Persecution of christians

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

AFAIK, the earliest of the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark, was written somewhere between 70CE and 90CE, and it is widely held to be based on a number of primary sources, now lost. These primary sources are variously named Q, L, M, etc.

No. This 'Late date' assumes that when Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple had to happen after 70AD because we know Jesus could not prophesy.

There are several abnomalities that lead one to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the primary one being the behaviour of Paul the Apostle, who did exist. Paul never referred to any of the Synoptic Gospels in his writings, and has a rather radical different discription of Jesus (than that of the Synoptic Gospels).

Umm, so Paul then must be the ultimate authority?

Secondly you are very far out in left field. Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptics were written.

Third, can you please cite what makes Paul's discription of Christ, radical?

Another big one is of course the contradictions among the Synoptic Gospels (like the two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke), such contradictions are usually denied by Christians.

That would work however, one geneology goes through Mary and the other through Joseph.

[Ben Kenobi]

The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy.

Actually, that passage strikes me as very sarcastic, exactly how a Jew would want to portray Christ. Why would a Christian say, "If indeed he were a man?" A Christian would be much less restrained.

[Berzerker]

Why would a Christian say, "If indeed he were a man?" A Christian would be much less restrained.

A Christian forger wouldn't want to appear much less restrained when masquerading as a non-Christian Jew.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. This 'Late date' assumes that when Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple had to happen after 70AD because we know Jesus could not prophesy.

Assuming he can is begging the question, i.e., already assuming that Jesus was divine. I suppose one can always introduce the notion that Jesus was one of the prophets, but Christians deny this also.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Umm, so Paul then must be the ultimate authority?

As far as we can factually find out, Apostle Paul was the person who popularised Christianity during the early days. The question becomes that, if Jesus did indeed exist and was indeed a martyr, why did he not use this to all its effect?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly you are very far out in left field. Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptics were written.

Even if I concede this point, that Paul did not refer to any of the so called "eyewitness accounts" which supposedly formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels put a big hole in that assertion.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Third, can you please cite what makes Paul's discription of Christ, radical?

I will dig it out later.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That would work however, one geneology goes through Mary and the other through Joseph.

That's the standard, uh, explanation. However, there is no good reason for that to be the case and certainly there is no internal evidence for that to be the case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"Chrestus! = Christ " is enough proof for you?

Why would any non-Christian refer to Jesus of Nazareth as Christ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Even if I concede this point, that Paul did not refer to any of the so called "eyewitness accounts" which supposedly formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels put a big hole in that assertion.

1 Cor 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


He's basing his testimony on eyewitnesses here.

Why would any non-Christian refer to Jesus of Nazareth as Christ?

For the same reason people call him Christ here if they are not believers. So you know who he's talking about.

The question becomes that, if Jesus did indeed exist and was indeed a martyr, why did he not use this to all its effect?

Read the letters. It should be painfully clear what he preaches.

However, there is no good reason for that to be the case and certainly there is no internal evidence for that to be the case

No internal evidence? Luke uses different sources from Matthew. This difference would reflect his emphasis on women, while also reflecting Matthews concern for the Jews. The explanation is 'standard' because this is a very old issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ben -

No Ben, it's because most Christians feel compelled to "save" the rest of us by force, be it inquisitions or laws. If Christians minded their own business they wouldn't engender disgust from people who believe in "live and let live". The failure of so many Christians to understand that many people don't like having Christians run their lives reveals a willful ignorance and arrogance. Many Christians don't settle for telling us they know the proper path, they threaten people with violence to compel everyone else to follow that path.

So what is the difference between Islamists who punish people for not accepting the Islamist way of life and these Christians? Today's Christians are not as brutal? That's about it... Osama would kill me for being a "sinner", Jerry Falwell wants me put in a cage until I accept his "salvation"... And if I refuse, back in the cage I go... So much for the Golden Rule...

Berserker, this is just a bit harsh, is it not? With the separation of Church and State in most of the Christian world, this is no longer possible. It is ancient history.

I can hardly imagine today's Christian churches trying to forcibly convert a non believer. I have never heard of such a thing being done or even proposed by the Catholic Church in my entire life.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Ooh! Ooh! Prove it! Prove it!

...Um. Well, I'd have to do some digging for the primary sources, but this is a summary of what Merlin has that Jesus does not:

1. Actual writings from the man himself. We have works from Myrddin the Bard. There is no "Book of Jesus".

2. Actual contemporary accounts. Not written decades later by "acolytes of Merlin" (Merlinians?). And not merely historical accounts of the existence of a group of people who "believed" that he existed.

Ben:

The synoptic Gospels were written between 50-60 AD, only 20-30 years after the death of Christ.

There does not appear to be any actual evidence for that assertion.

I suspect that it comes from a desire to believe that Jesus DID prophesy the destruction of the temple, therefore "of course" they were written earlier.

The reality is that there is no controversy for the church as to the authorship of the Gospels.

I think "well, duh..." is an appropriate response to that!

There is plenty of controversy for historians, however!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But this is part of the point. The similarities between Arthurian legend and the real basis for Arthur are probably about the same as those between the legend of Jesus given in the gospels and the real person(s).

The biggest case against the existance of Arthur as a person is the fact that Gildas doesn't mention him. Sorry, but you're falling flat there. No serious Dark Ages historian takes Arthur seriously, even as a "real man, not a legend".

The case for the factual life of Jesus is every bit as strong as (for example) Ceawlin or Maelgwyn. Whether you accept his divinity or not, there's a strong case for accepting his existance.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure if that's tongue-in-cheek, Laz.

Not in the slightest.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He's basing his testimony on eyewitnesses here.

Ah, so, why are the different accounts of the Resurrection so different?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For the same reason people call him Christ here if they are not believers. So you know who he's talking about.

You have completely ignored that fact that Western culture has been under Christianity influence for 2000 years or so. Not something the Romans and Jews were under.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Read the letters. It should be painfully clear what he preaches.

Of course it is clear. It is religious propaganda, afterall.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No internal evidence? Luke uses different sources from Matthew. This difference would reflect his emphasis on women, while also reflecting Matthews concern for the Jews. The explanation is 'standard' because this is a very old issue.

Where is the evidence of the author of Luke emphasised on women? Furthermore, at least half of those names in Luke are not women names, so what gives? Lastly, why are there overlaps between the two lines?

This explanation simply does not hold water for any nonbelievers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The case for the factual life of Jesus is every bit as strong as (for example) Ceawlin or Maelgwyn. Whether you accept his divinity or not, there's a strong case for accepting his existance.

Even with no historical record of such a supposedly important person?

[Berzerker]

Ned -

Berserker, this is just a bit harsh, is it not? With the separation of Church and State in most of the Christian world, this is no longer possible. It is ancient history.

Separation of Church and State has not prevented Christians from legislating their religion on a whole range of issues, but yes, the ancient history was even more brutal. Christians no longer burn people at the stake or stretch them on racks, etc... Their victims are put in cages now...

I can hardly imagine today's Christian churches trying to forcibly convert a non believer. I have never heard of such a thing being done or even proposed by the Catholic Church in my entire life.

Do you know the origin of penitentiaries? A place to "repent".

[Jon Miller]

you know that repent has nonreligious connotations

JonMiller

[Berzerker]

Not when Christians create penitentiaries for people to repent. That is the origin of penitentiaries so it would be illogical to say there were no religious connotations involved...especially when your stay in a penitentiary is a result of "sinning"...