The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

[BilliardsBall]

You do not have a clue as to what contemporary opposition to Christianity said.

Please post the counter-documents here. Not "what they said", but the names of the 1st century documents claiming Jesus was a-historical, etc.:

1)
2)
3)

 

[BilliardsBall]

1)In just Nigeria the militant Boko Haram Muslims are attacking and starving Nigerian Christians to death. 20 million have died. 184 children die every day of starvation. Now we are actually going in a circle. Whatever it takes to keep that belief from being questioned I guess?

2)Other websites I posted showed instances of people who were tithing properly and all types of disasters happened. Sometimes the church had to step in and give them money back. Many times the people tithing confirmation biased right into a different mindset---"Oh god doesn't want us to tithe he wants us to be generouos minded....?"
Whatever.

3) Your stories about cognative dissonance are humorous but really don't belong in a science thread. Maybe I should start giving money and praying to Thor?

1) I'm more than aware, I wish Trump would deploy forces there, but you keep skipping where I put "born again" who "tithe to their local church".

2) We've discussed this at length.

3) NOW you're talking. Go ahead and 1) tithe to Thor for three months then 2) tithe to Jesus for three months then report back here on your conversion, oops, I mean, results.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The reasons for the myth have been established.
First the counterclaims have been erased off the face of the earth. We still have Jews who say it's a false movement (why are you ignoring that?) but in this link this fact is discussed.

In fact, besides the gospels ALL OTHER Evidence from the first 80 years conveniently not preserved. AND - other evidence forged in it's place. scholarship admits of many forgeries from the religion attempting to forward it's agenda.

The myth in question was diverse and many disperate versions existed, some having the resurrection as a metaphor (see the Gnostoc Gospels by Elaine Pagels).
The bishop Ireaneous wanted a strict power-structure where only the supposed bloodline could teach and interpret the scripture, only those could be church leaders and they considered all the other sects heretics.
This version survived but it didn't catch on with the Jews. Being a gentile cult it did attract gentiles and savior god cults were very popular.
Emperor Constantine 200 years later decided to use it to unify Rome then made it law and it took off.

Actually Carrier does explain all that stuff, you clearly haven't read or listened to any of his work. One again you are actually telling straight out lies.

But since you thing you disagree with Carrier here is his lecture on "Why Invent the Jesus?"

So you tell me which points you disagree with and where he doesn't make a "good case". And explain why.

2:15 secquence of evidence
4:53 unusual evidence about pre-Jesus Jewish angelology
5:40 lack of evidence from critics from the times replaced with forgeries
Jesus and Paul is there a brother ? Myth and allegories,

Really? Jews believe today Christianity is a false movement? How did I miss that as a JEWISH CHRISTIAN?

I've asked for contemporary (1st century if that helps you) counter-documents, you know, EVIDENCE.

Carrier offers none such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please post the counter-documents here. Not "what they said", but the names of the 1st century documents claiming Jesus was a-historical, etc.:

1)
2)
3)

LOL!! Once again you have a reading comprehension fail.

 

[joelr]

1) I'm more than aware, I wish Trump would deploy forces there, but you keep skipping where I put "born again" who "tithe to their local church".

2) We've discussed this at length.

3) NOW you're talking. Go ahead and 1) tithe to Thor for three months then 2) tithe to Jesus for three months then report back here on your conversion, oops, I mean, results.

Yes, the website I linked to featured examples of people who tithe to their church and went broke so the money had to be given back.
Prayer studies have shown prayer is no different than random outcome and the idea that tithing would be an exception is downright strange considering it's not really even in the NT?

I already pray to Thor and other subjects just for fun on occasion. The results are remarkable. It's all confirmation bias, you notice things that work out and disregard or make excuses for things that don't. Sometimes they become "lessons" or "something better" was on it's way.

Why are you still on about this ridiculous subject? It's been shown it does not always work, it's no different than anything else. If you invest wisely you might see good returns. No magic about it.

I've already posted examples of Christian bloggers who come up with all sorts of confirmation bias to make the beliefs work out.

Let's revisit how people turn failure into…well, still failure but now with a secret message involved.


"Initially we decided to tithe as much as we could and to trust God for the rest. We found that this was sustainable for a while but that it led to a point where we were heading towards debt as a result. We felt that debt was not what God wanted for us s…"

"Through these adjustments God was making it clear that it was more important for us to maintain an attitude of generosity rather than attempt to stick rigidly to the “rules” we had set for ourselves."


"We learnt that God didn’t want our “tithe” – the mandated 10% …"

Funny. Weird now that you are adding "saved" to the equation? Tithing isn't mentioned in the NT and now it needs be a "saved" tithe? As if that means anything?


"There is nothing in the New Testament in favor of tithing. Neither Jesus nor Paul commanded believers to give 10% to their local church, or to go to church at all! Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees who tithed (Matthew 23:23), and denounced a self-righteous Pharisee who boasted about tithing (Luke 18:9-14). The writer of Hebrews, who observed that the old tithe was collected by the Levites, claimed that times are different now: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:5,12)."

 

[joelr]

Really? Jews believe today Christianity is a false movement? How did I miss that as a JEWISH CHRISTIAN?

I've asked for contemporary (1st century if that helps you) counter-documents, you know, EVIDENCE.

Carrier offers none such.

Two answers -
First of all the request is ridiculous? Do we have counter-documents to Islam, Hindu or any other religious cult? Do we need counter-documents to know they are false? No.
If we had counter-documents what would you say, would you trust them? Probably not?
All of the evidence we do have suggests this is a myth same as any other.

But that region and time in history features a complete blackout of information, counter or pro. It isn't until later we have any documents at all?

"Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?noredirect=on


However it turns out we do have historical documents that say the current canon is false. The church was unable to destroy them because they were hidden. This proves there were counter-documents all over but became highly illegal. We have several different Gnostic sources. This is described in detail on page 102 of The Gnostic Gospels which is online:

"FOR NEARLY 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the gnostics, while suppressing—and virtually destroying—the gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how gnostics denounced the orthodox.

TheSecond Treatise of the Great Seth polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the "true church" of the gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says:
. . . we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant
[pagans], but also by those who think they are advancing the name of
Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are,
like dumb animals.

The Savior explains that such persons made an imitation of the true church, "having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies, so as to resemble the freedom and purity of the perfect church"


"By the year 200, the battle lines had been drawn: both orthodox and gnostic Christians claimed to represent the true church and accused one another of being outsiders, false brethren, and hypocrites."


"TheApocalypse of Peter describes, as noted before, catholic Christians as those who have fallen "into an erroneous name and into the hand of an evil, cunning man, with a teaching in a multiplicity of forms,"

"The Testimony of Truth attacks ecclesiastical Christians as those who say "we are Christians," but "who [do not know who] Christ is."

"Contrary to orthodox sources, which interpret Christ's death as a sacrifice redeeming humanity from guilt and sin, this gnostic gospel sees the crucifixion as the occasion for discovering the divine self within. Yet with this different interpretation, the Gospel of Truth gives a moving account of Jesus' death:...."



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

 

[joelr]

Please post the counter-documents here. Not "what they said", but the names of the 1st century documents claiming Jesus was a-historical, etc.:

1)Second Treatise of the Great Seth
2)Gospel of Philip - humans make gods,
criticizes those who mistake religious language for a literal language, professing faith in God, in Christ, in the resurrection or the church, as if these were all "things" external to themselves.
3)TheActs of John - explains that Jesus was not a human being at all; instead, he was a spiritual being

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, the website I linked to featured examples of people who tithe to their church and went broke so the money had to be given back.
Prayer studies have shown prayer is no different than random outcome and the idea that tithing would be an exception is downright strange considering it's not really even in the NT?

I already pray to Thor and other subjects just for fun on occasion. The results are remarkable. It's all confirmation bias, you notice things that work out and disregard or make excuses for things that don't. Sometimes they become "lessons" or "something better" was on it's way.

Why are you still on about this ridiculous subject? It's been shown it does not always work, it's no different than anything else. If you invest wisely you might see good returns. No magic about it.

I've already posted examples of Christian bloggers who come up with all sorts of confirmation bias to make the beliefs work out.

Let's revisit how people turn failure into…well, still failure but now with a secret message involved.


"Initially we decided to tithe as much as we could and to trust God for the rest. We found that this was sustainable for a while but that it led to a point where we were heading towards debt as a result. We felt that debt was not what God wanted for us s…"

"Through these adjustments God was making it clear that it was more important for us to maintain an attitude of generosity rather than attempt to stick rigidly to the “rules” we had set for ourselves."


"We learnt that God didn’t want our “tithe” – the mandated 10% …"

Funny. Weird now that you are adding "saved" to the equation? Tithing isn't mentioned in the NT and now it needs be a "saved" tithe? As if that means anything?


"There is nothing in the New Testament in favor of tithing. Neither Jesus nor Paul commanded believers to give 10% to their local church, or to go to church at all! Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees who tithed (Matthew 23:23), and denounced a self-righteous Pharisee who boasted about tithing (Luke 18:9-14). The writer of Hebrews, who observed that the old tithe was collected by the Levites, claimed that times are different now: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:5,12)."

I understand confirmation bias, hearsay and anecdotal evidence. I understand bank accounts. The dollars are in the bank accounts, forensic evidence. I agree with you, investing wisely works, I disagree with you, I give money away and more comes in.

The tithe/test principle is in the OT. The OT is also God's Word.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Two answers -
First of all the request is ridiculous? Do we have counter-documents to Islam, Hindu or any other religious cult? Do we need counter-documents to know they are false? No.
If we had counter-documents what would you say, would you trust them? Probably not?
All of the evidence we do have suggests this is a myth same as any other.

But that region and time in history features a complete blackout of information, counter or pro. It isn't until later we have any documents at all?

"Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?noredirect=on


However it turns out we do have historical documents that say the current canon is false. The church was unable to destroy them because they were hidden. This proves there were counter-documents all over but became highly illegal. We have several different Gnostic sources. This is described in detail on page 102 of The Gnostic Gospels which is online:

"FOR NEARLY 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the gnostics, while suppressing—and virtually destroying—the gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how gnostics denounced the orthodox.

TheSecond Treatise of the Great Seth polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the "true church" of the gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says:
. . . we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant
[pagans], but also by those who think they are advancing the name of
Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are,
like dumb animals.

The Savior explains that such persons made an imitation of the true church, "having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies, so as to resemble the freedom and purity of the perfect church"


"By the year 200, the battle lines had been drawn: both orthodox and gnostic Christians claimed to represent the true church and accused one another of being outsiders, false brethren, and hypocrites."


"TheApocalypse of Peter describes, as noted before, catholic Christians as those who have fallen "into an erroneous name and into the hand of an evil, cunning man, with a teaching in a multiplicity of forms,"

"The Testimony of Truth attacks ecclesiastical Christians as those who say "we are Christians," but "who [do not know who] Christ is."

"Contrary to orthodox sources, which interpret Christ's death as a sacrifice redeeming humanity from guilt and sin, this gnostic gospel sees the crucifixion as the occasion for discovering the divine self within. Yet with this different interpretation, the Gospel of Truth gives a moving account of Jesus' death:...."



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

You are correct, we don't need counter-documents to prove a false claims document false.

We do need counter-documents to prove dozens of writers whose contemporaries could have called them out false. The NT makes few claims about, say, cosmology, but claims Jesus did dozens of miracles healing thousands of people in multiple locations--and then healings are reported across the Roman world, too.

I've yet to see WHY these claims were made from a "we love poverty, we love expulsion from the synagogues, we love crucifixions from Pilate perspective" from you...

 

[BilliardsBall]

1)Second Treatise of the Great Seth
2)Gospel of Philip - humans make gods,
criticizes those who mistake religious language for a literal language, professing faith in God, in Christ, in the resurrection or the church, as if these were all "things" external to themselves.
3)TheActs of John - explains that Jesus was not a human being at all; instead, he was a spiritual being

1) Dates to the 3rd century, I'm again asking for contemporary documents
2) 3rd century again
3) "Circulated as early as 2nd century CE" -- source: Wikipedia

No scholar takes seriously the assertion that ANY NT book was written post 90 CE. All 27 were written by people living in Jesus's day. Do you have one source that says, "I lived through this pretender's false Messianic claims" or not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL!! Once again you have a reading comprehension fail.

Not an answer. But we both know you have none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not an answer. But we both know you have none.

Now please. Don't lie about others. Be precise in what you want answered. You did have a reading comprehension problem. Your question proved it.

 

[joelr]

I understand confirmation bias, hearsay and anecdotal evidence. I understand bank accounts. The dollars are in the bank accounts, forensic evidence. I agree with you, investing wisely works, I disagree with you, I give money away and more comes in.

The tithe/test principle is in the OT. The OT is also God's Word.

1) Giving money away to the right sources that cause a return on investment is basic investing principles 101, not supernatural help?
2)Just because you understand confirmation bias doesn't mean you still aren't using it when it comes to your supernatural beliefs. You obviously are.
In fact it's likely you are just looking at hits and ignoring misses.
3) If it's really gods word then we have empirical evidence that it failed for many Christians so inconsistent examples of "gods word" are not evidence of a god.
4) Christians generally disregard all of the harmful, outrageous and barbaric rules in the OT (like in Leviticus or slaves in Exodus) by saying "Jesus gave us a NEW COVENANT and we are not bound by the old".
So I assume you use this logic when it comes to women not speaking in church but it's ok for other things. Cherry picking and lame.
5) You do not seem to understand anecdotal evidence and it's function in a SCIENCE DISCUSSION. You do not understand how ridiculous it is to put this line of debate forward in a science thread. If you did you would not go there because using unfalseifiable evidence is a clear sign of desperation.

The original discussion centered around what was/was not common sense. Anecdotal evidence as proof of money-magic is a trainwreck for this position. Just because you think a supernatural being is real doesn't mean you get to violate common sense. You might as well be saying Leprechauns are putting money in your bank account. It's exactly equal to the discussion.

Evidence has been presented of tithing 10% causing dire money circumstances. So it simply does not always work. This discussion was over several threads ago. Why you cling to it as if it's going to prove anything is strange.

 

[joelr]

You are correct, we don't need counter-documents to prove a false claims document false.

We do need counter-documents to prove dozens of writers whose contemporaries could have called them out false. The NT makes few claims about, say, cosmology, but claims Jesus did dozens of miracles healing thousands of people in multiple locations--and then healings are reported across the Roman world, too.

I've yet to see WHY these claims were made from a "we love poverty, we love expulsion from the synagogues, we love crucifixions from Pilate perspective" from you...

"healings are reported across the Roman world, too".......no, there are no extra-biblical confirmations of Christianity. Just fictional stories in the gospels.
You really need to get your history straight. This video of scholars goes over every mention of Jesus outside the bible and explains what they mean, what was said and so on. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity.


What can atheists know about Jesus panel

There are no outside confirmations of Jesus, only of Christians who worshipped a Christos. There are no reports of earthquakes or weird sun related phenomenon or dead people waking up and walking around by any historians anywhere that would match up with events in the gospels that claimed these things happened.
Nothing in the gospels is historical.

"Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia






I have already explained how and why persecution was used in the gospel stories. Another PhD has a book on the subject-
This is one scholars opinion but I've already shown that when the gospels were written they were a sect of Judaism and were only being disiplined under strict Jewish law. The persecution is just more of the myth. Christ died and his followers die for the movement and it's one big bronze age cult.
It's all accounted for? There is no "why would they do this or that?" It makes sense as a Jewish mystery religion with a savior god and persecution of the people.
We have already covered this?
Jesus preached giving away material items, they actually were not kicked out of any synagogues (Jesus Movement was a functioning part of diverse Judaism) and you need a death and resurrection to have your own savior god?? That is the entire point???



The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Moss's thesis is that: -

1. The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.
2. There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities.
3. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.
4. Most of the stories of individual martyrs are pure invention,
5. Even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.

Kirkus Reviews said "The myth of martyrdom—and the expectation of huge rewards in heaven—was effective in organizing a cohesive early Christian identity, which involved the notion of being "under attack" and justified a violent reaction. While none of Moss' arguments are particularly new or striking, she provides an intriguing venture that begs for more research and focus."[6]

In his review, N. Clayton Croy said: "Modern ideology drives Moss's thesis more than ancient testimony, and the result is a distortion of history more severe than the caricature she wants to expose."[7]
The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

1) Dates to the 3rd century, I'm again asking for contemporary documents
2) 3rd century again
3) "Circulated as early as 2nd century CE" -- source: Wikipedia

No scholar takes seriously the assertion that ANY NT book was written post 90 CE. All 27 were written by people living in Jesus's day. Do you have one source that says, "I lived through this pretender's false Messianic claims" or not?

Again, because there are no documents saying a myth is not true, this has zero bearing on if it's true or not.

1) Dates to the 3rd century, I'm again asking for contemporary documents
2) 3rd century again
3) "Circulated as early as 2nd century CE" -- source: Wikipedia

No scholar takes seriously the assertion that ANY NT book was written post 90 CE. All 27 were written by people living in Jesus's day. Do you have one source that says, "I lived through this pretender's false Messianic claims" or not?

What matters is that Gnostic groups and gospels were around in the first century and we now know that they are far removed from anything currently believed as canon. Many put Jesus as only a spiritual being and some as just a man.
We only can know this now because someone was able to hide gospels where the church could not find them. There is a known blackout period where ALL counter documents were destroyed from existence and pagan temples were destroyed or made into churches.
So no, any counter documents did not survive.
But they were around in the 1st century and Bishop Ireaneous has extensive writings about how "heretical" they are.


"Contemporary scholarship largely agrees that Gnosticism has Jewish Christian origins, originating in the late first century AD in nonrabbinical Jewish sects and early Christian sects."
Gnosticism - Wikipedia


So yes, there were counter documents. But how is this relevant? Mark came up with a basic guide that clearly others followed and it was clearly written as fiction. It's an offshoot of an already fictional mythical movement that incorporated more modern mystery aspects to it.

"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke ......and the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim."



Why would we need other fiction to prove this fiction is fiction?
The people who rejected it just stayed in their current faction. Some other group of Jews or some other religion. They wouldn't write about it on paper they did not have and with pens they did not have?

This entire line of thinking is going nowhere?

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Giving money away to the right sources that cause a return on investment is basic investing principles 101, not supernatural help?
2)Just because you understand confirmation bias doesn't mean you still aren't using it when it comes to your supernatural beliefs. You obviously are.
In fact it's likely you are just looking at hits and ignoring misses.
3) If it's really gods word then we have empirical evidence that it failed for many Christians so inconsistent examples of "gods word" are not evidence of a god.
4) Christians generally disregard all of the harmful, outrageous and barbaric rules in the OT (like in Leviticus or slaves in Exodus) by saying "Jesus gave us a NEW COVENANT and we are not bound by the old".
So I assume you use this logic when it comes to women not speaking in church but it's ok for other things. Cherry picking and lame.
5) You do not seem to understand anecdotal evidence and it's function in a SCIENCE DISCUSSION. You do not understand how ridiculous it is to put this line of debate forward in a science thread. If you did you would not go there because using unfalseifiable evidence is a clear sign of desperation.

The original discussion centered around what was/was not common sense. Anecdotal evidence as proof of money-magic is a trainwreck for this position. Just because you think a supernatural being is real doesn't mean you get to violate common sense. You might as well be saying Leprechauns are putting money in your bank account. It's exactly equal to the discussion.

Evidence has been presented of tithing 10% causing dire money circumstances. So it simply does not always work. This discussion was over several threads ago. Why you cling to it as if it's going to prove anything is strange.

Investing wisely does not require supernatural help. Giving money away/reducing accounts then getting money in to replace the gifts--often to the same amounts to the penny--certainly requires supernatural help, the more so when it happens again and again.

I have no problem accepting anecdotal evidence--for example, I've accepted your claim that you've never received a message from a god or evidence of a god. Note I'm not saying you are a denier of evidence in that regard. This is not an academic conference, it's a debate. Your claims that I'm lying are balanced by my understanding that I'm not lying. I've seen God in countless ways and numerous miracles.

Where you are in denial is against the revelation of the natural. You are aware of the wonders of the universe and claim they are all naturally formed and that the ALL is eternal or else "comes from a natural process we don't yet understand".

 

[BilliardsBall]

"healings are reported across the Roman world, too".......no, there are no extra-biblical confirmations of Christianity. Just fictional stories in the gospels.
You really need to get your history straight. This video of scholars goes over every mention of Jesus outside the bible and explains what they mean, what was said and so on. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity.


What can atheists know about Jesus panel

There are no outside confirmations of Jesus, only of Christians who worshipped a Christos. There are no reports of earthquakes or weird sun related phenomenon or dead people waking up and walking around by any historians anywhere that would match up with events in the gospels that claimed these things happened.
Nothing in the gospels is historical.

"Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia






I have already explained how and why persecution was used in the gospel stories. Another PhD has a book on the subject-
This is one scholars opinion but I've already shown that when the gospels were written they were a sect of Judaism and were only being disiplined under strict Jewish law. The persecution is just more of the myth. Christ died and his followers die for the movement and it's one big bronze age cult.
It's all accounted for? There is no "why would they do this or that?" It makes sense as a Jewish mystery religion with a savior god and persecution of the people.
We have already covered this?
Jesus preached giving away material items, they actually were not kicked out of any synagogues (Jesus Movement was a functioning part of diverse Judaism) and you need a death and resurrection to have your own savior god?? That is the entire point???



The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Moss's thesis is that: -

1. The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.
2. There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities.
3. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.
4. Most of the stories of individual martyrs are pure invention,
5. Even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.

Kirkus Reviews said "The myth of martyrdom—and the expectation of huge rewards in heaven—was effective in organizing a cohesive early Christian identity, which involved the notion of being "under attack" and justified a violent reaction. While none of Moss' arguments are particularly new or striking, she provides an intriguing venture that begs for more research and focus."[6]

In his review, N. Clayton Croy said: "Modern ideology drives Moss's thesis more than ancient testimony, and the result is a distortion of history more severe than the caricature she wants to expose."[7]
The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia

I've explained that we have multiple independent verifications. You cannot logically claim the gospels/NT books are inconsistent then claim they have the same authorship!

I've already explained that it is undeniable that Pilate and others had tens of thousands of Jews crucified, persecuted and tortured. The NT writers were risking that undeniably and also expulsion from Jewish practice and Jewish life. You cannot logically claim Paul or someone else was making a new religion then claim the NT writers wouldn't experience persecution from their own Jewish people!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, because there are no documents saying a myth is not true, this has zero bearing on if it's true or not.



What matters is that Gnostic groups and gospels were around in the first century and we now know that they are far removed from anything currently believed as canon. Many put Jesus as only a spiritual being and some as just a man.
We only can know this now because someone was able to hide gospels where the church could not find them. There is a known blackout period where ALL counter documents were destroyed from existence and pagan temples were destroyed or made into churches.
So no, any counter documents did not survive.
But they were around in the 1st century and Bishop Ireaneous has extensive writings about how "heretical" they are.


"Contemporary scholarship largely agrees that Gnosticism has Jewish Christian origins, originating in the late first century AD in nonrabbinical Jewish sects and early Christian sects."
Gnosticism - Wikipedia


So yes, there were counter documents. But how is this relevant? Mark came up with a basic guide that clearly others followed and it was clearly written as fiction. It's an offshoot of an already fictional mythical movement that incorporated more modern mystery aspects to it.

"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke ......and the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim."



Why would we need other fiction to prove this fiction is fiction?
The people who rejected it just stayed in their current faction. Some other group of Jews or some other religion. They wouldn't write about it on paper they did not have and with pens they did not have?

This entire line of thinking is going nowhere?

You are unaware that nearly every NT author reproves gnosticism, saying Christ is Savior and not gnostic belief and knowledge? See my related threads against gnostics here at RF.

You are yet to explain or point to an explanation of why people would risk poverty and persecution to promote fiction--why they would write lengthy NT books, and why several dozen authors did so, in a climate where their contemporaries could say, "There was no Jesus in Jerusalem/The Galilee/Caesaria Phillipi/Tiberias/the Judean wilderness performing dozens of miracles and healing hundreds of people!"

 

[Earthtank]

Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

As someone who has studied religion my first question to you is, which religion are you talking about? I have realized that when people are tyring to make an uneducated claim/statement, they always speak with such vagueness that it, clearly shows how hollow their head truly is.

 

[joelr]

Investing wisely does not require supernatural help. Giving money away/reducing accounts then getting money in to replace the gifts--often to the same amounts to the penny--certainly requires supernatural help, the more so when it happens again and again.

Someone gives money to someone and then they return the favor, maybe even the exact amount. Thinking this is magic suggest delusional behavior. Wanting to use completely unverifiable evidence is also very sketchy. The amount of times you've let losing money in this process slip by and focused intently on any type of "hit" where more money came in is exactly the reason people honestly believe the universe is showing them a special number over and over or whatever superstition they are believing at the moment.
What's worse is it isn't even in the NT. This is a 100% confirmation bias situation. It's also incredibly self centered while 1000s of Christian families lose their homes every year and had to move them and their children to shelters you seem to think some god has taken special liking to you or you are more important than the impossible numbers of Christian families struggling in poverty.
It's super creepy.

I have no problem accepting anecdotal evidence--for example, I've accepted your claim that you've never received a message from a god or evidence of a god. Note I'm not saying you are a denier of evidence in that regard. This is not an academic conference, it's a debate. Your claims that I'm lying are balanced by my understanding that I'm not lying. I've seen God in countless ways and numerous miracles.

No, you have interpreted events to make them seem like you have a magic friend helping you. I also have many coincidences that could easily be interpreted as a deity giving me assistance. All the time, in huge ways, here is a secret, we tend to notice things that worked out for us and superstitious people will need to make sense of this by involving some supernatural entity.

Meanwhile it happens to everybody. You set things in motion and often they work out for the best. I did not say you are lying, you just find ways to say "god did that" whenever they arise. And those things arise all the time, for everyone. If the person is religious they believe their god is lending a helping hand.

How Sri Krishna helps His followers in their day-to-day life ?

From their own experiences, all full-time Krishna-Bhaktas confirm that, Sri Krishna is a live-factor in their day-to-day activities. They receive warning message, before danger is struck . So, adequate precautions are taken well in advance . In the event of unpredictable situations beyond human control, an invisible divine grace tilts the balance in favor of the Bhakta.

I have such an experience . My aged father was undergoing a major spine-replacement surgery. Although, the surgery was successful, it was followed by a cardiac arrest. The doctors tried the only available option ( mild electric pressurization) but it failed . They became helpless and left the rest to God . We, being Krishna-bhaktas left everything to Bhagavan Sri Krishna and begged Him to do the needful to save our father. Surprising everyone, my father came back to life . Doctors consider it as a miracle, but we know the real truth . It was Bhagavan's personal involvement that saved my father's life .

Krishna-bhaktas thankfully recognize such types of divine help from Bhagavan. But, hypocrites like the Atheists and Mlechas do not accept it . In reality, Bhagavan's *Yoga-Maya* ( illusive energy) is disqualifying these sinners from understanding the Krishna-leela . Once the beneficiary understands the Krishna-leela that has occurred in his/her life, that person becomes an ardent Krishna-devotee for ever. Spirituality is something that to be experienced in own life . Without having a solid real-life experience, one cannot remain steadfast to his faith .

Bhagavan Sri Krishna says in Srimad Bhagavad Gita (10.7-10):

"Any Person who experiences My divine power , will have firm Bhakti in Me. There is no doubt about this. I am ( Krishna) the source of both material and spiritual worlds. Everything emanates from Me. Krishna-bhaktas realize this and they worship Me with great joy in their hearts. Their minds are fixed on Me and their lives are surrendered to Me. My Bhaktas derive great satisfaction from enlightening one another about my greatness and speaking about Me. Krishna-bhaktas whose minds are devoted to Me worship Me with great joy. I Myself give to them the yoga of wisdom, by which they can come to Sri Krishna. "


How Sri Krishna helps Bhaktas in daily life ?

Oh if you want to use these "miracle powers" please do, I have a 15 digit number. Please pray to recieve the digits and tell me what they are. Or perform walking on water at a given time and place.
Every religious person who survives a serious illness calls this a miracle. A cancer with 60% mortality rate that 100,000 people get annually will have up to 40 thousand people thinking a miracle occured because they can't think simple logic.
Meanwhile the other 60,000 did not make it.
It's called statistics.

There are some hilarious stories on youtube about ex-convicts who were convinced Jesus was helping them here and there even though after they were "helped" by Jesus they still continued to sell drugs and ruin peoples lives.
And now they are all convinced god has a plan for them and blah blah blah. People are just not that smart.

Where you are in denial is against the revelation of the natural. You are aware of the wonders of the universe and claim they are all naturally formed and that the ALL is eternal or else "comes from a natural process we don't yet understand".

This is by far the most absurd thing you have said.
Everything in the universe is accounted for by the laws pf physics. Where the universe came from we do not yet know.
First, guess who also says we do not yet know where the universe came from? - ALL COSMOLOGISTS and ASTROPHYSICISTS!?
The reasonable parts of this debate have been demonstrating to you that Judeo-Christianity is a complete and total mythology and you have not countered one single fact. The cosmology of the creation story shows no understanding of even local space and actually thinks space is "the firmament". The Hindu creation myth is so much more realistic and that's also just a story.

Your religion is mythology, it's been demonstrated over and over by scholarship to be myth and hand waving this myth around and calling people "in denial" because they don't think this ridiculous myth, copied completely from older myths, is actually written by the "one true god" is a fail.
I can't even imagine why you think we HAVE to know where the universe came from? Humans were around for about 100,000 years and clearly did not know but suddenly it's imperative humans know in the last 2000?
Yahweh is exactly as likely as Zeus as the creator of the universe. You have not put forth one single fact that changes this so resorting to just calling people "in denial" is just not supported.

So you don't get to now pretend like I'm denying anything