HELLO. I represent the 'Christos Mythos'. Please read

Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HELLO. I represent the 'Christos Mythos'. Please read

My mission is to prove that Christ is a myth and to explain the origins of the myth of Christ.

My website is the culmination of my lifelong fascination with ancient history, ancient religions, mythology and the occult.

 

http://www.christos-mythos.com/

http://www.myspace.com/christmyth

 

I have created a film, in which the "Jesus Mythicist" thesis is explored, entitled "A Study on the History of the Dying and Resurrecting God" . This can be found in my Blog (direct link: Christ Myth

 

I've posted this video in the "Jesus Mythicist Campaign" Forum in hopes that it would spark discussion and because I believed that was the proper place to post it, however, I've noticed that almost no one enters that forum, so I decided to post here.

 

 

{link shortened}


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet, Christians have

 Vastet, Christians have suffered the greatest. The first 4 centuries was only the beginning. They were tortured, burned, thrown into ovens, thrown to lions, placed into ovens shaped like bulls, they were sawn asunder, etc. Anything you can think of they did. Then they had to deal with the Muslims who butchered Christians by the thousands, if not millions over the centuries. But its not over yet. Soviet Russia is responsible for killing 60 - 100 million Christians. This is the greatest religious persecution in known history. And today, we have to deal with groups such as this one. Why don't Rational Responders attack the goddess or Allah? Their focus is only on Christianity. I would say because Christinaity is the truth and the devil has been trying to extinguish its flame for two millenia. Of course his attempts are futile.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I call bullshit. What about

I call bullshit. What about the last 15 centuries where Christians tortured or oppressed non-Christians? - the Crusades, Inquisition, the pro-life movement, the discrimination against gays and women, slavery, the Christian War on Science, etc...

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I call

MattShizzle wrote:
I call bullshit. What about the last 15 centuries where Christians tortured or oppressed non-Christians? - the Crusades, Inquisition, the pro-life movement, the discrimination against gays and women, slavery, the Christian War on Science, etc...

 

The Crusades arose as a reaction to the Islamic jihads on Christian society. I once heard that had the crusades never occurd, America would be a Muslim nation today. I don't how trut that is, I just heard it. The Muslims weren't invited. They tried to conquer by the sword. And I don't know what you're refering to the prolife movment for.  I don't know of any Christians who have kiled gays and women in modern society. And we don't have a war on science. We only war against myths and lies  like evolution.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: And we

Apotheon wrote:
And we don't have a war on science. We only war against myths and lies  like evolution.

Let me guess - you're one of those "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" types? Seriously, stem cell vetoes, intelligent design, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws, and you say Christianity ISN'T fucking up America?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against MOST Christians - the "live and let live" types. I'm from a big Catholic family.

My problem lies not with the "live and let live" Christians, but with the ones I call "jesusfags" - the ones who try to force Christianity down everyone else's throats. My family members and the general majority of Christians on this board aren't "jesusfags". People like Chimpy McFlightsuit, Michael Behe, the ID camp, some of the people who say America is a "Christian Nation", bevets from Fark, Christians with a persecution complex and Apotheon are "jesusfags". To them I say, believe what you want, just let me do the same!

I know I used ad hominem. I am sorry, but I just cannot find a term more polite than "jesusfag". Those folks are just plain hard gay for Jesus. Apologies to homosexuals, I have nothing against you.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  Vastet,

Apotheon wrote:
 Vastet, Christians have suffered the greatest. The first 4 centuries was only the beginning. They were tortured, burned, thrown into ovens, thrown to lions, placed into ovens shaped like bulls, they were sawn asunder, etc. Anything you can think of they did.

Which is nothing compared to what they've done to others, including the muslims, jews, pagans, and us atheists. I also call bullshit.

Apotheon wrote:
Then they had to deal with the Muslims who butchered Christians by the thousands, if not millions over the centuries.

Which they started, and take full blame for. They should never have started the crusades.

Apotheon wrote:
But its not over yet. Soviet Russia is responsible for killing 60 - 100 million Christians.

And a shitload of jews too. Not to mention what the christian Hitler did to the jews.

Apotheon wrote:
This is the greatest religious persecution in known history.

No, it isn't. Not even close.

Apotheon wrote:
And today, we have to deal with groups such as this one.

Which you can also blame on christianity, and their oppression of atheists. Congrats.

Apotheon wrote:

Why don't Rational Responders attack the goddess or Allah?

We do. There just isn't as many of them stepping up to get slapped. I will give you credit for that much. The christians seem to have more balls than the other religions do. Though whether or not that's actually a good thing is debateable.

Apotheon wrote:
Their focus is only on Christianity. I would say because Christinaity is the truth and the devil has been trying to extinguish its flame for two millenia. Of course his attempts are futile.

But this is inaccurate. While there isn't a lot, due to a lack of participation by the other religions, you can find posts attacking the other faiths as well. In fact, there's at least one or two discussions on whether or not we should depict the founder of the muslim religion pictorally. Something I'd have no fear of doing if it were not for the possibility that some of them would go completely ballistic and kill people that had nothing to do with it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I call

MattShizzle wrote:
I call bullshit. What about the last 15 centuries where Christians tortured or oppressed non-Christians? - the Crusades, Inquisition, the pro-life movement, the discrimination against gays and women, slavery, the Christian War on Science, etc...

 

The reason the Christians crusades took place is because of power. The leaders thought non-Christians would undermine their authority it would have happened regardless of their Christianity or lack there off.   


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Anyone not believing in

Anyone not believing in evolution nowadays seriously need to go to a mental retardation home.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, evolution is "only a

Yeah, evolution is "only a theory." so is gravity.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: The Devil:

Apotheon wrote:

The Devil: Yes, he exists. We have reports of certain monks physically fighting with him and demons. People have even witnessed this. The monks come out with bruises and such.

Proof, please. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
vastet wrote:I sure

vastet wrote:
I sure stepped in it this time.

Yeah, you did.

Thanks for responding to my inquiry.  I think I asked you to defend a statement that you made "off the cuff".  I see you've already backed off that statement somewhat.

From what I see in your response, though, I feel that you are once again either posting haste or are defending a position you really haven't thought through. 

Let me begin by responding to some historical conclusions you seem to have drawn that don't quite seem to make snse to me.  Then If I have time, I'l  address some of the theological issues you raise.

vastet wrote:
mss murder of societies. At best being presented as good. Or at worst, the fault of those who have fallen.

"Mass murder" was the standard for ancient tribal warfare, much like the vendetta type gang warfare prevalent in Sicily in the 17th-early 20th century.  The theory behind the two is remarkably similar.  If you wipe out everybody of the opposing tribe, nobody's goning to survive to feel honor bound to come back and wipe out your people.  This was the surest way of protecting yout tribe from the threat of constant warfare, and extinction at the hands of a resurgent enemy.  A bit cruel to us "enlightened", modern folks, bu perfectly acceptable in its day.

With the rise of Hellenic civilization and other city-states, man came to realize the economic value of opposing populations as slaves, which became more the fashion for defeated enemy populations.  Even so, into and through Roman Imperial history, wholesale slaughter was still quite common in warfare.  By this time though, slaughters of populations were usually conducted as a punishment or warning as opposed to being conducted a preventive step against revenge.

Oddly enough, and perhaps coincidentally (although I think not) it is with the acceptance and rise of Christian thought in Europe that a certain codification of warfare begins to take place.  From the rise of chivalry and knighthood, through the promulgation of the just war theory by St Thomas Aquinas, through the customs of war in the 17th through 19th century (although with notable exceptions) the rights of non-combatants, prisoners, the sick and injured, were recognized more and more.  In the early 20th century, these realizations reached theri zenith with the laws of war outlined in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

It is also interesting to note that, perhaps again coincidentally (but again I think not), as Christian thought wanes and is superseded by humanist philosophies in the West civilian populations once again find themselves the legitimate targets of war.

vastet wrote:
Chrisitanity fueled it's own opposition by opposing it's opposition.

I think I know what you mean here, but I must ask you to document this fierce opposition which Christianity mounted against its oppressors.  Christians went to their deaths in droves for the sake of their faith and the religion not only survived, but continued to grow.  I know of no Christian uprising that threatened the Roman Empire, or any province of it.  I've read of no rebellion by Christians which forced the emperor to say "these Christians must be done away with before the destroy us".  While I hesitate to use the word miraculous on an atheist website, the survival of Christianity through a period of persecution lasting nearly three hundred years, with no physical resistance on the part of the oppressed certainly is counter-intuitive to say the least.

The second observation I would make is really a question.  Would not the Christians, faced by such persecution, have been perfectly justified if they had taken arms against it?

An old Irish Republican motto goes "where there is oppression, there is resistance".  Are not truly oppressed people justified in taking arms in their own defense? 

I mean, I have this picture in my head of Sam Adams and Benjamin Franklin sitting over a pitcher of some of Sam's fine brew in Boston having this conversation:

Sam:  Boy, Ben, those Brits are really oppressive.  This taxation without representation sure sucks.

Ben:  You sure have that right.

Sam:  It seems they'll stop at nothing.

Ben:  Well...since they'll stop at nothing, perhaps we should do nothing, and they will stop.

Sam:  Great idea, Ben.  I knew there was a reason you're the foremost American thinker of our time.

vastet wrote:
I rather doubt I've answered you properly, but in all honesty I made that claim in the face of the implication that christianity being able to survive a few centuries of opposition lent it any credibility at all, which is rather ludicrous.

Ludicrous to you, miraculous proof to me and rather surprising, you must admit.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet, I have to correct

 Vastet, I have to correct a few of your errors. First, where are Christians killing Jews and Muslims right now?

 

Second, when I said that the Russian Revolution was the greatest religious massacre in history, I wasn't making it up. Stalin, and the soviets are responsible for killing 60-100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. 80-90% of those soviet rules were Jews.

 

Third, Hitler was a Catholic in childhood, but he never personally embraced it. He forsook Catholicsm and dabbled in the Occult. Hitler himself was part Jew. This is documented in "Hitler: The Founder of Israel, by Kardel.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Matt, science is an ever

 Matt, science is an ever developing field of study. It would be arrogant to assume we have currently reached the height of scientific knowledge. The problem with evolutionary theorists, is that they want us to stop thinking. Evolution theory is our current paradigm of scientific thought. Even as the flat earth theorists once was. The problem with evolution is that there is no evidence for it. But we have been indoctrinated into believing there is.

 

Susan, the only way I can prove it is to refer you to the monks themselves. Elder Joseph of Athos is now deceased, but he had daily battles with demons. They would materialize in his cell as pigs, monkeys or humanoid beings and physically assault him. This type of thing is very common in the lives of holy people.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: The

Apotheon wrote:
The problem with evolution is that there is no evidence for it. But we have been indoctrinated into believing there is.

Yeah, except for the fossils, DNA, various experiments, penicillin and all the mountains of evidence.

Apotheon wrote:
Elder Joseph of Athos is now deceased, but he had daily battles with demons. They would materialize in his cell as pigs, monkeys or humanoid beings and physically assault him. This type of thing is very common in the lives of holy people.

Care to show your evidence that he fought against demon-possessed pigs and monkeys, as opposed to regular pigs and monkeys? Proof demons invaded animals' cells? How did he know demons were in the animals' cells? Which cells? Heart cells, or brain cells, or liver cells, or red blood cells, or white blood cells, or stomach cells or some other cells? Or some combination of different types of cells?

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
vastet wrote:Which is

vastet wrote:
Which is nothing compared to what they've done to others, including the muslims, jews, pagans, and us atheists. I also call bullshit.

Maybe you atheists have brought it on yourself by opposing the opposition to your opposition.

vastet wrote:

Which they started, and take full blame for. They should never have started the crusades.

The Crusades were but one episode in an ongoing war started by the conquests carried out by Islam throughout the 7-11th centuries.  Islamic expansion had, at one point even overrun the southern part of France.  By the mid 11th century Islam retained only a toehold in southern Spain, Christendom resurgent, and having survived the Norse raids from Scandinavia, Mongol incursions from the east, now attempted to retake those areas lost to Islam in the Levant.

The Crusades were nothing more than the Middle Ages' equivalent of the WWII Normandy landings without the happy ending. 

vastet wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
But its not over yet. Soviet Russia is responsible for killing 60 - 100 million Christians.

And a shitload of jews too. 

Well, since he killed Jews, then killing Christians is alright, I guess.  If you're gonna be a mass mmurderer, be an equal opportunity mass murderer. Although I think Apotheon figures are way too high.  Estimates of deaths during Stalin's regime range from 20-30 million. 

vastet wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
This is the greatest religious persecution in known history.

No, it isn't. Not even close.

Who's your candidate for this honor?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
...he had daily battles with demons. They would materialize in his cell as pigs, monkeys or humanoid beings and physically assault him. This type of thing is very common in the lives of holy people.

 

I think you may have meant to say "lives of psychotic people".

 

 I find it amusing that this thread went from "let's prove that the legend of Christ is a true story" to "let's prove that Christians were the most oppressed", because as we all know...the most oppressed religion must be the truest [/sarcasm]

Apotheon - Do you agree with Origen that the OT may be entirely allegorical? And if so, why do you attack my position that the NT is entirely allegorical? As I've stated and want to make clear, I am not anti-Jesus. My Christ is a symbol of elevation of the soul and of everlasting hope, not a man who died 2000 years ago. My Christ has "lived" in the hearts and minds of men since the dawn of mankind.

 

My reading of the NT is that it is an anthropomorphization and an allegorization of the Christ symbol. It is a wonderful book. But it is not history.

 

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth wrote:

Christ Myth wrote:

 

I find it amusing that this thread went from "let's prove that the legend of Christ is a true story" to "let's prove that Christians were the most oppressed", because as we all know...the most oppressed religion must be the truest [/sarcasm]

Sorry your thread was derailed by the deranged. Sad I'm amazed that people actually believe some of this crappola, then I remember that I did, too, at one time. At one time I even thought I saw demons and did "spiritual warfare" against them.   There's irrational and then there's deranged.  I (and some posting in this thread) fit the latter category.  Some can be helped, but others...well...????

Apotheon, I see you found the forums. Congratulations. If you want to debate people as you claim, you need to prove some of your wild assertions. I don't blame Rook for not bothering with you. Anyone who believes in the devil, the Shroud of Turin and demons is seriously disconnected from reality. I used to believe in that shit and yes, I admit it. I was disconnected from reality. If you want to prove me wrong, you're going to have to offer some seriously compelling evidence, which I rather doubt is forthcoming.

Good luck.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Susan, the

Apotheon wrote:


Susan, the only way I can prove it is to refer you to the monks themselves. Elder Joseph of Athos is now deceased, but he had daily battles with demons. They would materialize in his cell as pigs, monkeys or humanoid beings and physically assault him. This type of thing is very common in the lives of holy people.

If there really were such a thing as demons, don't you think they'd go after an easier mark?

I have serious doubts about someone's sanity who would claim demon pigs and monkeys are appearing out of thin air and assaulting him/her. 

Take a minute and think about how crazy that is.  Would you believe it if your next door neighbor told you that a demon pig showed up in his bedroom and he had to wrestle it?  No proof, just his story.

I'd be calling the authorities because I'd be afraid this guy would  shoot up the neighborhood eventually. 

I suspect there was a reason that guy was in a cell. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Yeah, you

totus_tuus wrote:
Yeah, you did.
Thanks for responding to my inquiry.  I think I asked you to defend a statement that you made "off the cuff".  I see you've already backed off that statement somewhat.

Indeed.

totus_tuus wrote:
"Mass murder" was the standard for ancient tribal warfare, much like the vendetta type gang warfare prevalent in Sicily in the 17th-early 20th century.  The theory behind the two is remarkably similar.  If you wipe out everybody of the opposing tribe, nobody's goning to survive to feel honor bound to come back and wipe out your people.  This was the surest way of protecting yout tribe from the threat of constant warfare, and extinction at the hands of a resurgent enemy.  A bit cruel to us "enlightened", modern folks, bu perfectly acceptable in its day. With the rise of Hellenic civilization and other city-states, man came to realize the economic value of opposing populations as slaves, which became more the fashion for defeated enemy populations.  Even so, into and through Roman Imperial history, wholesale slaughter was still quite common in warfare.  By this time though, slaughters of populations were usually conducted as a punishment or warning as opposed to being conducted a preventive step against revenge.

I can't disagree with what you're saying, but I can point out that these things came from god(ie, destruction of egypt), not man(at least according to the christians and the bible). Supposedly the ultimate authority of morality. Has gods morality changed in the last two thousand years like ours has? If so, then how can morality be absolute when it can change? Seems self contradictory to me. Even worse, one would think a supremely wise being would have made a book that would be equatable with all time periods, or at least help man on it's way to becoming more enlightened, not stick it in the dark ages to boil over.

totus_tuus wrote:
Oddly enough, and perhaps coincidentally (although I think not) it is with the acceptance and rise of Christian thought in Europe that a certain codification of warfare begins to take place.  From the rise of chivalry and knighthood, through the promulgation of the just war theory by St Thomas Aquinas, through the customs of war in the 17th through 19th century (although with notable exceptions) the rights of non-combatants, prisoners, the sick and injured, were recognized more and more.  In the early 20th century, these realizations reached theri zenith with the laws of war outlined in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Ah, but how do you know these things wouldn't have happened anyway? What proof is there that it's only because of the christian faith that these things came to pass? When I look at societal progress, I see movement towards such a state even without the christian religion. If I recall correctly, there were movements in Rome and Greece that had similar leanings long before christianity was widely established. Even as far away as China. Worse, as I recall, cultures in the Americas that never even saw christianity had come further than the christians did by the same time period.

totus_tuus wrote:
It is also interesting to note that, perhaps again coincidentally (but again I think not), as Christian thought wanes and is superseded by humanist philosophies in the West civilian populations once again find themselves the legitimate targets of war.

I think you're putting religion before politics here. Most of the problems in the middle east that the west is having to deal with now can be traced back to the cold war, and the unethical steps taken by both the United States and the Soviet Union at the time(exception being Israel and Palestine, which trace back a bit further to the conclusion of WWII). Now the US and Russia are reaping the seeds they sowed decades ago.

totus_tuus wrote:

I think I know what you mean here, but I must ask you to document this fierce opposition which Christianity mounted against its oppressors.  Christians went to their deaths in droves for the sake of their faith and the religion not only survived, but continued to grow.  I know of no Christian uprising that threatened the Roman Empire, or any province of it.  I've read of no rebellion by Christians which forced the emperor to say "these Christians must be done away with before the destroy us".  While I hesitate to use the word miraculous on an atheist website, the survival of Christianity through a period of persecution lasting nearly three hundred years, with no physical resistance on the part of the oppressed certainly is counter-intuitive to say the least.

Well the christians did seek to replace age old gods with one new god, which is the exactly kind of thing that fuels conflict. Even if one side is pacifist. There needs be no decree from an empire for the people of that empire to seek to preserve their own beliefs and culture in the face of claims that they are a lie.

I will note that I did not say the words fierce or oppression in the statement you are referring to here. Merely opposition, which I don't think you can deny in any way, even if it were not opposition in the form of violence.

totus_tuus wrote:
The second observation I would make is really a question.  Would not the Christians, faced by such persecution, have been perfectly justified if they had taken arms against it?

That's a tricky question that would require me to have more knowledge of the time than I do to answer to my satisfaction. In a general sense, yes people are justified in taking arms for self defense. But are people justified for taking arms in self defense when they created the very scenario that they must defend against? If the U.S. creates economic havoc in Australia, then gets bombed by Australia because of it, is the US really morally justified in bombing them back after starting the whole thing in the first place? I don't think so. Starting conflicts just so you can declare you're defending yourself is immoral in my view. Now I'm no expert historian on the time period, I just have bits and pieces of knowledge of the day, so I may be misrepresenting the scenario a bit. But I don't think I'm off by all that much.

totus_tuus wrote:
An old Irish Republican motto goes "where there is oppression, there is resistance".  Are not truly oppressed people justified in taking arms in their own defense?

Yes. But one must look at all sides of the equation.

totus_tuus wrote:
I mean, I have this picture in my head of Sam Adams and Benjamin Franklin sitting over a pitcher of some of Sam's fine brew in Boston having this conversation:
Sam:  Boy, Ben, those Brits are really oppressive.  This taxation without representation sure sucks.
Ben:  You sure have that right.
Sam:  It seems they'll stop at nothing.
Ben:  Well...since they'll stop at nothing, perhaps we should do nothing, and they will stop.
Sam:  Great idea, Ben.  I knew there was a reason you're the foremost American thinker of our time.

Lol. This is a bit more complicated than presented though. It was after all the Brits that established the colony and supplied it in the first place(not to mention warring to keep it safe). According to the capitalist economy we live under, they were fully justified in taxing the colony to get their investment back. The Brits happened to go way overboard in the process, risking the very viability of the colonies with their overtaxation.

totus_tuus wrote:
vastet wrote:
I rather doubt I've answered you properly, but in all honesty I made that claim in the face of the implication that christianity being able to survive a few centuries of opposition lent it any credibility at all, which is rather ludicrous.

Ludicrous to you, miraculous proof to me and rather surprising, you must admit.

I don't find it all that surprising actually. Because we are a moral species, martyrs tend to get quite a bit of recognition and sympathy. No matter the time period. It would seem to me that the best way to go from a small regional cult or religion to a full fledged global religion would be to throw bunches of your followers into the face of death, keeping enough of them out of harms way to continue the teachings. That's basically what the muslims are doing today.

Apotheon wrote:
Vastet, I have to correct a few of your errors. First, where are Christians killing Jews and Muslims right now?

Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind as far as the muslims are concerned. And there are christian terrorist groups throughout the middle east that for some reason don't get as much attention as muslim and to a fair bit lesser extent jewish terrorists. There's a few of them in the States too, though they mostly concentrate on secular institutions and the "liberal threat" whatever that is supposed to be.

Apotheon wrote:
Second, when I said that the Russian Revolution was the greatest religious massacre in history, I wasn't making it up. Stalin, and the soviets are responsible for killing 60-100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. 80-90% of those soviet rules were Jews.

You're going to have to be a lot more specific for me to know what specifically you're talking about. I just spent an hour skimming through the history of all the Russian Revolutions from the late 1800's to the 1920's and found no mention of the christians being massacred in such numbers. So you're now going to have to prove that 60-100 million christians were killed in Russia in a massacre.

Apotheon wrote:
Third, Hitler was a Catholic in childhood, but he never personally embraced it. He forsook Catholicsm and dabbled in the Occult. Hitler himself was part Jew. This is documented in "Hitler: The Founder of Israel, by Kardel.

The title of that book is quite amusing, considering it was the UN who effectively founded the Israel of today after Hitler was already dead. Obviously it has little or no credibility.

totus_tuus wrote:
vastet wrote:
Which is nothing compared to what they've done to others, including the muslims, jews, pagans, and us atheists. I also call bullshit.

Maybe you atheists have brought it on yourself by opposing the opposition to your opposition.

I expected this. It's an interesting theory, except that atheism never made any attempts to spread until very recently. It was merely a personal viewpoint someone could hold, never an organization like christianity. Christians and other religions have forced atheism to organize for self defense, since individuals holding a lack of belief which needs no teaching to sustain have been singled out for millenia.

totus_tuus wrote:
vastet wrote:
Which they started, and take full blame for. They should never have started the crusades.

The Crusades were but one episode in an ongoing war started by the conquests carried out by Islam throughout the 7-11th centuries. Islamic expansion had, at one point even overrun the southern part of France. By the mid 11th century Islam retained only a toehold in southern Spain, Christendom resurgent, and having survived the Norse raids from Scandinavia, Mongol incursions from the east, now attempted to retake those areas lost to Islam in the Levant. The Crusades were nothing more than the Middle Ages' equivalent of the WWII Normandy landings without the happy ending.

You speak as if you are speaking fact, when you are not. I've never seen a single person before you claim that the crusades started because of muslim conquests centuries previous. Every scholar or history text I've ever read says the crusades started long after. Most of the muslim conquests didn't even ocurr against christian targets. I've seen plenty of christians try to shake off the most disgusting acts in christian history before, but never in this way. It does not make you any more successful than they were.

totus_tuus wrote:

Well, since he killed Jews, then killing Christians is alright, I guess. If you're gonna be a mass mmurderer, be an equal opportunity mass murderer. Although I think Apotheon figures are way too high. Estimates of deaths during Stalin's regime range from 20-30 million.

It was not my intention to imply that it's ok, merely that he was acting as if the christians were the only target of Soviet Russia, which is one of the more laughable claims in this topic.

totus_tuus wrote:
Who's your candidate for this honor?

The crusades. Not because of numbers, but because of ratios. 30 million people out of 2.3 billion(estimated global population in 1940) compared to 9 million people out of 432 million(upper estimate of global population of 1300). Translates to 1 out of 77 people on the planet killed in Russia compared to 1 out of 48 for the crusades. Approximately of course, and taking your upper estimate of christian casualties in Russia instead of your lower one. Which of course assumes even your numbers are accurate, and I haven't seen anything to indicate such is true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
When one considers that one

When one considers that one of the crusades sacked that very empire, it stretches the claims of muslim responsibility for the entire crusades into oblivion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, I'm enjoying our

Vastet,

I'm enjoying our exchange here immensely, but feel we are getting way off the subject of this thread, not to mention this particular forum.  If you'd like to continue with a discussion of the Crusades or any other derivative topic we've brought up, perhaps it'd be best to start a new thread.  If you're inerested, please do so and let me know.  I recommend just posting your last post in the new thread, since it seems to sum up both of our arguments to this point fairly completely.  I can't recommend a particular forum, since there doesn't seem to be a forum for the discussion of non-biblical history, but one of Rook's seems the most appropriate to me.  I'll be happy to meet you there.

 Tchuss

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm a fair bit outside my

I'm a fair bit outside my element here, but I have no real problem continuing since I really got myself into it. However, it would be best if a moderator simply moved our posts into a new topic, perhaps starting at the point you recommend. Susan? Iruka? Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller, when I said

Little Roller, when I said "Cell" I wasn't refering to human biology. A Cell is a room a monk sleeps in. I hope I'm spelling it right. There are many examples but I will give you one. Elder Joseph the the Cave Dweller of Mount Athos, was a clairvoyant holy man. He documents his experiences with demons in his book Monastic Wisdom. He said that demons would make all kinds of noises outside the monks rooms and would throw rocks at the window. They would howl, sing, dance and cause all kinds of disturbance. They would storm into his room in the form of pigs (there were no pigs on Mount Athos), black humanoids, monkeys and naked women (there are no women or monkeys on Athos). Everynight they would assault him in bed. He grabbed one once and he said the arm felt like a human arm but it was slimy. One night a visiter slept in Joseph's bed when Joseph was not present. The demons attacked the visiter thinking it was Joseph. The visitor fled in terror. Anyway, this is documented in his own book listed above. He is deceased now. He predicted the day of his birth (the Virgin Mary told him this), and he died that very day. Also, Elder Ephraim of Arizona his Joseph's disciple. You can contact him for more evidence on this. Ephraim came to America in 1995.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth wrote: I think

Christ Myth wrote:

I think you may have meant to say "lives of psychotic people".

 

How could he be psychotic when these things are witnessed by multiple people? Anyone who denies the existance of the devil and demons, has obviously never stood up against them. I gurantee you that if you resist Satan, he will make his presence very real in your life. Try living a spiritual life, and Satan will go after you. Elder Joseph and others were very holy people. Satan hates those kind of people. He loves people that don't serve God and never bothers to assault them because they pose no threat to him. Satan doesn't want you to believe in him, because if you believe in him, then logically you must believe in God. That's the last thing he wants and he will go out of his way to make sure you never experience his presence. I know this sounds silly to materialistic and self-serving country of America, but these things are very real. There is alot more to the world and reality that atheists are aware of. Belive me.

 

 I find it amusing that this thread went from "let's prove that the legend of Christ is a true story" to "let's prove that Christians were the most oppressed", because as we all know...the most oppressed religion must be the truest [/sarcasm]

Apotheon - Do you agree with Origen that the OT may be entirely allegorical? And if so, why do you attack my position that the NT is entirely allegorical? As I've stated and want to make clear, I am not anti-Jesus. My Christ is a symbol of elevation of the soul and of everlasting hope, not a man who died 2000 years ago. My Christ has "lived" in the hearts and minds of men since the dawn of mankind.

 

My reading of the NT is that it is an anthropomorphization and an allegorization of the Christ symbol. It is a wonderful book. But it is not history.

 

 

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, I meant to say

 Sorry, I meant to say Joseph predicted the day of his death, not birth.

 

Christ Myth, the NT is history. It even passes all the tests for historicity. Origen postulated the allegory in some parts of the OT, but he vigerously affirmed the historicity of the NT. I don't know if the OT has allagorical elements in it. By the way, Origen was later condemned as a heretic, but he was the greatest theologian of the 3rd century.

 

My estimate for the Soviet death statistic comes from Russians themselves. I think the official figure is 20-60 million, but persecutions were still going on even after the Soviet Union collapsed and many Christian's were still slaughtered underground in the catacombs. So it could be 100 million.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hmph. Satan better hope he

Hmph. Satan better hope he doesn't exist. If I wake up dead one day I'll be headhunting him shortly thereafter. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

I dare you to ask that to the families of the 9/11 victims who did just that. I don't know what their religious views were, but the fact remains that they jumped 100 stories to avoid being roasted alive.

 

What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survived.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I can’t believe that you

I can’t believe that you rubes have never heard of demon pig. You guys really need to get to the big city more often. It’s a good thing that gauche is here yet again to clue you in and drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And I have an illustration.

This is Demon Pig.

 

Please forgive my crude drawing as I am not a professional. But I do think that this is a very accurate likeness of demon pig. Here you can see the anatomy of demon pig and his demon and pig-like features. As you may have already guess demon pig is half demon and half pig. Hence the name demon pig. He has demon horns, demon wings, and a pointy demon thing at the end of his curly pig tail. Demon pig has a demon tongue and he drools uncontrollably because he is a demon, or maybe he does it because he’s a pig I don’t know. But one thing that is certain, demon pig never goes anywhere without his copy of Charles Darwin’s the origin of species.

 

Does anyone have any questions? No. Good. Now that we are all up to speed on exactly who and what demon pig is we can continue this non-ridiculous discussion.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Little

Apotheon wrote:
Little Roller Up First wrote:

I dare you to ask that to the families of the 9/11 victims who did just that. I don't know what their religious views were, but the fact remains that they jumped 100 stories to avoid being roasted alive.

 

What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survived.

I can point to people who have prayed and died anyway. What's your point?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I can’t

Gauche wrote:

I can’t believe that you rubes have never heard of demon pig. You guys really need to get to the big city more often. It’s a good thing that gauche is here yet again to clue you in and drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And I have an illustration.

This is Demon Pig.

 

Please forgive my crude drawing as I am not a professional. But I do think that this is a very accurate likeness of demon pig. Here you can see the anatomy of demon pig and his demon and pig-like features. As you may have already guess demon pig is half demon and half pig. Hence the name demon pig. He has demon horns, demon wings, and a pointy demon thing at the end of his curly pig tail. Demon pig has a demon tongue and he drools uncontrollably because he is a demon, or maybe he does it because he’s a pig I don’t know. But one thing that is certain, demon pig never goes anywhere without his copy of Charles Darwin’s the origin of species.

 

Does anyone have any questions? No. Good. Now that we are all up to speed on exactly who and what demon pig is we can continue this non-ridiculous discussion.

Does demon bacon taste different than normal bacon?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ah, yes. I see that we do

Ah, yes. I see that we do have a question in the back. Unfortunately, your question cannot be answered at this time because there is only one demon pig, and no one has tasted him yet.

You see demon pig’s mother (who was a pig) was raped by a demon. Actually there is no evidence that the sex was not consensual but we like to assume that it wasn’t because if it was that would be gross.

It has been theorized that demon pig actually tastes a little like chicken, as most things actually taste a little bit like chicken. At this point this is “just a theory” kind of like evolution and it cannot be proven one way or another. But rest assured that all physiological aspects of demon pig are being diligently studied around the clock and we are finding out new information everyday. For example, did you know that demon pig was born with only one testicle? Amazing but true!

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, I started a new

Vastet,

I started a new thread with the title "The Crusades" in this forum if you'd like to continue our discussion there.  I'm not committed to that title, but it seemed to be the focal point of our discussion.  I'm open to any suggestion you may have for a more approprite title.  See ya there.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Apotheon

Vastet wrote:
Apotheon wrote:
Little Roller Up First wrote:

I dare you to ask that to the families of the 9/11 victims who did just that. I don't know what their religious views were, but the fact remains that they jumped 100 stories to avoid being roasted alive.

What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survived.

I can point to people who have prayed and died anyway. What's your point?

Following up on Vastet's point, I have no doubt that there were many good, god-fearing folks in New Orleans that prayed with all their might.

Now they've got nothing; they lost family members; they're completely displaced; many of them died. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Yes Christians can suffer

 Yes Christians can suffer greatly. We must all carry our own crosses. Jesus said that as many as He loves He rebukes and chastens (Rev.3). We will always be tested and purified through suffering. Most of the greatest saints suffered the most.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Daniel
Daniel's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: What's your

Apotheon wrote:
What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survived.

But can you prove that the prayers actually made a difference, and that these people wouldn't have survived anyway?

The less faster you pedal, the more slower you go.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Daniel wrote: But can you

Daniel wrote:

But can you prove that the prayers actually made a difference, and that these people wouldn't have survived anyway?

No, and you can't prove the prayers actually didn't make a difference, and that they would have survived anyway.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Daniel
Daniel's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: No, and you

Apotheon wrote:
No, and you can't prove the prayers actually didn't make a difference, and that they would have survived anyway.

But you still believe the prayers helped?

The less faster you pedal, the more slower you go.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Apotheon

Susan wrote:
Apotheon wrote:


Susan, the only way I can prove it is to refer you to the monks themselves. Elder Joseph of Athos is now deceased, but he had daily battles with demons. They would materialize in his cell as pigs, monkeys or humanoid beings and physically assault him. This type of thing is very common in the lives of holy people.

If there really were such a thing as demons, don't you think they'd go after an easier mark?

I have serious doubts about someone's sanity who would claim demon pigs and monkeys are appearing out of thin air and assaulting him/her.

Take a minute and think about how crazy that is. Would you believe it if your next door neighbor told you that a demon pig showed up in his bedroom and he had to wrestle it? No proof, just his story.

I'd be calling the authorities because I'd be afraid this guy would shoot up the neighborhood eventually.

I suspect there was a reason that guy was in a cell.

 

 Of course if other people also seen pigs in the cell, (especially one that was locked) that would prove either 1) someone sneaked pigs into the cell or 2) he wasn't making anything up. So I would actually like to know if anyone else seen these pigs, Apotheon.


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon - Have you been

Apotheon - Have you been attacked by Satan and his legion of demon monkey pigs?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Christ

Apotheon wrote:
Christ Myth, I'll debate you here and now. Tell me why you deny Jesus existed? Didn't you know that the vast majority of Jesus historians affirm He was crucified?

Really? Which ones? Can you cite them?

Can you show us what evidence they rely upon to make this historical claim?

Can you show me ANY evidence of contemporary accounts? 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: Apotheon

Broncosfan wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
So, its ok for evolutionists to appeal to popularity, but we can't when it comes to Jesus research? That's not fair.

 

Apotheon:

Let him disbelieve the existence of Jesus Christ. He's entitled to his opinion.

It's fashionable now for hard-core atheists to assume this position.

This is an ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not it is fashionable, the claim is based on a strong argument from silence, and not mere fashion.

Quote:
 

Seriously, does ANYBODY with more than 2 functioning brain cells actually believe that this guy - or one of the other founders of this site - Rook Hawkins - is actually going to come up with conclusive, "beyond a shadow of a doubt' , hard evidence 2,000 years after the fact that Jesus was a mythical figure.

More personal attacks, but I'll leave them aside. The real issue here is this: what reason do we have to believe that the gospel accounts are true? If we have no good reason, then the belief is unjustified.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Anyone

Apotheon wrote:

Anyone who has studied seriously the historical Jesus subject, would never claim there is no evidence for Jesus.

It's clear that you haven't studied the issue, if you did, you'd realize that there is a complete silence from history about jesus, during the supposed time of his existence.

This is common knowledge.

Quote:
 

  Evidence:

The New Testament, which is corroberated by over 5,000 Greek manuscripts alone. Over 24,000 all together. In terms of classical antiquity, no one even comes close to this in terms of manuscript evidence.

Oy vey, not this AGAIN! 

Sorry, but the sheer number of copies of a work is not a testament to the historicity of the work. The fact is that the gospels are anonymous accounts that were created decades after the supposed time of jesus,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts 

 

and the gospel of mark, the first gospel, was midrash, and not an eyewitness account of anything.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash 

 

Quote:
 

 Jesus tomb is located in Jerusalem. While no one can really prove that any ancient tomb is real, 

Thank you for refuting yourself for me here. If there really were a jesus tomb, why wasn't it venerated through history?

Quote:
 

We have the nails and parts of the cross that were handed down and preserved.

LOL

And I have a few for sale for you!

Quote:
 

I would also argue there is a strong case for the Shroud of Turin.

No, there is not. It has no provenance. It was carbon dated to the 14th century.  

Quote:
 

We have Jewish references: Talmud, Josephus, etc.

These claims are refuted on this site. Josphus is not a contemporary, he does not cite any evidence of anything that demonstrates real knowledge of an actual jesus and he died a JEW.

Quote:
 

We have Pagan references

No, we do not.

Quote:
 

Roman references

Actually, the roman historians who WOULD have written on jesus are completey silent about any jeus the christ.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus 

 

Quote:

We have archaeological evidence for the places described in the New Testament

So?

Quote:
 

We have evidence that Jesus' apostles existed.

Actually, we don't, and yet, we should! History should be filled with the doings of their decendents... they should have been major players in the world, after all, their dads and grandads would have been god's best friends... yet we have a silence from history on them too.

 

Quote:

We have the evidence of all the lives Jesus has changed throughout history, and the strong impact He has made on human history. If anyone ever existed, it was Jesus.

Sorry, but all this proves is that people believed that there was a jesus.... 

Quote:
 

I grant that there could have been more contemporary evidence 

More? There is none. Zero.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Really?

todangst wrote:

Really? Which ones? Can you cite them?

 

Sure, but you know very well that someone already listed them in the thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus."

todangst wrote:
Can you show us what evidence they rely upon to make this historical claim?

The same evidence that all historians rely upon. The primacy of the documents, extra-biblical corroberation, etc.

todangst wrote:
Can you show me ANY evidence of contemporary accounts? 

 

Yes, but why do you assume contemporary evidence validates or invalidates a person? Historians have never made that a criterian. You have invented your own criterian. I refer you to the apostles who were eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ himself. They wrote the NT. You should try reading it sometime. The "late date" hypothesis has also been thoroughly debunked.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
"I know Jesus existed

Quote:

"I know Jesus existed because the apostles knew him."

"I know Jesus existed because Mary bore him"

"I know Jesus existed, because Christians have DIED for him!"

 

These arguments are worthless. They're as valid as saying:

 

Quote:

I know Osiris existed because Isis spoke with him.

I know Dionysus existed because Semele bore him.

I know Mithra existed because Spartans DIED for him.

 

Quote:

They wrote the NT. You should try reading it sometime.

My NT's spine is broken, from pouring through it so many times, yet I've never made the mistake of reading it as history. Telling people to "read your bible...there's your contemporary account" is not a proper argument. Especially considering you're trying to "prove" the historicity of Jesus to NON-Christians. Try citing something other than the NT(fiction) and the legendary apostles(nonexistant).

Apotheon - Here's a question that I've always wondered...

Since I've always worshipped Christ as a symbol and read the OT and NT as allegorical, and still see beauty in Christianity and know (and feel) the power of the Christ symbol in my own life and in my heart... I ask you why is believing in a historic Christ so essential to your faith? What is wrong with knowing Christ was forever extant and not "born as a mere human"? To me, the very idea of Christ being human (aside from being completely logically impossible), destroys the beauty of the "forever existing Christ, who manifests in all epochs as the symbol of resurrection, virtue, and the elevation of good over evil and light over darkness". This is my Christ.

It is my opinion that the NT is an allegorical story for children and laymen, in order to introduce them to the truly powerful concept of what Christ represents. Treating the NT as some historical document belittles Christ, in my opinion.

My Christ lives (only) in the hearts and minds of men (put there by God, the act of which is allegorized in the NT). Christ consciousness helps us in our times of need. The "historic" Christ is not only an unreasonable concept, it diminishes and minimalizes Christ to put him in this "box" that we call NT.

I reiterate the question: Since it is wholly possible to believe in Christ as a powerful symbol in the hearts and minds of men, given to us by God, to aid us in life against all of the terrible things in this world... why in God's name is it so important to believe that he was an ACTUAL guy who ACTUALLY lived? Why do so many Christians need this as a cornerstone of their faith?

 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
todangst wrote:

Really? Which ones? Can you cite them?

 

Sure, but you know very well that someone already listed them in the thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus."

Please cite these historians and provide the justification for their claim. I think you'll find that your argument is not as strong as you think.... My point here is that your assertion is based only on an assumption. Once we actually examine your claim, you'll see that while many historians might accept a historical jesus, their arguments are weak, and based on poor evidence.

 

todangst wrote:
Can you show us what evidence they rely upon to make this historical claim?

Quote:

The same evidence that all historians rely upon.

I'll try again. Can you SHOW ME what evidence they rely on to make this claim. My point here is that they DON'T rely on the 'same evidence'. They don't have any evidence of any contemporary accounts ever existing. They don't have any artifacts from "Jesus". 

There is no good evidence pointing to any jesus that fits the gospel accounts. 

todangst wrote:
Can you show me ANY evidence of contemporary accounts?

Quote:

Yes,

I doubt you can, because there isn't any. So please just stop asserting and get to actually presenting your case, so I can demonstrate this for you.

Quote:

but why do you assume contemporary evidence validates or invalidates a person? Historians have never made that a criterian.

You're wrong here, because you are confused as to what is being said. There HAS to be evidence of at least one contemporary account for later historians to draw upon, otherwise, how else would we even know of the person or the event?!

So, yes, we can rely on later accounts, even accounts coming centuries later,  but there first has to be a provenance between the purported event and the later account! We have to be able to see how the non contemporary was able to make his claims. 

Without this provenance, a historical claim is very weak. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth

Christ Myth wrote:

Quote:

"I know Jesus existed because the apostles knew him."

"I know Jesus existed because Mary bore him"

"I know Jesus existed, because Christians have DIED for him!"

These arguments are worthless. 

Doubly worthless when we realize that there's no evidence that these apostles, or mary existed either!

As for people dying for the belief, people die for these sort of beliefs today, without any direct evidence at all. So why is it so hard for us to believe that the ancients did the same?

At any rate, the strength with which one holds to a belief is not evidence of the veracity of the belief. 

 

Quote:

They wrote the NT. You should try reading it sometime.

My NT's spine is broken, from pouring through it so many times, yet I've never made the mistake of reading it as history. Telling people to "read your bible...there's your contemporary account" is not a proper argument. Especially considering you're trying to "prove" the historicity of Jesus to NON-Christians. Try citing something other than the NT(fiction) and the legendary apostles(nonexistant).

Well said. I've found that many theists who caution us to read the bible haven't read it themselves... their hope almost seems to be: "You read it, and maybe you'll actually find some proof, coz I certainly don't have any"

Quote:
 

Apotheon - Here's a question that I've always wondered...

Since I've always worshipped Christ as a symbol and read the OT and NT as allegorical, and still see beauty in Christianity and know (and feel) the power of the Christ symbol in my own life and in my heart... I ask you why is believing in a historic Christ so essential to your faith? What is wrong with knowing Christ was forever extant and not "born as a mere human"? To me, the very idea of Christ being human (aside from being completely logically impossible), destroys the beauty of the "forever existing Christ, who manifests in all epochs as the symbol of resurrection, virtue, and the elevation of good over evil and light over darkness". This is my Christ.

It is my opinion that the NT is an allegorical story for children and laymen, in order to introduce them to the truly powerful concept of what Christ represents. Treating the NT as some historical document belittles Christ, in my opinion.

My Christ lives (only) in the hearts and minds of men (put there by God, the act of which is allegorized in the NT). Christ consciousness helps us in our times of need. The "historic" Christ is not only an unreasonable concept, it diminishes and minimalizes Christ to put him in this "box" that we call NT.

You sound like you'd get along with Rook.

Quote:
 

I reiterate the question: Since it is wholly possible to believe in Christ as a powerful symbol in the hearts and minds of men, given to us by God, to aid us in life against all of the terrible things in this world... why in God's name is it so important to believe that he was an ACTUAL guy who ACTUALLY lived? Why do so many Christians need this as a cornerstone of their faith?

 

Good question. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth wrote: "I know

Christ Myth wrote:

"I know Jesus existed because the apostles knew him."

"I know Jesus existed because Mary bore him"

"I know Jesus existed, because Christians have DIED for him!"

 

First of all, I never made those claims. So please don't put words in my mouth. I said that we have Eye-witness accounts. This should be sufficient data. Atleast in would be in a court room. This is far better then many other ancient personages who never had contemporaries write about them at all. The Apostle John states in 1 John 1:1-3:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

The apostle later states:

"Every spirit that confesses NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-christ...."(1 John 4:3).

Saint John knew that "Jesus Mythers" would appear in history, and he dealt with them 2,000 years ago.  He identified this movement with the Anti-christ. He was an eye-witness of Christ. In a court of law, you cannot get better testimony, evidence and corroberation then that. Why should we have to appeal to contemporary pagan writers, when we have the words of one of His own disciples? According to the ancient documents rule as stipulated by Harvard lawyer Simon Greenleaf (which is still used today), any ancient document coming from its proper repository, the law considers authentic. If you are going to accuse the docuement to be false, the burden of proof is on the accuser. So if you are going to reject John's statement, you are obligated under this rule to produce a valid reason. The "Jesus Mythers" have no valid reason in terms of normal historical method. The only reason they reject Jesus is because supernaturalism is involved. This bias governs how they approach history.

todangst wrote:
These arguments are worthless. They're as valid as saying:

I know Osiris existed because Isis spoke with him.

I know Dionysus existed because Semele bore him.

I know Mithra existed because Spartans DIED for him.

Well, you have to admit if any of those were true, it would make a good case.

As for your question why this is so important to me, its very simple. Saint Paul stated that if Christ be not risen from the dead your faith is vain, you are still in your sins. In NT Greek and OT Hebrew, the term "resurrection" always refers to the rising of a physical body from the dead. It never refers to symbolism or allegory. Jesus had to incarnate into history to pay the sin debt and penalty for our sins against God. The Christ you are talking about, is nothing but a figment of your own imagination. Christ is not a "concept" (like certain New Agers want to believe) He is the literal incarnate Son of God who died for the sins of an ungrateful world. The historical Jesus was the original view. You guys are 2,000 years too late.  Saint Paul warns that there are false "Christ"s (2Cor.11). He knew false concepts such as yours would materialize in history aswell.

todangst wrote:
 Try citing something other than the NT(fiction) and the legendary apostles(nonexistant).

Your shifting the burden of proof and violating the primacy of the documents rule and the ancient documents rule. YOU are first obligated to prove the NT is fictional. So far you have given nothing but an opinion. I would be happy to produce pagan sources, but first you must meet your own burdrn of proof. As for the apostles, their historicity is well attested to in the NT. But you reject this because of the bias which colors your approach to history. Their existance is also attested to in several of the ancient Church writers. Clement and Ignatius of Antioch new the apostles personally, as did Polycarp and Papias. And we have several of the apostles tombs and relics. Its an historical fact that the Church of Antioch was founded by Peter. Mark founded the See of Alexandria, James the See of Jerusalem, etc. You know nothing about this.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, that other people

Todangst, that other people have died for other beliefs is not the issue. Let me explain this to you. The apostles were first cowardly men. After Jesus rose from the dead, the apostles became fearless. Before Jesus rose, Peter denied Christ three times. After Jesus rose, Peter chose to be crucified upside down. That the apostles died and believed for Jesus resurrection, is accepted by virtually all historians who write on this subject. It doesn't prove Jesus rose, it only proves the apostles BELIEVED Jesus arose.

 

As for other religions, no other religion had people die for their religion at its foundation.  They may have died much later after the their religion was founded, but not at its origin, and martyrdom at the origin of Christianity is unique to Christianity. Lastly, I would like to know a religion, system or belief structure that had people die for it that did not have an historical founder.

Now, you said I was wrong when I said there was pagan corroberation for Jesus. Tacitus was a pagan Roman historian and he talks about Christ and His execution. Tacitus was the best historian of ancient Rome, and scholar F.F. Bruce states that Tacitus most likely got his data from official Roman sources. There's just one example.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:Christ

Apotheon wrote:
Christ Myth wrote:

"I know Jesus existed because the apostles knew him."

"I know Jesus existed because Mary bore him"

"I know Jesus existed, because Christians have DIED for him!"

 

First of all, I never made those claims. So please don't put words in my mouth.

*Snort*

Oh really? Lets take a look...

Apotheon wrote:

I refer you to the apostles who were eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ himself.

Oops, you did say the apostles were eye-witnesses of jesus as a base for claiming he exists.

Apotheon wrote:

all the apostles, except John were murdered. Paul was beheaded in Rome, Peter was crucified upside down by his own choice because he felt unworthy to be crucified upright like the Lord, and James was stabbed by a sword. The next 4 centuries were marked with persecutions and torture. Yet, we still have it today. All those people died for something they believed was true and they believe they saw. Even modern scholars are agreed that the apostles believed Jesus rose from the dead. This doesn't prove he rose from the dead, it just shows they believed he did. I don't think Christianity would have made it out of the first century if he didn't rise from the dead because it would not have had the impetus necessary to generate such a movement.

Oops again. Here you are suggesting that christians dying for him/their religion suggests he existed.

Now to your credit, I didn't notice you say anything about his supposed mother, but two out of three claims are yours. Still care to deny them?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:

Todangst, that other people have died for other beliefs is not the issue

Actually it is, it demonstrates that even you must concede that people die for false beliefs.

Quote:

. Let me explain this to you. The apostles were first cowardly men.

Let me explain this to you: there's no good reason to believe they existed in the first place.

 

Quote:

As for other religions, no other religion had people die for their religion at its foundation.

!) You have no idea how many people died for their christian beliefs, nor do you know precisely why they died for it. You can't just assume they died for the sort of christian beliefs you hold to...

2) People die for all sorts of beliefs; your claim about only christians 'dying at the foundation of the belief' is simply false, seeing as muslims died for islam during the lifetime of Muhammad.

3) Dying for a belief does not make it true.

Your claim is simply a logical fallacy, based on accepting myths as facts. You assume that people believed what you believe when you can't know that.

Quote:

Now, you said I was wrong when I said there was pagan corroberation for Jesus.

You are. There are NO contemporary accounts of Jesus. None.

Quote:

Tacitus was a pagan Roman historian and he talks about Christ and His execution.

1) Tactitus is not a contemporary, so you've already failed to meet the actual challenge of providing a contemporary source.

2) Here's the refutation of Tactitus as an account of Jesus.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Please note that even William Lane Craig concedes that Tacitus is not an independent corroboration of Jesus!

Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117)

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. His two surviving works: Annals and The Histories form a near continuous narrative from the death of Augustus in 14 CE to the death of Domitian in 96.

Interestingly, I cannot report on the silence of Tacitus concerning Jesus, because the very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work(!)

Richard Carrier writes:

"...we are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

Ironically, Christians often cite Tacitus as historical evidence for Jesus.

This is the passage cited:

But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:

Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

So it may simply be that Tacitus was relying on oral tradition, and not on any historical research for his reference to Jesus. Tacitus himself tells us about the vlaue of such traditions:

"...everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations" (Annals 3.44 & 3.19). (Cited via Carrier's article)

As weak as the Tacitus claim is, it remains a possibility that even this weak bit of apparent corroboration is a later interpolation. The problems with this claim are examined here:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=38864&sid=eae887916e8679c9cd9fd7af5fc065e5#38864

Some of these problems are summarized by Gordon Stein:


"While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing."
- The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell
Gordon Stein, Ph.D. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

Supporting Stein's claim is that, as with the Testimonium, there is no provenance for the passage: No early Christian writer uses Tacitus' passage in their apologetics, even when discussing Christian persecution by Nero:

* Tertullian (ca. 155–230)
* Lactantius (ca. 240 - ca. 320)
* Sulpicius Severus (c. 360 – 425)
* Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339)
* Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

However, the key point here is that Tacitus did in fact write a thorough history of the purported times of Jesus and his ministry, and while this work is lost to us, Tacitus never makes any cross reference to it during his discussion of christians and Nero nor at any other point in his surviving works.

 

 

Quote:

Tacitus was the best historian of ancient Rome, and scholar F.F. Bruce states that Tacitus most likely got his data from official Roman sources. There's just one example.

Actually, that claim is patent nonsense. It wouldn't be necessary for Tacitus to consult such records, even if they existed, assuming hte one tiny passage in Tacitus were true .

 

Now, please read my above refuation, and please remember your own words: you've called Tacitus the best historian of Rome, and yet he reports NOTHING about the supposed life of Jesus. Think about that... the best historian, yet he says nothing about a miracle working godman striding the earth. If Tacitus had evidence of such a man, he would have devoted volumes to the event.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.