fight for your lives.
Condemnation to the beasts was a popular punishment for criminals, and not just unique to Christians. Rached Msadek/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
This was one part of a day-long festival of violence and slaughter, and was usually scheduled during the lunchtime interval to provide some light relief. During the birthday celebrations for the emperor’s son at Carthage, it was evidently thought amusing to match the female martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas with a maddened heifer, who tossed them in the air and crushed them.
Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions
The image of cowering Christians being thrown to the lions by Roman emperors is a grisly staple of popular culture. But how accurate is it?
theconversation.com
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
We will have to agree to disagree on the 'truth' that I am running away from.
But for the record, I think you have been very dishonest in this discussion and by focusing on your 3/4 questions you have misrepresented Ehrman to a quite incredible degree. I thank @Blues Guitarist for highlighting this early on a leading me to investigate him further as he is very interesting and insightful. Not least about the ways that some religious people choose to interpret ancient texts and their context. As you say Ehrman is a leading expert in this stuff and I will admit to a wry smile when listening to him this morning as I pondered his possible thoughts on your over simplistic table of nonsense.
Can I ask you one favour though, can we move on from your 3/4 question nonsense? You have been given many reasons why it is arrogant, dishonest and ill-conceived. To continue to bang your drum is very disrespectful to your co-contributors to this thread. We get that you think you are on solid ground and given you the reasons we see that you are not.
).
You may have to put this one down to a 'failure to convert". Shall we move on?
Not even sure that Jesus is a fact.
Feel free to explain how I have misrepresented him.
Is it not the case that he believes all 3 of points 1 to 3 that I have made?
You can thank me for introducing him to you
What's nonsense about it? I find it absurd that people can delude themselves that the early church, starting with the disciples, were not convinced of the truth of what they were proclaiming. That is what's nonsense.
It is solid. You are the ones on shaky ground, because you are denying facts that the majority of scholars are agreed upon.
Would you be so kind as to answer one question with a yes or a no:
Is it not the case that Ehrman believes that the disciples were sincerely convinced of the truth of the resurrection?
Basically, Christianity is founded on the resurrection. There is the empty tomb, there is the shroud of Turin which baffles scientists, and there is the blood of the martyrs. Now the blood of the likes of Peter, Stephen, Andrew, Paul, Polycarp and all the rest is testimony to how firmly they believed in the truth of the gospel.
You say you would like to move on, and that's fine but before we do so I would like you to give an honest answer to the question:
Is it not the case that Ehrman believes that the disciples were sincerely convinced of the truth of the resurrection?
For one thing I want to make it clear that I am not misrepresenting Ehrman on this point. The answer is found in the first 3 minutes of this video:
I think it's quite interesting. Among those for whom we have full data, there are 3 different conclusions: Yes to all 4, yes to the first 3, and yes to the first 2.
All I have said about Ehrman is that his answers to the questions:
1. Did Jesus exist? 2. Was he crucified? 3. Did his disciples believe in his resurrection? 4. Did the resurrection really happen?
are Yes, Yes, Yes, and No.
That is all I've said about him. I've not misrepresented him in any way.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
Feel free to explain how I have misrepresented him.
Is it not the case that he believes all 3 of points 1 to 3 that I have made?
You can thank me for introducing him to you
What's nonsense about it? I find it absurd that people can delude themselves that the early church, starting with the disciples, were not convinced of the truth of what they were proclaiming. That is what's nonsense.
It is solid. You are the ones on shaky ground, because you are denying facts that the majority of scholars are agreed upon.
Would you be so kind as to answer one question with a yes or a no:
Is it not the case that Ehrman believes that the disciples were sincerely convinced of the truth of the resurrection?
Basically, Christianity is founded on the resurrection. There is the empty tomb, there is the shroud of Turin which baffles scientists, and there is the blood of the martyrs. Now the blood of the likes of Peter, Stephen, Andrew, Paul, Polycarp and all the rest is testimony to how firmly they believed in the truth of the gospel.
You say you would like to move on, and that's fine but before we do so I would like you to give an honest answer to the question:
Is it not the case that Ehrman believes that the disciples were sincerely convinced of the truth of the resurrection?
For one thing I want to make it clear that I am not misrepresenting Ehrman on this point. The answer is found in the first 3 minutes of this video:
I won't be thanking you for the introduction to Erhman because you were dishonest about him from the start it took Blues Guitarist to fill in the relevant information about the guy
Okay, I'll give it one more go, even though myself, Blues Guitarist and Stato have explained the concept quite clearly.
It has very little to do with the answers to your question or your table. Aside from your insistence that your opinions on this are fact, willfully missing the point that we cannot know factually one way or the other. Yet you are trying to force us into one position or another - I wonder why?
Your insistence on focusing so much on your three questions is ignoring the context around them.
Your response to this is to focus even harder on one of these questions and what your chosen expert says about it. Again ignoring the context and wider information.
You are pretending that you are misunderstanding my point about your use of Erhman by focusing again on his response to the three questions. This is because you know if you consider the context around his ideas and his further understanding of the new testament your argument falls by the wayside. The incredibly disingenuous and arrogant notion that the only difference between him and you is that he says group hallucination and you say the resurrection, is laughable (and incredibly arrogant).
Further, you are using your focus on your questions and binary table to avoid the accusations of arrogance and dishonesty.
All of which makes for a highly dishonest debate. I won't be thanking you for the introduction to Erhman because you were dishonest about him from the start it took Blues Guitarist to fill in the relevant information about the guy.
Go on ask me one of your questions again.
@BadFish is talking about moving on from this area of the discussion, and while I would like to reserve the right to continue to address it from time to time as people may refer to it if they are reading the backlog, I think we can turn to other matters at least for the time being. This thread began with the OP @Mustafa II talking about how he found the Christians he'd encountered to be very decent people. This stems from the injunctions we find in scripture. Here is one of my favourite bits:
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
You have and continue to lie by omission. Very dishonest.
but thank you for allowing your thread to move on, very gracious of you
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
Not sure that our friend here understands what a fact is.
We cannot prove things, but we can establish things beyond reasonable doubt.
I won't be thanking you for the introduction to Erhman because you were dishonest about him from the start it took Blues Guitarist to fill in the relevant information about the guy
Okay, I'll give it one more go, even though myself, Blues Guitarist and Stato have explained the concept quite clearly.
It has very little to do with the answers to your question or your table. Aside from your insistence that your opinions on this are fact, willfully missing the point that we cannot know factually one way or the other.
Because people will say over and over and over again that Christianity is pure fiction, which is wrong and ignorant and arrogant and patronising. I've had enough of hearing nonsense like this. Christianity is rooted in history.
The point I'm making is that while expert scholars in this field are clear that Jesus lived and was crucified and had followers etc., we're still getting people saying things like "I don't know whether Jesus even ever existed." There are people who believe that the earth is flat, or that the holocaust never happened. Not knowing the basic facts of Christianity is akin to these things in my view.
Some things are binary. Either Jesus lived or he didn't. There isn't a third option is there? He can't have sort of existed. Either he did or he didn't.
In what way was I dishonest? From the start I made it clear that he was a sceptic.
You did say you want us to move on, so I am not going to ask you the questions again, but if you change your mind about your answers to any of them you can let me know.
Since you are accusing me of dishonesty, would you like to give a clear example of how I've been dishonest, or else apologise and withdraw the accusation. You say I am lying by omission. What have I omitted, which for you is tantamount to lying?You have and continue to lie by omission. Very dishonest.
but thank you for allowing your thread to move on, very gracious of you
Insel affe
HellBilly
Please take me out of your stupid table, I am not an experiment or part of any project of yours.
I would never have replied to any of your posts if I had known.
You don’t listen, and have an agenda which I’m not sure of.
You epitomise everything I despise about Christianity and other religions.
@Psychobilly freakout That's a bit harsh. I think you are overreacting. My only agenda if I have one is to discuss these matters and put my point of view, and also to learn from other people, too, which I have. Are you sure you want me to remove you? I will if you insist, but it's just a representation of your current opinion on the question of historical matters relating to Jesus.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,181
How do you feel this is going for you at the moment?
My advice would be to reconsider how you are coming across on this thread. Because in terms of the bit in bold you are appearing the opposite.
Either that or perhaps take a break from it.
Or alternatively, carry on and assume that you are right and everyone else is wrong and there is nothing wrong with the way you are presenting yourself and your arguments on this thread.
I suspect you will pick the latter. Self-reflection and metacognition do not appear to be strong points.