The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

gnostic said:

How about you, @BilliardsBall ?

You brought up Lystra in your list, but you never answered my questions.

You brought up the existence of the city, Lystra, and they spoke a different language or dialect. But you didn’t bring up why Acts 14:8-18 narrated the event - Paul’s healing of man who was crippled since birth, couldn’t walk.

Supposedly there hundreds of witnesses, including the alleged crippled man. Where are the hundreds of different written accounts to this episode in Lystra?

Surely you understand of historical verification, haven’t you?

Unless there are written accounts in Lystra, that can verify Acts 14:8-18, then all we have is a single source, not multiple independent sources.

To me, the story of Paul healing a man in Lystra, is based on unsubstantiated hearsay, or purely the author’s invention.

There are even no verification from Paul himself in his epistles where he healed a man in Lystra. In one letter (Timothy), he does mention Lystra, but not him healing any crippled man.

You have no independent accounts (literary evidences) that Lystra episode is true, other than the sole Acts 14:8-18.

Likewise, if there were hundred eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion, then why is that there are no contemporary accounts by these eyewitnesses until almost 40 (Mark’s) to 60 years later (Matthew’s, Luke’s & John’s), that recorded this event?

And why are there some contradictions to what happen after Jesus' burial? The most common denominator is that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus, but there are little agreement in who accompany her or she was there alone.

In Matthew's, she had another Mary with her, but we don't know which one (28:1).

In Mark's, we have her with Mary mother of James and Salome (16:1), but in a different passage (16:9-11), she was alone. So in Mark, we have 2 different versions.

In Luke's, we don't know who Mary's companions were until 24:9: Joanna and Mary mother of James.

And in John 20:1, she was alone at the tomb.

And that's not the only contradictions between these gospels in those chapters. In Matthew and Luke, the women spoke to all 11 disciples. But in John, they only spoke to Peter and another disciple (the one whom Jesus loved the most); and Peter would later inform the rest of his fellow disciples, though Thomas was absent at that time.

But in again, in the gospel of Mark, we have two versions. In 16:10-11, she alone spoke to all surviving (11) disciples. But in 16:8, they spoke to no one out of fear:



They cannot agree with each other. And we have no other contemporary sources, independent of these gospels.

Click to expand...

There are dozens of cities where alleged supernatural incidents occurred beyond Lystra, sure.

The resurrection of Christ has numerous times been called the best documented event of the ancient world, with a dozen NT writers plus others commenting. Your only "out" is to deny the documents were written close to the events--in a post I've shown 84 accurate statements in Acts, NONE of which you can refute--so please, try something else!

BilliardsBall said:

Can you give me examples of religious works outside the Bible that are known for their historical veracity (regarding non-supernatural details)?

Click to expand...

Why would historical veracity mean a story is true? Why bother to write a religious myth and not put in accurate details? If you are writing an updated version of a religion for a new generation with a new updated message that forwards the movement - makes some prophecies come true, brings in new members - why would you not use stories from the OT, use famous Greek stories as a guide and make it as modern and accurate as possible?

At any rate the "Authenticity" argument is used is Islam as well.

Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

Many ancient historical anecdotes and geographical regions have been mentioned in the stories of the holy Qur'an such as : the river or sea through which the Bani Israel passed, the land of Ashab-e Hijr, Dhul Qarnayn Dam, Ashab-e Kahf's Cave, earthy paradise of Dhat al-`Imad etc., not forgetting the detailed stories of past Prophets.

The hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad (S) as the author of Qur’an is untenable. How could a man from being an unlettered, become the most important author, in terms of Historical literature in the whole world, and pen down historical facts with pinpoint accuracy?.....

Research on historical records in the Holy Qur’an and finding their traces is very effective in understanding the Authenticity of the Qur'an. In addition, being involved in exploring the past would provide a good background to take lessons from the past on which the holy Qur'an in the following verses to persuade us to do so:.....


o appreciate the accuracy of historical records advanced in the Qur’an, few examples are cited here below, not mentioning the detailed information on past Prophets’ history:


Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

It's clear from church records and Roman law that after 3AD non-Christian scripture was highly illegal
Most pagan religious scripture was destroyed by the church and Greek myths go back too far but a city that could have been Troy was found:

Generations of readers have wondered whether the great Greek myths were based on true stories. One reader who decided to investigate was German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Convinced that the ancient city of Troy mentioned in Homer's Iliad had actually existed, he set out to find it. In the early 1870s, Schliemann began digging at a site in northwestern Turkey that matched Homer's description of Troy. He found the buried remains of a city as well as gold, silver, pottery, and household objects. Later excavations by other researchers revealed that a series of different settlements had risen on the same site over thousands of years. One of these may have been Homer's Troy.



Mormons also think accuracy is important?

"Most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be a historically accurate account.[47] Within the Latter Day Saint movement there are several apologetic groups that disagree with the skeptics and seek to reconcile the discrepancies in diverse ways. Among these apologetic groups, much work has been published by Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), defending the Book of Mormon as a literal history, countering arguments critical of its historical authenticity, or reconciling historical and scientific evidence with the text. One of the more common recent arguments is the limited geography model, which states that the people of the Book of Mormon covered only a limited geographical region in either Mesoamerica, South America, or the Great Lakes area. The LDS Church has published material indicating that science will support the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon"

BilliardsBall said:

To cut to the chase, I will continue to give to Christian works, and continue to receive financial blessings, even without a university degree, I'd still like to have money.

Click to expand...

All religions and secular humanitarian organizations encourage charity and there are always positive benefits from it because people feel good when they donate and it's good to help out in that way. It obviously encourages people to give in return and is part of Jewish law for a good reason. Not a God reason, a good reason.

"For Hindus, dana (giving) is an important part of one’s dharma (religious duty). "

Interestingly Hindu's encourage giving WITHOUT consideration for getting in return, be it from other people or from a supernatural source. There is a specific form of giving with no thought to what's coming.

BilliardsBall said:

There is some truth in other religions. There are also extraordinary and obvious falsities in Mormonism, Hinduism, etc.

Click to expand...

A pagan myth savior demi-god is definitely an extraordinary falsity.

BilliardsBall said:

The differences in Christianity are clear to me. First, you'd have to explain why this conspiracy of religion included 40 writers or teams of writers producing the Bible over 1,500 years.

Click to expand...

First of all pretending like writing a myth is a "conspiracy" is disingenuous on your part. Just the Hindu religion alone spans far more years, should I name all the other 1000 religions you don't believe in? Why do you think were they were written?
Myths are THE way people pass on wisdom through metaphors, parables, allegory and such.
Like the mythicist Joseph Campbell says, Christianity is a good myth but the mistake is thinking it's literal.

You speak as if the stories of Christianity are not literally true then it's a "conspiracy". Uh, no, it's THE SAME AS ALL RELIGIONS?! No religion is a "conspiracy"? They are parables and allegory.

It accumulates over centuries. This line of argument somehow forgets that other religions (that are NOT TRUE) have also been accumulating scripture for centuries. How much common sense do I have to explain?
Every Hindu thinks all the gods in scripture are actual real deities. Muslims believe an angel actually contacted Muhummad who was an actual prophet. These are not "conspiracies"?

BilliardsBall said:

Next, you'd have to explain why one dozen NT or teams of NT writers all risked martyrdom from their own people and their Romans to promote this conspiracy further.

Click to expand...

Good lord,,,,, this is a double dose of wrong.
It's well known by actual historians that the Romans did not care about any religious cult that sprung up. There are writings by historians that confirm the Romans knew about Christians and did not care.
As to martyrdom, you are clearly not familiar with actual 1st century Judaism.
There were diverse groups and the Jesus movement fit in fine.:

"Judaism was a Diverse Phenomenon
In Christian circles the Judaism of the time of Jesus has often been thought of as an outward legalistic religion to which the message of Jesus and the early Christians was a complete antithesis. Such a picture has, however, proved to be a blatant caricature. Today the ministry of Jesus is seen rather as a movement within Judaism rather than as something opposed to it. At the same time people have begun to understand how complex and still developing a phenomenon first-century Judaism was.

At the beginning of the Christian era Judaism was divided into several different groups, each of which had its own views concerning the true Jewish way of life. On the other hand, certain basic beliefs were common to them all. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots - and the Jesus Movement. In spite of differences between them the groups were united by certain basic beliefs."

Judaism in the Time of Jesus

Much of the Jesus Movement was just concepts being pushed by the Hillelites. Rabbi Hillel died in 10CE but was preaching all the same stuff found in the Sermon on the Mount:

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

BilliardsBall said:

After, you can explain how contemporaneous NT writers were accepted by many Jews and Romans--when all those readers/witnesses could deny the obvious NT lies, like "Jesus healed thousands of people in multiple cities and towns, and thousands of people witnessed these healings."

Click to expand...

First it WAS a Jewish movement so of course it would be accepted by some Jews? But for one many Jews did reject the movement.

As to the Jews that did follow it - 1/2 of early Christians were some form of Gnostic for almost 400 years? But in the 2nd century it was as high as 50%.

"The Christian heresiologists, most notably Irenaeus, regarded Gnosticism as a Christian heresy. Modern scholarship notes that early Christianity was very diverse, and Christian orthodoxy only settled in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire declined and Gnosticism lost its influence."

So why would all those Christians believe a form of Christianity that was COMPLETELY FALSE? Gnostic teachings vary radically from what is in the gospels. Yet they still bought into it. Do you think maybe people back then were inclined to believe supernatural stories were definitely true even without direct evidence????
In case you don't get it, if Jews (and Gentiles) were willing to convert to Gnostic teachings and those were false then conversion doesn't demonstrate that a belief is true.

The Egyptians, the Thracians, the Syrians, the Persians and many others already had a dying-rising savior deity and the Jews (some of them) clearly wanted one as well. A Jewish version that was the "true savior god".
Justin Martyr 2nd century apologist said the stories about Jesus were nothing new, they were just the best and true version. In the 2nd century that logic probably made sense. Now we know it's pure BS.


How do we know the Jews wanted a savior deity? After the Persian invasion all the Persian Zororastrian beliefs entered into OT Judaism. Good god vs evil god, world ends in fire, resurrection into heaven after the world ends in fire, afterlife, savior demi-gods who defeat sin and death.

Also I just named 5 CIVILIZATIONS that believed in similar but false savior gods. So under your logic - that belief in a religion somehow means truth - all those religions would be true?

As to the Romans, in 3AD 1/2 of the Roman army was Mithrian. as in they believed in the demi-god Mithras. When Constantine accepted Christianity into Rome in 3AD exactly 5% of Rome was Christian. I can find the stat.
"Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates" Wiki, that's the highest I've seen, usually it's 5%. I quoted 5 from a source in an earlier post.

In 380 it became law to be Christian. Do I have to explain why it suddenly grew after that? That was hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. Exactly ZERO big impact had been made. Half of the Roman army worshiped Mithras 200 years later. Your version of history is some weird apologetics version that makes Christianity seem more probable.

There are clear financial and post-civil war unifying Rome reasons why Constantine used the religion. They had churches set up, if you study the period it's very clear that it was reasons other than supernatural awe at miracles.


You can also find a list of miracles from Muhammed. Or Sai Baba who in the early 1900's had literally millions of people witness miracles.
"Sai Baba's disciples and devotees claim that he performed many miracles such as bilocation, levitation, mindreading, materialisation, exorcisms, entering a state of Samādhi at will, lighting lamps with water, removing his limbs or intestines and sticking them back to his body (khandana yoga), curing the incurably sick, appearing beaten when another was beaten, preventing a mosque from falling down on people, and helping his devotees in other miraculous ways."

of which you don't believe but expect to use 1 gospel (the rest are copies, see Synoptic Problem) and 1 persons letters from 2000 years ago as solid proof of miracles?

BilliardsBall said:

Just those three facets are both unique to the Bible and inexplicable when I ask skeptics. Can you answer those three facts of this religion effectively?

Click to expand...

I'm not a skeptic really but you simply have to read history. You could easily debunk those questions if you wanted to with a small amount of research.
There is nothing inexplicable about any religion, particularly stories of miracles. Every religion is also unique which has no bearing on it's truth.

joelr said:

Why would historical veracity mean a story is true? Why bother to write a religious myth and not put in accurate details? If you are writing an updated version of a religion for a new generation with a new updated message that forwards the movement - makes some prophecies come true, brings in new members - why would you not use stories from the OT, use famous Greek stories as a guide and make it as modern and accurate as possible?

At any rate the "Authenticity" argument is used is Islam as well.

Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

Many ancient historical anecdotes and geographical regions have been mentioned in the stories of the holy Qur'an such as : the river or sea through which the Bani Israel passed, the land of Ashab-e Hijr, Dhul Qarnayn Dam, Ashab-e Kahf's Cave, earthy paradise of Dhat al-`Imad etc., not forgetting the detailed stories of past Prophets.

The hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad (S) as the author of Qur’an is untenable. How could a man from being an unlettered, become the most important author, in terms of Historical literature in the whole world, and pen down historical facts with pinpoint accuracy?.....

Research on historical records in the Holy Qur’an and finding their traces is very effective in understanding the Authenticity of the Qur'an. In addition, being involved in exploring the past would provide a good background to take lessons from the past on which the holy Qur'an in the following verses to persuade us to do so:.....


o appreciate the accuracy of historical records advanced in the Qur’an, few examples are cited here below, not mentioning the detailed information on past Prophets’ history:


Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

It's clear from church records and Roman law that after 3AD non-Christian scripture was highly illegal
Most pagan religious scripture was destroyed by the church and Greek myths go back too far but a city that could have been Troy was found:

Generations of readers have wondered whether the great Greek myths were based on true stories. One reader who decided to investigate was German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Convinced that the ancient city of Troy mentioned in Homer's Iliad had actually existed, he set out to find it. In the early 1870s, Schliemann began digging at a site in northwestern Turkey that matched Homer's description of Troy. He found the buried remains of a city as well as gold, silver, pottery, and household objects. Later excavations by other researchers revealed that a series of different settlements had risen on the same site over thousands of years. One of these may have been Homer's Troy.



Mormons also think accuracy is important?

"Most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be a historically accurate account.[47] Within the Latter Day Saint movement there are several apologetic groups that disagree with the skeptics and seek to reconcile the discrepancies in diverse ways. Among these apologetic groups, much work has been published by Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), defending the Book of Mormon as a literal history, countering arguments critical of its historical authenticity, or reconciling historical and scientific evidence with the text. One of the more common recent arguments is the limited geography model, which states that the people of the Book of Mormon covered only a limited geographical region in either Mesoamerica, South America, or the Great Lakes area. The LDS Church has published material indicating that science will support the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon"

Click to expand...

As someone who's read the Bible, 2/3 of the Qu'ran and some of the Book of Mormon, I tell you honestly there is scant comparison. For example, the 84 historical facts I've quoted from the last 16 chapters of Acts.

joelr said:

All religions and secular humanitarian organizations encourage charity and there are always positive benefits from it because people feel good when they donate and it's good to help out in that way. It obviously encourages people to give in return and is part of Jewish law for a good reason. Not a God reason, a good reason.

"For Hindus, dana (giving) is an important part of one’s dharma (religious duty). "

Interestingly Hindu's encourage giving WITHOUT consideration for getting in return, be it from other people or from a supernatural source. There is a specific form of giving with no thought to what's coming.

Click to expand...

I think you've missed my point. While you claim money miracles don't exist, Jesus makes it rain (enough!) for me...

joelr said:

A pagan myth savior demi-god is definitely an extraordinary falsity.



First of all pretending like writing a myth is a "conspiracy" is disingenuous on your part. Just the Hindu religion alone spans far more years, should I name all the other 1000 religions you don't believe in? Why do you think were they were written?
Myths are THE way people pass on wisdom through metaphors, parables, allegory and such.
Like the mythicist Joseph Campbell says, Christianity is a good myth but the mistake is thinking it's literal.

You speak as if the stories of Christianity are not literally true then it's a "conspiracy". Uh, no, it's THE SAME AS ALL RELIGIONS?! No religion is a "conspiracy"? They are parables and allegory.

It accumulates over centuries. This line of argument somehow forgets that other religions (that are NOT TRUE) have also been accumulating scripture for centuries. How much common sense do I have to explain?
Every Hindu thinks all the gods in scripture are actual real deities. Muslims believe an angel actually contacted Muhummad who was an actual prophet. These are not "conspiracies"?




Good lord,,,,, this is a double dose of wrong.
It's well known by actual historians that the Romans did not care about any religious cult that sprung up. There are writings by historians that confirm the Romans knew about Christians and did not care.
As to martyrdom, you are clearly not familiar with actual 1st century Judaism.
There were diverse groups and the Jesus movement fit in fine.:

"Judaism was a Diverse Phenomenon
In Christian circles the Judaism of the time of Jesus has often been thought of as an outward legalistic religion to which the message of Jesus and the early Christians was a complete antithesis. Such a picture has, however, proved to be a blatant caricature. Today the ministry of Jesus is seen rather as a movement within Judaism rather than as something opposed to it. At the same time people have begun to understand how complex and still developing a phenomenon first-century Judaism was.

At the beginning of the Christian era Judaism was divided into several different groups, each of which had its own views concerning the true Jewish way of life. On the other hand, certain basic beliefs were common to them all. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots - and the Jesus Movement. In spite of differences between them the groups were united by certain basic beliefs."

Judaism in the Time of Jesus

Much of the Jesus Movement was just concepts being pushed by the Hillelites. Rabbi Hillel died in 10CE but was preaching all the same stuff found in the Sermon on the Mount:

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia





First it WAS a Jewish movement so of course it would be accepted by some Jews? But for one many Jews did reject the movement.

As to the Jews that did follow it - 1/2 of early Christians were some form of Gnostic for almost 400 years? But in the 2nd century it was as high as 50%.

"The Christian heresiologists, most notably Irenaeus, regarded Gnosticism as a Christian heresy. Modern scholarship notes that early Christianity was very diverse, and Christian orthodoxy only settled in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire declined and Gnosticism lost its influence."

So why would all those Christians believe a form of Christianity that was COMPLETELY FALSE? Gnostic teachings vary radically from what is in the gospels. Yet they still bought into it. Do you think maybe people back then were inclined to believe supernatural stories were definitely true even without direct evidence????
In case you don't get it, if Jews (and Gentiles) were willing to convert to Gnostic teachings and those were false then conversion doesn't demonstrate that a belief is true.

The Egyptians, the Thracians, the Syrians, the Persians and many others already had a dying-rising savior deity and the Jews (some of them) clearly wanted one as well. A Jewish version that was the "true savior god".
Justin Martyr 2nd century apologist said the stories about Jesus were nothing new, they were just the best and true version. In the 2nd century that logic probably made sense. Now we know it's pure BS.


How do we know the Jews wanted a savior deity? After the Persian invasion all the Persian Zororastrian beliefs entered into OT Judaism. Good god vs evil god, world ends in fire, resurrection into heaven after the world ends in fire, afterlife, savior demi-gods who defeat sin and death.

Also I just named 5 CIVILIZATIONS that believed in similar but false savior gods. So under your logic - that belief in a religion somehow means truth - all those religions would be true?

As to the Romans, in 3AD 1/2 of the Roman army was Mithrian. as in they believed in the demi-god Mithras. When Constantine accepted Christianity into Rome in 3AD exactly 5% of Rome was Christian. I can find the stat.
"Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates" Wiki, that's the highest I've seen, usually it's 5%. I quoted 5 from a source in an earlier post.

In 380 it became law to be Christian. Do I have to explain why it suddenly grew after that? That was hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. Exactly ZERO big impact had been made. Half of the Roman army worshiped Mithras 200 years later. Your version of history is some weird apologetics version that makes Christianity seem more probable.

There are clear financial and post-civil war unifying Rome reasons why Constantine used the religion. They had churches set up, if you study the period it's very clear that it was reasons other than supernatural awe at miracles.


You can also find a list of miracles from Muhammed. Or Sai Baba who in the early 1900's had literally millions of people witness miracles.
"Sai Baba's disciples and devotees claim that he performed many miracles such as bilocation, levitation, mindreading, materialisation, exorcisms, entering a state of Samādhi at will, lighting lamps with water, removing his limbs or intestines and sticking them back to his body (khandana yoga), curing the incurably sick, appearing beaten when another was beaten, preventing a mosque from falling down on people, and helping his devotees in other miraculous ways."

of which you don't believe but expect to use 1 gospel (the rest are copies, see Synoptic Problem) and 1 persons letters from 2000 years ago as solid proof of miracles?



I'm not a skeptic really but you simply have to read history. You could easily debunk those questions if you wanted to with a small amount of research.
There is nothing inexplicable about any religion, particularly stories of miracles. Every religion is also unique which has no bearing on it's truth.

Click to expand...

Although I think you're wrong on all of the above, you are certainly arguing vigorously and with a specific methodology. Are you aspiring towards a Religion degree, like I have earned? Because as a friend, you have to go to the Master's and likely the Ph.D. level to really use that degree. Is this something you're seeking?

joelr said:

It's clear from church records and Roman law that after 3AD non-Christian scripture was highly illegal

Click to expand...

So from the time Jesus was about 5, non-Christian scripture was illegal in the Pagan Roman Empire?

And this is shown clearly by Roman records, from the Pagan Roman Empire that would remain Pagan for the best part of 4 more centuries, and from Church records despite the Church not even existing yet?

BilliardsBall said:

As someone who's read the Bible, 2/3 of the Qu'ran and some of the Book of Mormon, I tell you honestly there is scant comparison. For example, the 84 historical facts I've quoted from the last 16 chapters of Acts.

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You’ve just proven that Gone With the Wind is a true story. Are you not familiar with historical fiction?

joelr said:

Why would historical veracity mean a story is true? Why bother to write a religious myth and not put in accurate details? If you are writing an updated version of a religion for a new generation with a new updated message that forwards the movement - makes some prophecies come true, brings in new members - why would you not use stories from the OT, use famous Greek stories as a guide and make it as modern and accurate as possible?

At any rate the "Authenticity" argument is used is Islam as well.

Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

Many ancient historical anecdotes and geographical regions have been mentioned in the stories of the holy Qur'an such as : the river or sea through which the Bani Israel passed, the land of Ashab-e Hijr, Dhul Qarnayn Dam, Ashab-e Kahf's Cave, earthy paradise of Dhat al-`Imad etc., not forgetting the detailed stories of past Prophets.

The hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad (S) as the author of Qur’an is untenable. How could a man from being an unlettered, become the most important author, in terms of Historical literature in the whole world, and pen down historical facts with pinpoint accuracy?.....

Research on historical records in the Holy Qur’an and finding their traces is very effective in understanding the Authenticity of the Qur'an. In addition, being involved in exploring the past would provide a good background to take lessons from the past on which the holy Qur'an in the following verses to persuade us to do so:.....


o appreciate the accuracy of historical records advanced in the Qur’an, few examples are cited here below, not mentioning the detailed information on past Prophets’ history:


Accuracy of Historical Records in the Qur’an

It's clear from church records and Roman law that after 3AD non-Christian scripture was highly illegal
Most pagan religious scripture was destroyed by the church and Greek myths go back too far but a city that could have been Troy was found:

Generations of readers have wondered whether the great Greek myths were based on true stories. One reader who decided to investigate was German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Convinced that the ancient city of Troy mentioned in Homer's Iliad had actually existed, he set out to find it. In the early 1870s, Schliemann began digging at a site in northwestern Turkey that matched Homer's description of Troy. He found the buried remains of a city as well as gold, silver, pottery, and household objects. Later excavations by other researchers revealed that a series of different settlements had risen on the same site over thousands of years. One of these may have been Homer's Troy.



Mormons also think accuracy is important?

"Most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be a historically accurate account.[47] Within the Latter Day Saint movement there are several apologetic groups that disagree with the skeptics and seek to reconcile the discrepancies in diverse ways. Among these apologetic groups, much work has been published by Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), defending the Book of Mormon as a literal history, countering arguments critical of its historical authenticity, or reconciling historical and scientific evidence with the text. One of the more common recent arguments is the limited geography model, which states that the people of the Book of Mormon covered only a limited geographical region in either Mesoamerica, South America, or the Great Lakes area. The LDS Church has published material indicating that science will support the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon"

Click to expand...

What did the NT writers gain by this work besides martyrdom and poverty? Illogical.

BilliardsBall said:

As someone who's read the Bible, 2/3 of the Qu'ran and some of the Book of Mormon, I tell you honestly there is scant comparison. For example, the 84 historical facts I've quoted from the last 16 chapters of Acts.

Click to expand...

Man, you still don't get it.

History is not may be geography alone.

The Greek geographer, Pausanias visited all sort of place in Greece, Asia Minor and other places in the Mediterranean that were formerly Greek colonies.

He could name many places, cities, towns, palaces, temples, shrines, rivers, forests, mountains, etc. In each of these places, he would often include some myths related to these historical sites and actual physical terrains.

If I go by your twisted logic, than all these myths that Pausanias are true stories, because actual places were mentioned.

The places mentioned in the gospels and Acts may contain real historical locations, but the stories themselves are not necessarily true, not necessarily historical, like the miracles of Jesus or any of his disciples.

Places don't verify miracle narratives to be historical.

Can you confirm the crippled man that Paul healed at Lystra to be historical? If there were eyewitnesses to this miracle, then where are the independent sources from Lystra?

Until you have independent sources, then all you are basing on your belief is the hearsay of Acts 14, which is most likely fictional.

Even in Timothy epistle mentioning Lystra, make no mention of Paul healing anyone, let alone a man who was born crippled.

BilliardsBall said:

As someone who's read the Bible, 2/3 of the Qu'ran and some of the Book of Mormon, I tell you honestly there is scant comparison. For example, the 84 historical facts I've quoted from the last 16 chapters of Acts.

Click to expand...

How many times are you going to reference back to that post of "84 historical facts"...?? There is no argument or point there at all?

The authors of these myths clearly try to incorporate actual historical details so the members will then consider them to be true BECAUSE the historical details are accurate and each religion stands on that fact as "proof" that it's all true.
Muslims rant and rave about how accurate the historical information is and ask "how could this not be from god?"
But unlike the bible the Qu'ran also has other historical information, science information and other aspects that Muslims rave about. Still doesn't make the stories of an angel contacting a prophet true.

Even if the gospels did contain more historical details (let's say it does for sake of argument) the Qu'ran is still known for it's historical accuracy as proof of divine intervention. So we can clearly see that having historical information has ZERO bearing on the truth of the religious stories. Because we both know the Qu'ran is not a true story. The historical details and the early science was correct. But SO WHAT!?! We know the purpose of writing scripture was to gain followers and create a new movement. So making it as authentic as possible is always the goal of anyone writing serious scripture.

We already know the motive for writing in factual information along with myth, the degree to which it's done does not matter. It will never mean the demi-gods and angels and miracles are real. Religious fiction is a combination of fact and myth. Nothing new.
And if we spent all this time and found other scripture with equal or greater historical details, it would not matter to you. Confirmation bias would cause you to immediately fluff it off and focus on a different line of apologetics.

The part of the story that is relevant has no outside sources giving confirmation and is clearly copied from other cultures with a Jewish spin.


But you are wrong about the Qu'ran looking "pale" in comparison. The historical data may be less but there is a lot more science and how could this not be a communication from god?
"
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE MANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS FOUND IN THE QURAN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE QURAN IS NOT A BOOK OF SCIENCE, BUT THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SCIENCE.


Universe
A mobile phone is clearly something that was put together in an organised way, so it would be rational
to believe that it must have an organiser. In the same way, when we see the order in the universe
around us, isn’t it rational to say that the universe has an organiser?
“We shall show them our signs in the universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them
that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your lord is the witness of all things?”[Quran, 41:53]

Origin of life
The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the
microscope. In the deserts of Arabia, the last thing someone would have guessed is that all life came
from water.
“We made every living thing from water? will they not believe?”[Quran, 21:30]

Embryology
“We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly
fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made
the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…” (Quran 23:12-14).

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore (one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of
anatomy and embryology) : " It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad
from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later.

Sky’s protection
The sky protects the earth from the lethal rays of the sun. If the sky did not exist then the sun’s radiation
would have killed off all life on earth. It also acts like a blanket wrapped around the earth, to protect it
from the freezing cold of space. The temperature just above the sky is approximately -270oC. If this
temperature was to reach earth then the planet would freeze over instantly. The sky also protects life
on earth by warming the surface through heat retention.
“We made the sky a protective ceiling. And yet they are turning away from Our signs!” (Quran 21:32)

Iron
Iron is not natural to the earth. It did not form on the earth but came down to earth from outer space.
This may sound strange but it’s true. Scientists have found that billions of years ago the earth was stuck
by meteorites. These meteorites were carrying Iron from distant stars which had exploded (M. E.
Walrath, History of the Earth’s Formation)
“We sent down Iron with its great inherent strength and its many benefits for humankind.” (Quran
57:25)"


See they do it too. Except to you their argument just looks like they are trying to desperately use history and science to "prove through deduction" that this MUST be a god-book. All religions do it, it is not proof of anything except the author was educated. Do you not think educated literary masters were not capable of copying myths and adding lots of facts?
Why would this even be anything remarkable?

In all the debates I've seen against PhD historians vs apologetics scholars no one has ever tried to make this line of argument because it demonstrates nothing? Zero.

BilliardsBall said:

I think you've missed my point. While you claim money miracles don't exist, Jesus makes it rain (enough!) for me...

Click to expand...

I thought you were smart enough to realize claiming personal money magic from a god is total heresay and being I obviously have not the slightest idea of how much incoming/outgoing you have, what sources you give out to, who may decide to return the favor and how much?
Giving 10% of income away could easily end up showing a higher return if the recipients give back, or they spread the word and encourage favors to you from other people, there are so many unknowns to a situation like this?

I've shown you stories on that website of people who lost everything by tithing so it clearly is not a certainty. There was that. I simply thought you had realized this was a ridiculous and futile attempt to "prove" something, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case?

Yes, I'm saying straight out, there is a reason why some money comes back to you. If you traced it all carefully you would obviously see there is no miracle popping money out of thin air.
If you really want to use tithing as an example of god magic then simply set up a bank account, all monies coming in related to tithing go to this account. Then you can post the records of how you started with zero and the total amount of money after 1 year will be much higher than 10% salary x 12. 120% would be breaking even. To call it "miraculous" it would need be something impressive. 1200%.

Even then who's to say you didn't help out some guy in need and then he started a successful business and by the end of the year he's a millionaire and decides to give you 20K?
That still isn't a miracle? It's just a lucky tithe.
Ugg, what a fool line of argument this is?

As if the 20 million starving people in Africa who are Christian could just give away 10% of their earnings and then , ugg, so delusional?

BilliardsBall said:

Although I think you're wrong on all of the above, you are certainly arguing vigorously and with a specific methodology. Are you aspiring towards a Religion degree, like I have earned? Because as a friend, you have to go to the Master's and likely the Ph.D. level to really use that degree. Is this something you're seeking?

Click to expand...

I'm not getting a history degree. I'm learning from other PhD's who already do it better than I could. There is an entire field of biblical historicity where real PhD holders do years and years of research, write a book then wait while everyone in the field makes sure it's legit. Then everyone is free to learn new things from the best and brightest and people who spend their lives working on getting history correct. You can learn from them as well.

What the heck do you mean wrong on all the above?
Those are all historical facts? I smashed your questions. To dust. Using all facts. Which fact do you not agree with?
You suspiciously can't say because you know those are historical facts and your questions have been completely answered. Be a man and admit it.


My methodology is - stuff that actually happened in history. Not apologetics where you change, ignore of deny history.



Take the first few questions and facts that answered them:

1)it would be a conspiracy if Christianity were not true. - No, all religions are not true and are not conspiracies?
Do you think Islam is true? No? And is it a conspiracy? No, it's a religion. Done. Not wrong.

2) Jews would not accept Jesus. Not true, Judaism was very diverse.

What about early Judaism do you not think was diverse?

"At the beginning of the Christian era Judaism was divided into many different groups. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots - and the Jesus Movement. In spite of differences between them the groups were united by certain basic beliefs."
Is this all a lie? Please use only peer reviewed PhD sources.

Rabbi Hillell was saying Jesus quotes before Jesus. Do you not believe this?

"Hillel was born according to tradition in Babylon c. 110 BCE, died 10 CE[3] in Jerusalem) was a Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history.
Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

The Golden Rule
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn[
Love of peace
Obligations to self and others
Other maxims
"Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place



read about Hillell for yourself. What about the Rabbi do you believe is "wrong" in relation to your questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

3) The Romans
There were persecutions of Christians that we know of from a real historian, Nero, who wrote about Christians being blamed for a fire but after that the Romans no longer cared about religious movements.
from a PBS article:

Despite this, Nero's persecution of the new Christian sect was brief and, in the first century at least, was not repeated in other parts of the empire. When asked by Pliny the Younger how to deal with Christians in the Asian provinces, Trajan replied that they should not be actively pursued. However, they could be punished if they were publicly criticized and refused to abandon their beliefs.

Over time, the Christian church and faith grew more organized. In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Richard Carrier who has read the relevant histories of the times says generally Christians and other cults were tolerated as long as they followed Roman law. I can find some of those quotes. But again, that's a lame apologetics argument for non-thinking people -
'Christians died for the movement, it must be true.." Do we really need to talk about all the cults and other religions people also died for, or murdered for, or went to war for? It simply shows people like to believe stuff and will die for their beliefs. Doesn't mean it's true, not even a little.

From a Wiki article
Christianity in the 1st century

exactly what
I was saying:

"Palestinian Judaism at this time was divided into antagonistic factions. The main camps were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes and Zealots.[web 2][web 3] This led to further unrest, and the 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders, contributing to what would become the Mishnah of rabbinic Judaism, including Yohanan ben Zakkai and Hanina ben Dosa; and the ministry of Jesus, which would lead to the emergence of the first Jewish Christian community."



I gave you the quote, Christianity was only 10% of Roman religion in 3AD.



4) Diversity among early Christians: I mentioned Gnostics but there were more.

The Ante-Nicene period saw the rise of a great number of Christian sects, cults and movements with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. They had different interpretations of Scripture, particularly the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers.

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the Proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – 2nd to 4th centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world.
• Marcionism – 2nd century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – 2nd century – relied on prophetic revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – 2nd century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – 2nd to 3rd century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – 3rd century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – 3rd to 4th century – Jesus, as the Son, was subordinate to God the Father.

Diversity in early Christian theology - Wikipedia


The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels demonstrates without a doubt that this diversity was true and can be read for free right here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...4673/Pagels,+Elaine+-+The+Gnostic+Gospels.pdf

As you can see in chapter 1 the Gnostics were about 50% of all Christians and had radically different and varying ideas about the resurrection. In some scripture it didn't happen, in some it was on a spiritual plane, in some it was a metaphor.

And the Bishop Ireaneus wanted only a bloodline to be able to read and interpret, teach and decide what scripture would be used. He wanted no women teachers, a stricter membership and a power structure. This is what became orthadox 100's of years later.

But the point stands. Many many early Christians were believing completely different versions and this demonstrates that it's possible for early Christians to have been wrong about their beliefs.

Everything I said stands and is current mainstream scholarship.

Augustus said:

So from the time Jesus was about 5, non-Christian scripture was illegal in the Pagan Roman Empire?

And this is shown clearly by Roman records, from the Pagan Roman Empire that would remain Pagan for the best part of 4 more centuries, and from Church records despite the Church not even existing yet?

Click to expand...

380AD became state law. It's known that much of the destroying records and scripture from pagan cultures was more the Church which didn't start until 1200AD.

I don't know the specific laws in 380AD about possesion of non-Christian scripture but the Nag-Hamandi Christian gospels were well hidden and not found until the 1950's purely by accident in a cave.

BilliardsBall said:

What did the NT writers gain by this work besides martyrdom and poverty? Illogical.

Click to expand...

The Jesus Movement was a legitimate sect of Judaism? It fulfilled the savior prophecy, it gave the Jews a much needed savior demi-god, it got rid of the temple sacrifice, it updated the old messages of Moses and the OT?

It's religious fiction which is very popular to write and it just happened to take off. This is exactly how all religions go. Right place right time.
Why would you assume Mark was writing this myth and all of the followers would automatically be persecuted or treated any different than any other sect of Jew? There were several groups as we know. The Jesus Movement also was able to get the Hillelite philosophy put forward and was an appealing movement.

Creating a well crafted myth that then people turn into a religion would be the ultimate achievement for a literary religious myth writer. They would not be like "oh no everyone is going to persecute us and throw us to lions!"....
Before ANY persecution started the scriptures had been written.

Many of the Gnostic Gospels are dated late into the 2nd century. So that PROVES that people were still writing Christian scripture that late. So it obviously still seemed like a great idea.

By what logic would you even ask that question? Why would you write "illogical" after asking a question that would require knowledge of the future for the gospel writers? The Jews were allowed to practice their religion and it was simply very diverse. The JM was one of many and was attempting to advance the religion. They also wanted a savior god as many religions had one who beats sin and death and gets you into the afterlife.

Then as we know Christian apologists started in with "well Jesus is just more of the same pretty much, but he is the BEST ONE!"

I don't know what you mean by poverty? They started evangelizing and churches were being set up in different areas.
If you read the letters in Gnostic Gospels by 1st century Bishop Ireaneus, who was pushing for an organized power structure, this wasn't about poverty? He was gaining power and control of large groups of people? That is not what poverty is? He was gaining political and material control as well as the power of interpreting gods word. He won by the way.
If you are referencing stories in scripture, well those are stories.

The hippie-like Gnostics who seemed cool and open-minded were crushed by a power hungry group. Read the book you will be shocked. Within the gospels are letters from the Bishop.

joelr said:

380AD became state law. It's known that much of the destroying records and scripture from pagan cultures was more the Church which didn't start until 1200AD.

I don't know the specific laws in 380AD about possesion of non-Christian scripture but the Nag-Hamandi Christian gospels were well hidden and not found until the 1950's purely by accident in a cave.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of misconception about things like this.

The destruction of pagan culture is vastly overstated, a handful of temples were destroyed, but modern archaeological studies have shown it was rare. Temples declined over time as they required money, and this declined as the state stopped funding them, and private citizens converted.

A lot of the stories about their destruction are from Christian hagiographies and so should be taken with a bucketful of salt as they weren't written to be objective histories but to create a pious mythos and aren't supported by the archaeological record.

No doubt some texts were destroyed, but again the destruction wasn't systematic hence the surviving 'pagan' Greek philosophy. Again most was lost organically as they require people to be willing to spend a large amount of money to keep and preserve them. This is the same reason why the vast majority of all ancient texts have been lost to history.

It's true that there were edicts passed that outlawed the things you mention, but it's not like there was an FBI to enforce them. An edict simply reflected a statement by the Emperor, but they were often not enforced to any significant degree by local rulers. People often overestimate the degree of centralised control over such a large Empire in a time before modern transportation and communication technologies.

joelr said:

How many times are you going to reference back to that post of "84 historical facts"...?? There is no argument or point there at all?

The authors of these myths clearly try to incorporate actual historical details so the members will then consider them to be true BECAUSE the historical details are accurate and each religion stands on that fact as "proof" that it's all true.
Muslims rant and rave about how accurate the historical information is and ask "how could this not be from god?"
But unlike the bible the Qu'ran also has other historical information, science information and other aspects that Muslims rave about. Still doesn't make the stories of an angel contacting a prophet true.

Even if the gospels did contain more historical details (let's say it does for sake of argument) the Qu'ran is still known for it's historical accuracy as proof of divine intervention. So we can clearly see that having historical information has ZERO bearing on the truth of the religious stories. Because we both know the Qu'ran is not a true story. The historical details and the early science was correct. But SO WHAT!?! We know the purpose of writing scripture was to gain followers and create a new movement. So making it as authentic as possible is always the goal of anyone writing serious scripture.

We already know the motive for writing in factual information along with myth, the degree to which it's done does not matter. It will never mean the demi-gods and angels and miracles are real. Religious fiction is a combination of fact and myth. Nothing new.
And if we spent all this time and found other scripture with equal or greater historical details, it would not matter to you. Confirmation bias would cause you to immediately fluff it off and focus on a different line of apologetics.

The part of the story that is relevant has no outside sources giving confirmation and is clearly copied from other cultures with a Jewish spin.


But you are wrong about the Qu'ran looking "pale" in comparison. The historical data may be less but there is a lot more science and how could this not be a communication from god?
"
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE MANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS FOUND IN THE QURAN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE QURAN IS NOT A BOOK OF SCIENCE, BUT THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SCIENCE.


Universe
A mobile phone is clearly something that was put together in an organised way, so it would be rational
to believe that it must have an organiser. In the same way, when we see the order in the universe
around us, isn’t it rational to say that the universe has an organiser?
“We shall show them our signs in the universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them
that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your lord is the witness of all things?”[Quran, 41:53]

Origin of life
The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the
microscope. In the deserts of Arabia, the last thing someone would have guessed is that all life came
from water.
“We made every living thing from water? will they not believe?”[Quran, 21:30]

Embryology
“We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly
fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made
the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…” (Quran 23:12-14).

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore (one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of
anatomy and embryology) : " It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad
from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later.

Sky’s protection
The sky protects the earth from the lethal rays of the sun. If the sky did not exist then the sun’s radiation
would have killed off all life on earth. It also acts like a blanket wrapped around the earth, to protect it
from the freezing cold of space. The temperature just above the sky is approximately -270oC. If this
temperature was to reach earth then the planet would freeze over instantly. The sky also protects life
on earth by warming the surface through heat retention.
“We made the sky a protective ceiling. And yet they are turning away from Our signs!” (Quran 21:32)

Iron
Iron is not natural to the earth. It did not form on the earth but came down to earth from outer space.
This may sound strange but it’s true. Scientists have found that billions of years ago the earth was stuck
by meteorites. These meteorites were carrying Iron from distant stars which had exploded (M. E.
Walrath, History of the Earth’s Formation)
“We sent down Iron with its great inherent strength and its many benefits for humankind.” (Quran
57:25)"


See they do it too. Except to you their argument just looks like they are trying to desperately use history and science to "prove through deduction" that this MUST be a god-book. All religions do it, it is not proof of anything except the author was educated. Do you not think educated literary masters were not capable of copying myths and adding lots of facts?
Why would this even be anything remarkable?

In all the debates I've seen against PhD historians vs apologetics scholars no one has ever tried to make this line of argument because it demonstrates nothing? Zero.

Click to expand...

You are showing a bias that clouds your judgment, if you said, "well, yeah, there's a lot of verified facts in Acts" instead of "Even if the gospels did contain more historical details" and so on, you'd be what I would call open minded.

joelr said:

I thought you were smart enough to realize claiming personal money magic from a god is total heresay and being I obviously have not the slightest idea of how much incoming/outgoing you have, what sources you give out to, who may decide to return the favor and how much?
Giving 10% of income away could easily end up showing a higher return if the recipients give back, or they spread the word and encourage favors to you from other people, there are so many unknowns to a situation like this?

I've shown you stories on that website of people who lost everything by tithing so it clearly is not a certainty. There was that. I simply thought you had realized this was a ridiculous and futile attempt to "prove" something, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case?

Yes, I'm saying straight out, there is a reason why some money comes back to you. If you traced it all carefully you would obviously see there is no miracle popping money out of thin air.
If you really want to use tithing as an example of god magic then simply set up a bank account, all monies coming in related to tithing go to this account. Then you can post the records of how you started with zero and the total amount of money after 1 year will be much higher than 10% salary x 12. 120% would be breaking even. To call it "miraculous" it would need be something impressive. 1200%.

Even then who's to say you didn't help out some guy in need and then he started a successful business and by the end of the year he's a millionaire and decides to give you 20K?
That still isn't a miracle? It's just a lucky tithe.
Ugg, what a fool line of argument this is?

As if the 20 million starving people in Africa who are Christian could just give away 10% of their earnings and then , ugg, so delusional?

Click to expand...

Still not understanding, I'll rephrase--you can continually claim my claims of money miracles are hearsay, that is, anecdotes not verified to your satisfaction from outside parties, using forensic evidence.

But guess where I just came from? The bank.

In the same way, you can X and Y about Jesus--I know Him and He gives anyone who asks eternal life IMHO--you can take that "to the bank"!

joelr said:

I'm not getting a history degree. I'm learning from other PhD's who already do it better than I could. There is an entire field of biblical historicity where real PhD holders do years and years of research, write a book then wait while everyone in the field makes sure it's legit. Then everyone is free to learn new things from the best and brightest and people who spend their lives working on getting history correct. You can learn from them as well.

What the heck do you mean wrong on all the above?
Those are all historical facts? I smashed your questions. To dust. Using all facts. Which fact do you not agree with?
You suspiciously can't say because you know those are historical facts and your questions have been completely answered. Be a man and admit it.


My methodology is - stuff that actually happened in history. Not apologetics where you change, ignore of deny history.



Take the first few questions and facts that answered them:

1)it would be a conspiracy if Christianity were not true. - No, all religions are not true and are not conspiracies?
Do you think Islam is true? No? And is it a conspiracy? No, it's a religion. Done. Not wrong.

2) Jews would not accept Jesus. Not true, Judaism was very diverse.

What about early Judaism do you not think was diverse?

"At the beginning of the Christian era Judaism was divided into many different groups. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots - and the Jesus Movement. In spite of differences between them the groups were united by certain basic beliefs."
Is this all a lie? Please use only peer reviewed PhD sources.

Rabbi Hillell was saying Jesus quotes before Jesus. Do you not believe this?

"Hillel was born according to tradition in Babylon c. 110 BCE, died 10 CE[3] in Jerusalem) was a Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history.
Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

The Golden Rule
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn[
Love of peace
Obligations to self and others
Other maxims
"Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place



read about Hillell for yourself. What about the Rabbi do you believe is "wrong" in relation to your questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

3) The Romans
There were persecutions of Christians that we know of from a real historian, Nero, who wrote about Christians being blamed for a fire but after that the Romans no longer cared about religious movements.
from a PBS article:

Despite this, Nero's persecution of the new Christian sect was brief and, in the first century at least, was not repeated in other parts of the empire. When asked by Pliny the Younger how to deal with Christians in the Asian provinces, Trajan replied that they should not be actively pursued. However, they could be punished if they were publicly criticized and refused to abandon their beliefs.

Over time, the Christian church and faith grew more organized. In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Richard Carrier who has read the relevant histories of the times says generally Christians and other cults were tolerated as long as they followed Roman law. I can find some of those quotes. But again, that's a lame apologetics argument for non-thinking people -
'Christians died for the movement, it must be true.." Do we really need to talk about all the cults and other religions people also died for, or murdered for, or went to war for? It simply shows people like to believe stuff and will die for their beliefs. Doesn't mean it's true, not even a little.

From a Wiki article
Christianity in the 1st century

exactly what
I was saying:

"Palestinian Judaism at this time was divided into antagonistic factions. The main camps were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes and Zealots.[web 2][web 3] This led to further unrest, and the 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders, contributing to what would become the Mishnah of rabbinic Judaism, including Yohanan ben Zakkai and Hanina ben Dosa; and the ministry of Jesus, which would lead to the emergence of the first Jewish Christian community."



I gave you the quote, Christianity was only 10% of Roman religion in 3AD.



4) Diversity among early Christians: I mentioned Gnostics but there were more.

The Ante-Nicene period saw the rise of a great number of Christian sects, cults and movements with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. They had different interpretations of Scripture, particularly the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers.

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the Proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Some of the major movements were:

• 
  
  
  • Gnosticism – 2nd to 4th centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world.
  • Marcionism – 2nd century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
  • Montanism – 2nd century – relied on prophetic revelations from the Holy Spirit.
  • Adoptionism – 2nd century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
  • Docetism – 2nd to 3rd century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
  • Sabellianism – 3rd century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
  • Arianism – 3rd to 4th century – Jesus, as the Son, was subordinate to God the Father.

Diversity in early Christian theology - Wikipedia


The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels demonstrates without a doubt that this diversity was true and can be read for free right here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52cdf95ae4b0c18dd2d0316a/t/53e074cee4b0ea4fa48a5704/1407218894673/Pagels,+Elaine+-+The+Gnostic+Gospels.pdf

As you can see in chapter 1 the Gnostics were about 50% of all Christians and had radically different and varying ideas about the resurrection. In some scripture it didn't happen, in some it was on a spiritual plane, in some it was a metaphor.

And the Bishop Ireaneus wanted only a bloodline to be able to read and interpret, teach and decide what scripture would be used. He wanted no women teachers, a stricter membership and a power structure. This is what became orthadox 100's of years later.

But the point stands. Many many early Christians were believing completely different versions and this demonstrates that it's possible for early Christians to have been wrong about their beliefs.

Everything I said stands and is current mainstream scholarship.

Click to expand...

You wrote many interesting things, now perhaps you will answer a persistent question, "Why the big conspiracy by NT Jewish writer to get BOTH Jewish and Roman persecution, even to the point of martyrdom?"