SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
Because Constantine realized that in order to have a peaceful empire he needed a state religion and Christianity taught love your enemies. It was a purely political decision. That's historical fact.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There's Not An Iota Of Evidence The Apostles Existed
- Thread starter SeekingAllTruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apostles
SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?
Historical evidence of the Apostles is scarce, and some of it contradicts core Christian beliefs.
These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Luke. Probably "Luke the Physician" mentioned in Acts. He never met Jesus but he detailed
the history of the church, up to his death ca AD66 in Rome.
He is considered one of the greatest historians of his age. And he mentions the Apostles,
and knew a few as well.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
And we have a bit of faith in science too that is not warranted. Science
has no idea of how something came from nothing, and like to say there
is 'no reason' for the universe. That's an abuse of science.
And saying 'There's no evidence' is often dressed up to sound like
'It didn't happen.'
We are all human, even scientists.
SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
Com' on! I always used the term, "secular". Luke is not secular. Got anyone outside the Bible?
I think the study of history is presented dishonestly but anyways, to me Gospels are proofs in themselves, they are spoken words of God from Jesus to each Apostle/Disciple. Some of these Gospels have been lost or part of them lost or part of them changed, but they are definitely from God in the same way you can know the Torah is from God.
Quran is a proof of Mohammad (s), and Gospels are a proof of Jesus (a) and Torah a proof of Moses (a) and Psalms a proof Dawood (a) and Sulaiman (a).
They prove it in unorthodox way the truth about God's Authority and his chosen images/names/words of light brought to life/anointed kings/leaders/representatives and to me I see Mohammad (s) in the Torah and Gospels in a way I don't doubt it's from God, and it's not just a Messenger is predicted, it's the way he is linked to the divine revelation of God's religion eloquently by God in those books that I know is from God and that despite the conjecture to blind people to this, it's still clear, and I see him in books between those two as well.
God's books are proofs and insights, and they are not stories of the past, and to read as cool stories, but the truth lies in those stories about the past, present and future, if you would but reflect.
Quran is a proof of Mohammad (s), and Gospels are a proof of Jesus (a) and Torah a proof of Moses (a) and Psalms a proof Dawood (a) and Sulaiman (a).
They prove it in unorthodox way the truth about God's Authority and his chosen images/names/words of light brought to life/anointed kings/leaders/representatives and to me I see Mohammad (s) in the Torah and Gospels in a way I don't doubt it's from God, and it's not just a Messenger is predicted, it's the way he is linked to the divine revelation of God's religion eloquently by God in those books that I know is from God and that despite the conjecture to blind people to this, it's still clear, and I see him in books between those two as well.
God's books are proofs and insights, and they are not stories of the past, and to read as cool stories, but the truth lies in those stories about the past, present and future, if you would but reflect.
SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
This is why I believe in God, or some higher power. But for me based on the evil and suffering I see in the world and how God is totally indifferent to it, IMO he is a deist God.
The Bible is evidence of the beliefs of its authors.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
And those who knew those authors, or the people they wrote about,
or those who believed its story enough to die for it.
Sure: the fact that a religious community preserved a piece of scripture is evidence that they considered the scripture to be true, so the scripture can be used to infer what the beliefs are of the group that preserved it.
In a similar sense, we can also look at the modifications they made to the scripture from previous versions to infer their beliefs as well.
SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
This is an important point. Modifications on the text were being done regularly as Christian dogma evolved. In some manuscripts changes to the text that were written in by the copiers can be seen in the margins.
Is there any evidence other than the Bible that shows that the twelve apostles existed? – Evidence for Christianity
Link: "Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James."....."Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally."
We can talk to God directly to find out if apostles existed. Writhing on the floor, talking in tongues (God's language.....jkjljlkjslfkjsldk). Okay, that should convince you.
We need a sign from God that the apostles exist, so I will hike to a hill of rocks and find a rock. That's positive proof that apostles existed. Again, I nailed it.
There is no proof that apostles didn't exist, therefore they did. (Nailed it again).
We haven't found a missing link between chimps and humans, therefore apostles existed.
We don't understand how dark energy has negative gravity, therefore apostles existed.
The human body is complex, therefore apostles existed.
People are probing my mind using microwaves emanating from their eyeballs, spying on my every thought and trying to take away my religion. But, I hold fast to my belief that apostles existed, and stand with my brethren of the Religious Right and gun rights under the 2nd Amendment to defend against anyone who will read my mind.
The Jim Jones cult proved that the apostles existed just before they killed themselves (mass suicide), but they didn't write it down because anyone who kills themself will have that knowledge too.
The Heaven's Gate cult (under Reverend Applegate) proved that the apostles existed just before they killed themselves (mass suicide), but they didn't write it down because anyone who kills themself will have that knowledge too.
Belief in the apostles lifts the spirit, so people feel better once they know that the apostles existed (without the need to show proof).
ARE LEPRECHAUNS REAL?:
No Female Leprechauns And Other Bizarre St. Patrick's Day Facts (VIDEO) | HuffPost
Link: "Sliabh Foy Loop is home to 236 leprechauns, so the area is protected under European law, according to IrishCentral.com."
There is an empty glass on a high shelf of a pub in Ireland (any pub will do), that proves that leprechauns are real, and that the apostles existed.
There is more proof that leprechauns existed than the apostles existed, therefore, the leprechauns are proven to have existed.
Link: "Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James."....."Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally."
We can talk to God directly to find out if apostles existed. Writhing on the floor, talking in tongues (God's language.....jkjljlkjslfkjsldk). Okay, that should convince you.
We need a sign from God that the apostles exist, so I will hike to a hill of rocks and find a rock. That's positive proof that apostles existed. Again, I nailed it.
There is no proof that apostles didn't exist, therefore they did. (Nailed it again).
We haven't found a missing link between chimps and humans, therefore apostles existed.
We don't understand how dark energy has negative gravity, therefore apostles existed.
The human body is complex, therefore apostles existed.
People are probing my mind using microwaves emanating from their eyeballs, spying on my every thought and trying to take away my religion. But, I hold fast to my belief that apostles existed, and stand with my brethren of the Religious Right and gun rights under the 2nd Amendment to defend against anyone who will read my mind.
The Jim Jones cult proved that the apostles existed just before they killed themselves (mass suicide), but they didn't write it down because anyone who kills themself will have that knowledge too.
The Heaven's Gate cult (under Reverend Applegate) proved that the apostles existed just before they killed themselves (mass suicide), but they didn't write it down because anyone who kills themself will have that knowledge too.
Belief in the apostles lifts the spirit, so people feel better once they know that the apostles existed (without the need to show proof).
ARE LEPRECHAUNS REAL?:
No Female Leprechauns And Other Bizarre St. Patrick's Day Facts (VIDEO) | HuffPost
Link: "Sliabh Foy Loop is home to 236 leprechauns, so the area is protected under European law, according to IrishCentral.com."
There is an empty glass on a high shelf of a pub in Ireland (any pub will do), that proves that leprechauns are real, and that the apostles existed.
There is more proof that leprechauns existed than the apostles existed, therefore, the leprechauns are proven to have existed.
Augustus
…
There is sufficient reason to think a man existed, had apostles who spread his message and some of whom were possibly killed as we know Christians were killed roughly around this time (although this could be a hagiographical twist).
The texts aren't written as history.
If we are looking at this as a secular historical issue, there is quite a lot of evidence compared to what we might expect for a movement started by a craftsman from Nazareth.
We have European rulers from a millennium later who have less contemporary evidence.
As for how much evidence should exist for a 'Son of God, people can make their own minds up about that.
SeekingAllTruth
Well-Known Member
That's the best presentation of evidence for the apostles' existence I have ever read, Clara. Bravo.
Agree.
I've noticed the same thing with the use of the word alibi in crime shows. Sometimes it means a story that proves innocence, sometimes it means a claim that might not check out or serve as an alibi. This is analogous to evidence, which is anything that makes one of two or more competing hypotheses more or less likely to be true than the alternatives, where people apply the word to things that don't do that.
Evidence is what is evident. We have to ask what it is evidence of. What idea does it tend to support or contradict? When the theist tells me that the world is evidence that a god exists, I point out that there are both naturalistic and supernaturalistic hypotheses for the origin of reality including life and mind, and that the world around us does not support the supernaturalistic one over the naturalisitic one. If anything, careful study of nature over centuries has removed gods from most jobs assigned them by religions, making the naturalisitic option more likely than would be the case were it not possible to do this.
Somebody mentioned that the Bible is not evidence of anything in it, and I agree. Nothing written there makes any of its claims more likely to be true. The Bible is only evidence that somebody wrote it. Somebody said that it is also evidence that the writers believed it, but I don't agree. What would it look like if the authors knew it wasn't true? The same - myths and unsupported claims. Nothing in the Bible helps one decide which authors believed what they wrote and which thought like Luther:
- What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
I keep reading this, but don't know what the evidence for this is. If you want to argue that the words attributed to him have had tremendous impact since his death, I'll agree. But if you want to call them exceptional insights, I just don't see it. What teaching attributed to Jesus is both original to the New Testament and is an insight so great that its author deserves to be called a great spiritual teacher?
As far as I can tell, the only words attributed to Jesus that I consider valuable at all weren't original to Jesus - the Golden Rule.
Furthermore, there are many bad lessons in the Gospels.
Jesus says marriage to a divorcee is adultery, that a man who ogles a woman has already committed adultery, and that you must cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if it offends. All pretty bad advice.
He also says don't save money or plan ahead: "Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow shall take thought of the things for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Good thing I ignored that one. Instead, I saved for retirement. I live among many other retirees who took Jesus' advice to heart, and now they're living off of their Social Security checks with no savings. I think they wished that they had saved more earlier.
Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Sorry, but those aren't my values.
Jesus also says, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall][be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I can't respect that, either.
How about this? "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." No thanks. Is this what is meant by spiritual genius or greatest spiritual leader of all time?
Jesus says it is more important to anoint him with precious ointment than to give to the poor, who will always be there. Sorry, Jesus, but those aren't my values, and I don't respect that comment.
Jesus says anyone who believes in him can play with venomous snakes or drink poison without harm. Good luck with that.
Who said this? : "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Who said this? : "If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned." Really? Imagine Buddha or Confucius writing like that. Unthinkable. Trump I can see. That's not good company for Jesus.
Who said this? : "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work." Again more like Trump than Buddha.
Like I said, Jesus has nothing to say that I would be interested in, and makes a lot of moral errors by my standards, which only came to be what they are once I left Christianity. This other stuff was an impediment to spiritual and moral growth, a distraction from better ideas.
So perhaps you can explain why you consider Jesus a great spiritual teacher given the paucity of good ideas attributed to him, but all of these bad ideas are.
Me, too, but our means to determine truth took us to different intellectual universes. At least one of us made a wrong turn.
Reason is a path to knowledge, by which I mean the collection of useful ideas, but faith is not. Reason is like a road that leads you to sound conclusions when applied properly to relevant evidence. This is why there is only one periodic table of the elements. It was developed applying reason to evidence and then testing the predictions it made empirically. Reason took us to the truth.
Faith isn't a path at all. It's like the open sea. A ship is unconstrained in its direction, and if truth is on one shoreline somewhere, it's extremely unlikely that one's faith-based choice of directions to sail will take him there. This is well represented by the tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity alone. Most or all of them are false, not truth or knowledge. Even if one of them were correct, there is no way to identify which one it is.
Agreed. Constantine, like all heads of state, wanted peace, not insurrection. What he wanted was a religion that teaches its adherents to accede to oppression rather than rise up against it, the monarch's nightmare. The religion teaches that civil authorities are there by divine providence and that it is sinful to oppose them. It tells them that being meekness, not to be confused with modesty or humility, is a virtue, when it is actually a poverty of character and the unwillingness to assert oneself when one should. Do you feel oppressed or exploited by Constantine, wear that as a badge of honor. You will be rewarded later for being longsuffering now.
- "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
- "If you want to control a population and keep them passive, give them a god to worship" ~ Noam Chomsky
- "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger
Well, Christians do spend a lot of time trying to convince people its all based on reality.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
@It Aint Necessarily So
Fist of all many of the things you say as bad, was spoken in parables, as examples.
Second of all, people like your self often only looking for what they can find as negative in the scripture, Jesus to a muslim is great prophet, because he spoke the truth to the Jews and to those who we call Christians today.
Jesus gave the teaching so that those who follow his teaching would know what is excpected of them to reach to heaven. And yes i know many skeptics or non believer can only be able to see what they pull out as negative, the hardship of being a believer, the lesson of what happens if you say yes to Jesus but dont give a crap about following the teaching. Spiritual practice is a lot more difficult than you can imagine. To watch everything you say, do or think. But one do it out of unconditional love to the one they have taken as their teacher, and for christians that is Jesus.
I have no problem defending Christians in their search for wisdom in Christianity. They do the same as a Muslim do in Islam, they seek wisdom and the vist to be saved from this place we call earth.
Fist of all many of the things you say as bad, was spoken in parables, as examples.
Second of all, people like your self often only looking for what they can find as negative in the scripture, Jesus to a muslim is great prophet, because he spoke the truth to the Jews and to those who we call Christians today.
Jesus gave the teaching so that those who follow his teaching would know what is excpected of them to reach to heaven. And yes i know many skeptics or non believer can only be able to see what they pull out as negative, the hardship of being a believer, the lesson of what happens if you say yes to Jesus but dont give a crap about following the teaching. Spiritual practice is a lot more difficult than you can imagine. To watch everything you say, do or think. But one do it out of unconditional love to the one they have taken as their teacher, and for christians that is Jesus.
I have no problem defending Christians in their search for wisdom in Christianity. They do the same as a Muslim do in Islam, they seek wisdom and the vist to be saved from this place we call earth.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Not only is that possible, but it's possible to name one that was dead set against Christianity and who had no good words to write about Jesus or his band of followers. He could even throw additional info about them not mentioned anywhere else, so that's easy to show.
He also named the man who he claimed was the true father of Jesus, as well as telling us that it was two tax officers (not one) on his closest twelve.
But trying to teach extremist mythers such simple facts is rather difficult because they are worse fanatics than fundamentalist Christians on my opinion.
Now... who am I talking about, or are you completely uneducated about historical Jesus?
Want to guess, or are you just plain unaware of whom I write?
...this is fun.
Augustus
…
This is the kind of thing that passes for "historical fact" in online "rational skeptic" communities. Unfortunately, on any question of religious history "rational skeptic" communities tend to be woefully inaccurate when compared to secular academic scholarship. Constantine, the Bible, "Easter is pagan", the "Christian Dark Ages", religious persecution of science, etc. I used to buy into that stuff too before I actually looked at actual scholarship rather than the "rational skeptic" groupthink. Seriously, almost everything is wrong.
Firstly, it was never state religion under Constantine, that happened several emperors later under Theodosius (there was even another pagan emperor, Julian)
Why would a religion followed by less than 10% of the population, even less of the military and that reduces the status of the Emperor compared to the existing Imperial Cult where Emperors were literally deified be desirable as a cynical tool to "dupe the masses" though?
The emperor didn't need to "dupe the masses", they needed to control the army and elites
Unless Constantine planned on living another couple of centuries until the Empire became majority Christian, what political benefits was he getting?
He became Christian despite its political disadvantages, not because it was some great political solution.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not think that is reasonable or necessary.