Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

I take it’s the miracle and not the evidence.

I'll ask again.

In AD 520 an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.

No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened.

Do you believe these events actually happened? If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve?

Let’s face it even if Caesar documented that he saw a resurrected Jesus it would be fobbed off as a hallucination or the Christians had brainwashed him etc

Caesar was the High Priest of Jupiter in his youth and later Pontifex Maximus, where he administered divine law of the Roman Pantheon. Romulus, his reputed ancestor, the founder of Rome and son of the god Mars was widely believed to have disappeared in a whirlwind during a sudden and violent storm and then subsequently deified as the god Quirinus. Do I suppose this is true because Caesar believed it to be so?

 

[Boston tiger]

I'll ask again.

In AD 520 an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.

No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened.

Do you believe these events actually happened? If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve?



Caesar was the High Priest of Jupiter in his youth and later Pontifex Maximus, where he administered divine law of the Roman Pantheon. Romulus, his reputed ancestor, the founder of Rome and son of the god Mars was widely believed to have disappeared in a whirlwind during a sudden and violent storm and then subsequently deified as the god Quirinus. Do I suppose this is true because Caesar believed it to be so?

Ease up I asked the question.

 

[Present Not Past]

I'll ask again.

In AD 520 an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.

No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened.

Do you believe these events actually happened? If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve?



Caesar was the High Priest of Jupiter in his youth and later Pontifex Maximus, where he administered divine law of the Roman Pantheon. Romulus, his reputed ancestor, the founder of Rome and son of the god Mars was widely believed to have disappeared in a whirlwind during a sudden and violent storm and then subsequently deified as the god Quirinus. Do I suppose this is true because Caesar believed it to be so?

This is a bad example given that on-one has attributed their name to it.
As for Julius Caesar, he believed in the Roman Gods. So yes, Caesar would have believed it to be so.
Should we believe it? I'm not sure. Caesar believed it to be true - how do you effectively prove it to be false?

 

[Roylion]

This is a bad example given that on-one has attributed their name to it.

The Gospels have anonymous authors too. The names that they currently have were attributed later.

As for Julius Caesar, he believed in the Roman Gods. So yes, Caesar would have believed it to be so.

Of course he would have. Believing something to be true does not make it necessarily so.

Caesar believed it to be true - how do you effectively prove it to be false?

You can't. Why should I accept it to be true though? Because Caesar believed it?

 

[Boston tiger]

In AD 520 an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.

No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened.

Do you believe these events actually happened? If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve?

Are still on this mythical Jesus fantasy mystery ride ?

 

[Roylion]

Are still on this mythical Jesus fantasy mystery ride ?

Still not answering the question? Do you believe the claims made about St. Genevieve?

If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons for you to disbelieve the claims made about St. Genevieve?

 

[Boston tiger]

Still not answering the question? Do you believe the claims made about St. Genevieve?

If so, why?

And if you don't believe it, are there specific reasons for you to disbelieve the claims made about St. Genevieve?

.

This is from my original post to you.

“So it’s the miracle part that’s the problem or the evidence of first hand witness accounts that worries you.”

I will have no problems answering any of your questions but I’d just like to know if you think the evidence that historians have presented about the resurrection from the birth of the Christian Church is weak because of the enormity of its claims or just inherently weak?

Just trying to keep this about “ evidence for a resurrection “ but happy later to head to 520 and talk about the evidence of a tree and ships righting themselves etc .

And can you confirm that you still don’t believe that there was historical Jesus with a Peter and followers etc...as I need to know what level of “ what evidence ?” you are at.

 

[Roylion]

This is from my original post to you.

“So it’s the miracle part that’s the problem or the evidence of first hand witness accounts that worries you.”

I will have no problems answering any of your questions but I’d just like to know if you think the evidence that historians have presented about the resurrection from the birth of the Christian Church is weak because of the enormity of its claims or just inherently weak?

Given my comment was addressing the previous claim that there is "significant evidence to support the resurrection", I would have thought it was obvious. I'm asking a Christian (as per the thread title of "ask a Christian") what this "significant evidence" actually is.

.Just trying to keep this about “ evidence for a resurrection “ but happy later to head to 520 and talk about the evidence of a tree and ships righting themselves etc .

Why not now? Why is one account to be believed, but not the other? Both the account of St Genevieve and the Gospels contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. The physical resurrection of the dead corpse of Jesus cannot be regarded as anything other than a miracle.

And can you confirm that you still don’t believe that there was historical Jesus with a Peter and followers etc...as I need to know what level of “ what evidence ?” you are at.

The consensus of Biblical scholars is that there was a historical figure of some kind. That this historical figure wrought the miracles outlined in the Gospels, including rising physically from the dead is in my view extremely doubtful. Persuade me that my view is wrong.

 

[Boston tiger]

Given my comment was addressing the previous claim that there is "significant evidence to support the resurrection", I would have thought it was obvious. I'm asking a Christian (as per the thread title of "ask a Christian") what this "significant evidence" actually is.



Why not now? Why is one account to be believed, but not the other? Both the account of St Genevieve and the Gospels contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. The physical resurrection of the dead corpse of Jesus cannot be regarded as anything other than a miracle.



The consensus of Biblical scholars is that there was a historical figure of some kind. That this historical figure wrought the miracles outlined in the Gospels, including rising physically from the dead is in my view extremely doubtful. Persuade me that my view is wrong.

Good. I’m glad we have some kind of historical figure that had followers.
And if you don’t believe in the miraculous then of course the evidence we have of Jesus’s miracles have to be made up by his followers or in the resurrection case it’s Jesus never died on the cross, it was a feeling of Jesus spirit or completely made up.

If you do believe in the miraculous then the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is pretty good. People basing a sect upon it ( in real time of said miracle ) and prepared to cop whatever comes there way etc,

So when the guy who started this thread says there is compelling evidence for a resurrected Jesus and he has no problems with the miraculous.. then he has a pretty good point.

Don’t you think?

You can say what you like but Christianity and it’s beginning is done pretty well with a strong sense of legitimacy.

 

[Roylion]

Good. I’m glad we have some kind of historical figure that had followers.
And if you don’t believe in the miraculous then of course the evidence we have of Jesus’s miracles have to be made up by his followers or in the resurrection case it’s Jesus never died on the cross, it was a feeling of Jesus spirit or completely made up.

Ancient and medieval stories were full of 'miracles' that were widely believed, often because the majority had no understanding of science or critical thought. The vast majority of people back were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society. Morevoer a story that, if believed, secured eternal life, a life that was promised to be better than their life on earth.

If you do believe in the miraculous then the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is pretty good.

So what's this evidence?

People basing a sect upon it ( in real time of said miracle ) and prepared to cop whatever comes there way etc,

See above.

So when the guy who started this thread says there is compelling evidence for a resurrected Jesus and he has no problems with the miraculous.. then he has a pretty good point.

Don’t you think?

Not really. Even if we accept that a 'miracle' occurred and the dead corpse of a first century figure "Yeshua" was re-animated (and I'm extremely dubious that that ever actually happened), what is the evidence that supports such an event actually occurring?

 

[Present Not Past]

Ancient and medieval stories were full of 'miracles' that were widely believed, often because the majority had no understanding of science or critical thought. The vast majority of people back were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society. Morevoer a story that, if believed, secured eternal life, a life that was promised to be better than their life on earth.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion given the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?
In fact the majority of the New Testament was written at a time when even the suspicion that you were a Christian meant a swift death.

 

[Boston tiger]

Ancient and medieval stories were full of 'miracles' that were widely believed, often because the majority had no understanding of science or critical thought. The vast majority of people back were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society. Morevoer a story that, if believed, secured eternal life, a life that was promised to be better than their life on earth.



So what's this evidence?



See above.



Not really. Even if we accept that a 'miracle' occurred and the dead corpse of a first century figure "Yeshua" was re-animated (and I'm extremely dubious that that ever actually happened), what is the evidence that supports such an event actually occurring?

You don’t know the evidence ? As I said before to someone .. start with why academia believes in a historical Jesus and then it’s pretty clear.

 

[Roylion]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion given the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?

Christianity managed to successfully spread in the Roman Empire and why it did so, is subject to various theories. According to American socioligist Rodney Stark, Christianity replaced Roman paganism chiefly because it improved the lives of its adherents in various ways. Another factor was the way in which Christianity combined its promise of a general resurrection of the dead with the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body, with Christianity adding practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of the world.

According to Will Durant the Church prevailed over Greek and Roman paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine, and because the church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals. According to Bart Ehrman, Christianity offered a powerful alternative to the Roman religions, with its promise of salvation and a better, eternal life, and its powerful God. Its demand for exclusive adherence, and conversions of whole households, also contributed to its strength. This is what I essentially stated in my earlier post.

As well as this the reasons for persecution are quite easy to understand. The practices of Christians were deeply threatening to the traditional Roman tradition. Christians rejected public festivals, refused to take part in the imperial cult or emperor worship, avoided public office, and publicly criticized ancient traditions. Traditional Roman religion was interwoven into the fabric of Roman society and state, but Christians refused to observe its practices - a deeply threatening move, especially as their numbers grew larger.

Even so, Christians weren't widely persecuted until the third century AD. For example Emperor Trajan's policy towards Christians was no different from the treatment of other sects, that is, they would only be punished if they refused to worship the emperor and the gods, but they were not to be sought out for persecution. The Emperor Decius issued a decree requiring public sacrifice, a formality equivalent to a testimonial of allegiance to the Emperor and the established order. Decius authorized roving commissions visiting the cities and villages to supervise the execution of the sacrifices and to deliver written certificates to all citizens who performed them. Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or by burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused. Refusal was punished by arrest, imprisonment, torture, and executions.

At the beginning of the fourth century (AD 303) the Emperor Diocletian banned Christian practices and ordered the imprisonment of Christian clergy, the persecution intensified until all Christians in the empire were commanded to sacrifice to the Roman gods or face immediate execution. Constantine, on taking the imperial office in 306, restored Christians to full legal equality and returned property that had been confiscated during the persecution. By 324 Christianity was Constantine's favored religion.

Some historians consider that, in the centuries that followed the persecutory era, Christians created a "cult of the martyrs", and exaggerated the barbarity of the persecutions.

In fact the majority of the New Testament was written at a time when even the suspicion that you were a Christian meant a swift death.

That's not correct.

 

[Roylion]

You don’t know the evidence ?

Educate me. This is "ask a Christian".

As I said before to someone .. start with why academia believes in a historical Jesus and then it’s pretty clear.

So the reasons for suggesting there may have been a historical Yeshua figure are the same reasons for supposing that a physical resurrection of Yeshua's dead body took place? Is that what you're suggesting?

Does academia accept the physical resurrection of a crucified criminal?

 

[Boston tiger]

Educate me. This is "ask a Christian".



So the reasons for suggesting there may have been a historical Yeshua figure are the same reasons for supposing that a physical resurrection of Yeshua's dead body took place? Is that what you're suggesting?

Yes

 

[Roylion]

Yes

So explain this further. Make the connection. Present the evidence.

 

[Boston tiger]

So explain this further. Make the connection. Present the evidence.[/QUOTE

No

 

[Present Not Past]

The letters of Paul the Apostle in the first century.

 

[Boston tiger]

Richard Carrier here we come.

 

[Monniehawk]

Can I just enquire as to the claim made in bold, speaking as an anti-theist and also someone whom is militantly anti religious?

Bigot:
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
i.e. a religious bigot.
Don't fall into the binary trap. You can be an atheist without being anti-theist or anti-religion.

 

[Roylion]

The letters of Paul the Apostle in the first century.

What about them?

 

[Roylion]

Richard Carrier here we come.

Surely this should be straight-forward shouldn't it? What is the "significant evidence to support the [fact of the] resurrection", as claimed?

You can continue to obfuscate all you like, (and while it is somewhat amusing to read you avoiding giving any direct answers), at the same time it merely reinforces the view that there is no evidence for the physical resurrection of an executed first century Judean as claimed.

 

[Boston tiger]

Surely this should be straight-forward shouldn't it? What is the "significant evidence to support the [fact of the] resurrection", as claimed?

You can continue to obfuscate all you like, (and while it is somewhat amusing to read you avoiding giving any direct answers), at the same time it merely reinforces the view that there is no evidence for the physical resurrection of an executed first century Judean as claimed.

Is there any evidence of a historical Jesus ? If not then why does academia believe there is ?

 

[M Malice]

The historical Jesus may have existed but I'd contend that his deeds have been embellished in the extreme for power and control.

The modern day equivalent would be Joel Osteen, no miracles claimed with Joel though, maybe in a couple of hundred years.

 

[Present Not Past]

Richard Carrier here we come.

It is said that Satan will appear before us a man of letters