Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Old man shouts
"Seriously Joy, are you on medication or just utterly ignorant of the early church history?"
Not the impression I have. Simply a believing apologist ,impervious to evidence and reason, antitheses of faith.
"You do know that there is not one skerrick of contemporary evidence for your jesus as described in the gospels? Nothing?"
Almost certainly something with which Joy will take issue. (see above)
OF course , like virtually every apologist I've seen here, no knowledge of early church history as far as I can see,. Nor even from Bart Ehrman while he was still a christian. . I suspect he was the wrong kind of Christian, so anything he writes can be simply dismissed.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
@Joy
I need to respond to this patronising crock for my own sanity:
." Congratulations! You now can understand the importance of having One, True Authoritative Church to safeguard Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, less we end up with thousands of off shoot splinter groups all teaching different things all giving their own personal take on what it all means. "
A single source of knowledge is the enemy of rational thinking.
Just for your information:
I began questioning some of the more fatuous Catholic beliefs at age 12; Eg original sin, limbo, the infallibility of the pope .
I began my serious search at 16, with actually reading the bible. From there to a truly lovely Passionist priest, who I asked some of the more profound questions, such as original sin (it's a biggie) the trinity and the problem of evil . Sadly he was unable to answer any of my questions to my satisfaction. Instead he referred me to Thomas Aquinas, which was really a bit advanced for me at that time, or so I thought. Years later I realised my confusion was because he doesn't offer any answers either,.
I treaded water for the next four years, parting company with the Church at age 20, when I was conscripted. Didn't think about it for the next 2 years, Nor for the next 6, thinking of myself as an agnostic--------
At, 29 I was admitted to university ,and obtained a degree in Social Anthropology. My studies included other cultures and religions, including aspects of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism . Becoming expert in any area was not the point. The point for me was learning scholarly method, which I have continued to use for the last 30 years.
Of course, I remain an ignorant man , but not in the areas you think and not for the reasons you think . Your attitude suggests just another under educated autodidact with an attitude.
Bored now, nothing more to say to you on this matter. By all means have the last word. Have a nice day.
@cranky47
"I suspect he was the wrong kind of Christian, so anything he writes can be simply dismissed."
I have to assume Joy is Scottish, having played the "No true Scotsman" card so many times I now hear bagpipes.
“@Old man shouts
"Seriously Joy, are you on medication or just utterly ignorant of the early church history?"
Not the impression I have. Simply a believing apologist ,impervious to evidence and reason, antitheses of faith.”
Awww . . . thanks – kind of. No, I’m not high – maybe had a glass of wine, but that’s it. And thanks for recognizing that neither am I ignorant of early Church history. I’m no historian or theology major, but I am passionate about my faith and so learning about Church history has always interested me. It’s amazing how much misinformation is out there. Take something like prior to the printing press readily available copies of the bible were not available. Bibles were handwritten by monks and as you can imagine quite valuable and rare. It was often necessary to keep them under lock and key to protect them. Anti Catholic Protestant propaganda liked to rewrite history as to why such a thing occurred. According to them, the Church locked up the bible from the lay people to prevent them from reading it themselves. And as we saw in this thread, this perpetuated Protestant myth is still perpetuated today with ex Catholics claiming they were forbidden from reading the bible on their own. Crazy how rumors start and spread!
"You do know that there is not one skerrick of contemporary evidence for your jesus as described in the gospels? Nothing?"
Please tell me you don’t mean evidence for example of miracles? How could there be evidence of miracles? By definition, a miracle is something that occurred that has no scientific explanation.
“OF course , like virtually every apologist I've seen here, no knowledge of early church history as far as I can see”
Hmmmm . . . I could say the very same thing about atheists – virtually every one I’ve seen, has no knowledge, a very limited knowledge, or incorrect information regarding early Church history.
“A single source of knowledge is the enemy of rational thinking.”
Well, I wouldn’t say Christianity exists because of a single source of knowledge. There existed eye witness accounts, personal testimony, historical records, corroborated testimony and records from different sources. And all of that combined with natural human skepticism, natural human tendency to demand evidence and proof, and natural human tendency toward logic and reason.
Also, logically speaking, a single source of knowledge being the enemy of rational thinking would not be true would it if in fact that single source of knowledge is true. I mean, right?
“Just for your information:
I began questioning some of the more fatuous Catholic beliefs at age 12; Eg original sin, limbo, the infallibility of the pope .”
Well, perhaps if you had actually looked into them you would have realized they aren’t fatuous. What sources did you use? I’m sorry that certain truths were not revealed to. Of course limbo is not a doctrine of the Church. If you had studied properly you might have realized that it was simply a theological theory put forth and Catholics are not required to believe it. Although, it is based on reasonable theological speculation. It would be hard to believe that babies would go to hell if they died before they were baptized. As for original sin and papal infalibity, well those are doctrines based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and great topics to discuss if you’re interested.
“I began my serious search at 16, with actually reading the bible.”
As you should. Cool.
“From there to a truly lovely Passionist priest, who I asked some of the more profound questions, such as original sin (it's a biggie) the trinity and the problem of evil . Sadly he was unable to answer any of my questions to my satisfaction.”
Wow, you sure know how to pick’em. Once again, that’s a shame. There are so many amazing priests who can answer all those questions and more. Heck, now you can even do a Google search and find a plethora of awesome, beautiful, and sound explanations for all of those great questions.
“ Instead he referred me to Thomas Aquinas, which was really a bit advanced for me at that time, or so I thought. Years later I realised my confusion was because he doesn't offer any answers either,.”
Many a theologian would beg to differ. Of course, Aquinas doesn’t have to be your cup of tea. No Catholic need be beholden to him.
“I treaded water for the next four years, parting company with the Church at age 20, when I was conscripted. Didn't think about it for the next 2 years, Nor for the next 6, thinking of myself as an agnostic--------
At, 29 I was admitted to university ,and obtained a degree in Social Anthropology. My studies included other cultures and religions, including aspects of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism . Becoming expert in any area was not the point. The point for me was learning scholarly method, which I have continued to use for the last 30 years.”
Cool. That sounds awesome.
“Of course, I remain an ignorant man , but not in the areas you think and not for the reasons you think .Your attitude suggests just another under educated autodidact with an attitude.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t consider you or myself under educated, but you are entitled to your opinion. And I apologize if you think I have an “attitude”. I suppose I might say the same about you. Perception is a powerful thing. And I’m not sure what you mean by not being ignorant for the reasons I think you are. Why do you think I think you are mistaken about a lot of these things? I guess if I had to answer that I would say it is because of a combination of factors. I have no doubt you read the Bible as well as many other great books by some of the best. I also have no doubt you are perfectly capable, intelligent, and well educated. But these aren’t why many people fail to recognize truth/have faith/”get it”, etc. Lots of things can prevent one from “getting it” Pre conceived notions can come into play. Past hurts or baggage. Not liking what you hear. Pride. Arrogance. Receiving misinformation. Anyway, I mean no disrespect. Many an atheist makes fun of believers as ignorant, backward thinking, superstitious, knuckle dragging, unenlightened, simple minded Neanderthals. We don’t exactly get credit for our intelligent and reasonable thinking either. So, I definitely can relate.
@ Joy
"Anti Catholic Protestant propaganda liked to rewrite history as to why such a thing occurred. According to them, the Church locked up the bible from the lay people to prevent them from reading it themselves. And as we saw in this thread, this perpetuated Protestant myth is still perpetuated today with ex Catholics claiming they were forbidden from reading the bible on their own. Crazy how rumors start and spread!"
Then why were those bibles transcribed into a dead language only the clergy and highly educated members of the ruling class could read?
Can you read Latin?
"Please tell me you don’t mean evidence for example of miracles? How could there be evidence of miracles? By definition, a miracle is something that occurred that has no scientific explanation. "
I will not disagree that a "miracle" would have a cause humans are unable to discern. But a miracle involves a condition that was altered (by your god) into another state. And that we can study. For example, if a person broke a leg, and it was healed the day after, we can go back to X-rays and other recorded medical data for comparison.
And that is why the claims of "miracles" is a huge fail. I do not know of one "miracle" that was proven after it received the appropriate amount of diligent examination..
@David
"ex Catholics claiming they were forbidden from reading the bible on their own. "
Can't say I've ever heard that. I'm an ex Catholic, and there are an aweful lot of us about . When I was 16 the OFFICIAL percentage of 'lapsed Catholics was 25% ,I think just in Oz, but am not sure . (*explained when I was on a mandatory weekend retreat at a local monastery)
What I have already attested is that at the Catholic boys school I attended, we WERE actively discouraged from reading the bible 'lest you become confused"
I suspect that was pretty much an historical thing. Universal literacy did not reach my country until the late nineteenth century. For the hoi polio, their knowledge of the bible came only from the priest at mass.IE readings from the Gospels or Epistles during mass or from sermons and homilies from the pulpit.
Personal Bible readings were not so much discouraged, as sidetracked. The church had over 1500 years of tradition, doctrine and pure myth to rely on .(lives of the saints for example) It was the protestant churches, especially the evangelicals ,who encouraged ,even insisted on private bible study.
When I was a gossoon, writings by Bishop Fulton J Sheen were popular. We had one of his books. . For the slightly more adventurous there was the FIFTEENTH CENTURY tome,"The Imitation Of Chris"-----
For Joy, assuming she has not read it . "The book places a high level of emphasis on the devotion to the Eucharist as key element of spiritual life." [1] Makes her smug superiority towards ex Catholics and anyone else who knows more than she (not much of an accomplishment) seem even more risible.
---and I haven't even mentioned deeper thinkers, such as " Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ,(1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) a French Jesuit priest, philosopher, and a paleontologist present at the discovery of Peking Man."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#/media/File:Tei...
“Personal Bible readings were not so much discouraged, as sidetracked.”
Are you sure about that? Are you familiar with something called the mass? If a person attends mass regularly within 3 years he will have received the entire Bible. The mass contains every reading from the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as proverbs and psalms. It’s all there. Perhaps you should have paid a little more attention. Now, what you might have gotten had you attended a Baptist or Protestant or Lutheran church is whatever Pastor Pete wanted to talk about that day. Not so with Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church. Every Scripture passage – not just the ones we like to hear – are covered and the cool thing the exact same ones are covered in every Catholic Church in the world on the same day. Talk about a universal Church!
“ The church had over 1500 years of tradition, doctrine and pure myth to rely on”
Well, you’re right that they have over 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, because quite frankly the Church came before the Bible. In fact, the Church gave us the Bible. It always cracks me up when people think we should simply be relying on what’s in the Bible when the Bible doesn’t even say that and wasn’t even around until Tradition (the Church) gave it to us.
“.It was the protestant churches, especially the evangelicals ,who encouraged ,even insisted on private bible study.”
This is one of those false perpetuated stereotypes. It was because protestants or evangelicals or whatever splinter group decided to go off on their own and focus on whatever in the Bible they deemed important why we have so many different groups today all teaching different things. The Puritans use to love to preach all the passages about hell, fire and brimstone and didn’t balance it with the beautiful passages about God’s love and mercy. The Baptists were big on their evils of drinking, forgetting Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine. Quakers overemphasized the problem with titles, which escalated into non authoritative structure. The JW’s misinterpreted so many passages they end up refusing to allow their people blood transfusions if necessary. I could go on and on. If Servant Stephen doesn’t like to talk to his congregation about all those hard to hear passages about sin and hell, he just preaches about the Sermon on the Mount and the story of the Good Samaritan. I’m sure you can understand the problem with each individual choosing to focus on what he/she feels is important.
I prefer G.K. Chesterton’s famous line, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right, I want a church to be right when I am wrong.” But how can we know who is right if so many individuals can just pick up the Bible and say it means whatever they say it means? Sounds useless!
To think the Catholic Church kept the Bible from her people is nonsense and simply not factual. It was the Catholic Church who’s entire liturgy is rich with Scripture. You seriously do not know what you are talking about. I am sorry you had a bad experience with the Catholic Church, and were improperly catechized, but how you are now representing the Church is simply inaccurate.
For all the true Scotsmen who have fallen under Joy's denial, I must play something appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Op1Mng4oY
Joy: "Anti Catholic Protestant propaganda liked to rewrite history as to why such a thing occurred. According to them, the Church locked up the bible from the lay people to prevent them from reading it themselves. And as we saw in this thread, this perpetuated Protestant myth is still perpetuated today with ex Catholics claiming they were forbidden from reading the bible on their own. Crazy how rumors start and spread!"
“Then why were those bibles transcribed into a dead language only the clergy and highly educated members of the ruling class could read?”
Are you serious? See? This proves you are ignorant of the facts and simply respond with your canned atheist responses. How about because Latin is a dead language. Can you think of a better way to prevent mistranslation? Pretty clever, huh? If the language is dead, it can’t evolve and change as languages do. This safeguards Sacred Scripture. I seriously can’t believe you buy the anti Catholic tripe that it was so only the clergy could read it. LOL! First of all, it also use to be more common that lay people would also learn Latin. The school my kids attend still teach it, so that would make your argument nothing but anti-Catholic rhetoric.
Joy: "Please tell me you don’t mean evidence for example of miracles? How could there be evidence of miracles? By definition, a miracle is something that occurred that has no scientific explanation. "
“I will not disagree that a "miracle" would have a cause humans are unable to discern. But a miracle involves a condition that was altered (by your god) into another state. And that we can study. For example, if a person broke a leg, and it was healed the day after, we can go back to X-rays and other recorded medical data for comparison.”
Yep, and this happened then and now. You think there aren’t stories of things medical science was unable to explain. You need to do some Google searches and really get out more.
“And that is why the claims of "miracles" is a huge fail. I do not know of one "miracle" that was proven after it received the appropriate amount of diligent examination..”
Then you are being willfully ignorant of making an effort to learn about some.
@ Joy
"Then you are being willfully ignorant of making an effort to learn about some."
Name one "miracle" you believe in, and please, give your best example.
@Joy
It really does not matter what we say about the bible or any holy book, it is all empty talk. The bible and other holy books are completely unevidenced. It is like arguing harry potter is real, arguing over what language harry potter was originally written in. We should all know from the get go, harry potter is wholly unevidenced to be reality. Arguing over what language the book is written in, is ultimately a waste of time.
However, we in effort to help people understand just how unevidenced their various god ideas are, will often point out the many, MANY flaws of the bible and other holy books. With probably the greatest flaw (besides the fact these holy books are fiction and try to pass themselves off as not,) is that the first versions were written/spoken about ~2000 years ago or more. Along the lines of: would you trust a doctor from 2000 years ago to perform brain surgery on your kid, or would you rather have the best brain surgeon available today?
Being ignorant on the finer details of the bible or any holy book is also fine, when the subject matter on it is clearly fictional. If you could actually show the bible to not be fiction, then yes, I would be very interested in the details. So far billions of people for thousands of years have utterly failed to show in anyway that the bible and other holy books are not fiction. We might as well be arguing if JK Rowling considered the Hagrid character to be gay or not.
“We should all know from the get go, harry potter is wholly unevidenced to be reality. Arguing over what language the book is written in, is ultimately a waste of time.”
I agree, because we know what language Harry Potter was written in AND we know the author admittedly made it up.
“the greatest flaw (besides the fact these holy books are fiction and try to pass themselves off as not,) is that the first versions were written/spoken about ~2000 years ago or more. Along the lines of: would you trust a doctor from 2000 years ago to perform brain surgery on your kid, or would you rather have the best brain surgeon available today?”
Uuummm . . . the Bible is not a scientific treatise so it isn’t really the kind of thing where whether it was written 2000 years ago or today would matter.
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
― G.K. Chesterton
“We might as well be arguing if JK Rowling considered the Hagrid character to be gay or not.”
Well, we could ask her.
@Joy
Great, you understand why Harry Potter is considered fiction! Now realize whatever holy book you ascribe to, has the exact same amount of "evidence" as harry potter does, except one tiny little detail that can very easily be a lie: the authors of the original version of the book did not state that it was fiction. Over 1000 years ago, the authors are all long ago dust, and everyone that knew them and was alive then is also long ago dust.
Put another way, one of my favorite books: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Nowhere in my old copy of the book does it state that this book is fiction. If I tell you this book is nonfiction, do you start believing everything that happened in it as real? It does not even make large claims like creation of the universe or some supposed all powerful entity. If anything its a much easier to believe Huckleberry Finn is a nonfiction biography then the bible or any other "holy" book that I ever read. Do you KNOW the author admitted as fiction? The guy has been dead for over 100 years. Everyone that ever knew him well when he was alive, also have most likely been likely dead for over 100 years. How do you discredit the idea the The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is nonfiction? What tools do you use? If the book is not labeled as fiction or nonfiction, what do you do? Just believe in it because other people told you to?
I never stated that the bible is a scientific treatise, I never even stated the bible is scientific at all. However now that you bring it up, if the bible is not a scientific treatise, by your own admission, then what is it? Sure sounds an awful lot like just about any other book that is not a scientific treatise, fiction, or, best case scenario a history book. Ever hear of a history book that got some details wrong? I sure have. Yet the bible or any other holy book, written, edited, translated, by humans, over 1000's of years is somehow immune to this? It is plainly obvious the few original transcripts we manage to find and attempt to translate (very, VERY difficult to do accurately!) were written by and for a tiny subsect of people ~2000 years ago. That showed up roughly inline when the first man made tech that can preserve the written word in a lengthy more complex format then pictographs, for at least 2000 years in the exact right conditions started to arise.
And of course you would say it does not matter if it was written today or 2000 years ago. You have no other choice but to state this, if it was written today, it would be laughed out as utterly ridiculous. Its like my stories of rainbow farting unicorn god, it is an absurd idea. Talking snakes? Garden of eden? Creation of the entire universe in 6 days (of which at least 2 of them occurred before there even was "days"? (yet this all powerful entity sit around for ~14 billion years until supposedly interfacing with a tiny minority group of humans?) a few times over 2000 years ago? World wide flood of which their is powerful counter evidence that this has never occured in the last 1.7 million years. The list of major major issues goes on... and on... and on.
The bible, and other holy books are some of the most obvious pieces of fiction I know of, even harry potter is more believable as possibly nonfiction then the various god stories are based on the size of the claims and the equal total lack of any sort of corroborating evidence.
I will fully admit this quote does not resonate with me at all. I zero reverence for the dead. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that I do not ascribe to completely unevidenced notion that there is some sort of "life" after death. I subscribe instead, that just like we were nothing but a tiny 1 cell egg that so happened to get fertilized, we are nothing again after we die but a rapidly decaying clump of bio matter, well unless we choose to incinerate then the decay process happens a tad faster..
I think we should of instead of honoring "tradition" and the dead, should instead be a lot more worried about the future unborn. According to real world repeatable and testable data, we are quickly destroying the planet ability to sustain 7.8 billion (and still rapidly growing! human population) and these future unborn will have to bear the burden of the people that are alive today (and recent past) destructive habits. Meanwhile the 6 major biodiversity and biomass extinction event is well underway, caused solely by humans a process that has only been accelerating rapidly in the last 100 years or so.
I think the more appropriate question to ask JK Rowling would be to ask when she wrote the original characters did she ever think it would become a global phenomenon that arguably out sold at times, any particular "edition" of any holy book? And that people would even have conversations about hagrids sexuality in a children's book? I can already guess the answer will likely be: No.
@ Joy
"es, let’s. They were all veering off from Christ’s established Church.
Oh my, you are as funny as you are ignorant.
There was no "established church" there were many cults, many churches, different bishops, all running their own fiefdoms and all with a differing view of the original Messianic jewry.
Or are you forgetting they were ALL jews in the beginning and considered so by the Roman Empire until mid second century? Your version of orthodoxy was not established until after 329CE and not consolidated until the 6th Century.
The Roman church gained ascendancy and power by dint of its alliance with the Roman Empire, it destroyed its rivals. That is History.
The title of Pope did not exist and only superseded the title "Bishop of Rome" "first among Equals" which of course was a dogma overturned by the assumption of the doctrine Papal infallibility in 1868......which caused a schism...which is the true Church now?
"Right back at ya! "
sorry my irony meter just exploded.
Unlike you, Joy, I deal in facts and historical method.
“You do know that there is not one skerrick of contemporary evidence for your jesus as described in the gospels? Nothing?”
There are many historians who do not believe in an actual human jesus figure.
Most historians do not believe that a jesus figure as described in the gospels existed.
Personally I think the existence of a jesus as described in the gospels improbable. There is no contemporary evidence for it at all.
None.
I think that the existence of a very human jesus figure is "not proven" again. there is not a skerrick of contemporary evidence for his existence.
Also bear in mind Joy that early followers of the Messanaic sect now called "Christians" were to a man "adoptionists" and jewish, obeying the Law. The whole virgin birth malarkey was made up some decades later for a different audience.
I think you should look up the difference between "theologian" and Historian. You will find the latter deals in facts and the former deals in justifying wild claims in ancient texts.
But then that is just one more demonstration of your ignorance Joy.
“There was no "established church"”
Historical record shows otherwise.
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived.
The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evi...
Important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]
https://www.uncover.org.uk/questions/whats-the-evidence-outside-the-bibl...
*laughs harder in David Fitzgerald*
Have you ever read anything that challenges your beliefs, joy? I reccomend "nailed, 10 christian myths that show jesus never existed "
None of your sources are evidence of jesus, they are evidence of Christians.
“None of your sources are evidence of jesus, they are evidence of Christians.”
Did you bother to read what I was responding to? He wasn’t saying there was no historical evidence for Jesus. He claimed there was no historical evidence of an established church. Wow, you all have quite the knee jerk responses without actually thinking. You might want to read some books that challenge your beliefs.
Oh I have, tradition thumping bible believing papist for 24 years
There was a church, lots of them, but it sure ad he'll wasn't your Sunday mass
Well done Mikhael. Exactly the truth my friend.
More accurately they are evidence of the existence of a Jewish sect ( Christians were considered Jews by the Romans, and were regulated the same way until about 120CE )
But your thinking is so much improved Mikhael! Welcome to the world! Life is grand!
(Sorry, folks. I'm a little late to this party.)
@Mikhael
Awwwww, SNAP! Look at you now!... *huge grin*... Getting in here and mixing it up all bare-knuckled an' shit! You go, boy!... *applauding and whistling loudly*...
On a side note, I see our lovely Bundle of Joy is present. Please pardon me a moment while I find a good spot to pay my respects to here. She absolutely ADORES me... *grin*... Meanwhile, keep up the good work, young man... *patting Mikhael on shoulder*...
@ Joy
"You might want to read some books that challenge your beliefs."
I did.
After over forty years of searching for anything divine or supernatural, I read the bible in it's entirety, and converted. To atheism.
1 million agrees!
@ Joy
Uh oh...here we go
The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul,
LOL, the oldest records we have of anyone mentioning a Jesus figure are indeed the letters attributed to "paul" Who that actually was is moot.
Note that "Paul" writing form about 55 CE never met the the figure he dreams/hallucinates about, and he merely passes on instructions he receives during his hallucinations.
Note Paul never mentions a virgin birth or physical resurrection. Almost as if those stories were added later do you not think?
We do know that apart from the first three epistles the rest are compilations of anonymous letters, full of interpolations and some downright forgeries.
Again that is historical fact. "Paul" (whoever he was) is NOT a witness and is utterly unreliable regarding his pronouncements on the Jesus figure.
Paul has been used (and rightly so) as an argument for a human form of the jesus legend, and his muse ( he was writing fiction) could have been any one of the Messiahs or even a conglomeration of the stories surrounding them...
Now let us move on to your next point:
I quote:Important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112
Written about 112CE for advice on whether to tax gentile members of a jewish sect as jews. You should quote the whole passage.
But the fact it is written in 112CE should give you a clue...NOT CONTEMPORARY. There is a shed load of Second century writings about the various sects of Jewish Meassaniac activities. Marcion, Ebionites, the Syriac church etc etc.
All of which point to the fact that what you have been taught about your "church established by jesus" as absolute nonsense.
There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of the Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None. Historical fact so far.
If and when any such evidence comes to light then it will alter my thinking regarding a human jesus figure. A miracle worker returned from the dead? *sigh*
The legends of such a one are myriad amongst many faiths.
It is sad that you have been so thoroughly misled by what is supposed to be your guardian and place of truth. Your church has merely misled you as it has done to so many before.
Reading History and using the historical method would soon disabuse you of your fanciful notions.
(Edit: Spelling and grammar)
@ Joy
"The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived."
Zero difference. In both cases no one had documented them when they were alive, and the only writings that mentioned them came long after their deaths. For these reasons it is safe to assume that for both characters, they were not one real individual, but an amalgamation of folk tales centered around one person who was fictional.
@Old man shouts
Quick 2 cents.
Most Christians of all denominations are oblivious to the simple fact (yes fact) that the religion which became known as christianity is simply another failed millenarian movement.
Wow ! REALLY?
Oh indeedly doodly, Want proof?
Oh yes please.
First, what is a millenarian movement/religion? Briefly; one which teaches and promises the coming of a new, better, world, a new world order, a new millennium ----that is the promise of traditional Jewish prophecy about the mashiach.(messiah/annointed one)
The original disciples expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes,. In fact he promised to return 'soon' on many occasions according to the gospels.
Perhaps the best known promise is: Mark 9: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power"
When JC failed to return, a lot of back pedalling and de emphasising was done. Eventually (catholics especially) the second coming was spoken of as occurring at some vague point in the indefinite future and the topic was generally avoided.
Latter day Catholics seem a bit embarrassed by the whole idea of the second coming. Just as my generation was embarrassed by the Book Of Revelations; we just pretended it wasn't there. It was never mentioned.
Today I think it's only the JW's and Seventh Day Adventists which still make predictions about the second coming and end of days. Usually based one a new reading of Revelations. When the prediction fails, no problem a bit of shuffling and new date is set, again and again and again-----
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
'Millenarianism (also millenarism), from Latin mīllēnārius "containing a thousand", is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which "all things will be changed".[1] Millenarianism exists in various cultures and religions worldwide, with various interpretations of what constitutes a transformation.[2]
These movements believe in radical changes to society after a major cataclysm or transformative event and are not necessarily linked to millennialist movements in Christianity and Zoroastrianism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism
My reference ; "New Heaven New Earth" Kenhelm Burridge. THE seminal work on millennial movements.
@ Cranky
Yes, you have the right of it.
What sticks in my craw is the insufferable arrogance in which creatures like JoC , Jo, and Joyless display their abominable ignorance of their origins.
"intruder" as we know is just a complete dick.
It's their faux piety that makes me gag, but yes you make an excellent point.
I've said it before and I will say it again, even if Jesus's fucking face was found minted on coins, and a crown of thorns turns up that they could match his DNA to, it still wouldn't make any of the woo woo supernatural claims assigned to him any less risible.
That said I'd put his existence as an historical figure at no greater than a 50/50 premise.
“It's their faux piety that makes me gag”
You do realize atheists can come across as quite arrogant too, right? It’s funny when people don’t see themselves guilty of exactly what they themselves are.
“I've said it before and I will say it again, even if Jesus's fucking face was found minted on coins, and a crown of thorns turns up that they could match his DNA to, it still wouldn't make any of the woo woo supernatural claims assigned to him any less risible.”
Well, at least you are honest that no amount of evidence would sway you. As if I suspected otherwise.
“That said I'd put his existence as an historical figure at no greater than a 50/50 premise.”
Well, again then you would be in the minority of almost every historical scholar out there, but hey yeah you’re probably right and they’re all wrong – I mean you just sound like you must be right.
@ Joy
Well, again then you would be in the minority of almost every historical scholar out there,
At least you have learned not to be absolute in your claims. There may be hope for you yet.
It also seems you may have learned to separate the existence of a human, non magical jesus in your mind, from the incredible magic zombie jesus contradictorily described in the gospels and worshipped as a god.
Many scholars(a decreasing majority, thanks to advances in textual analysis) hold that a very human jesus figure probably existed.
You do understand that this in no way validates anything you believe or your church teaches about christianity?
If we did find absolute evidence for a man named Yeshua Bar Yussuf who was ( as was all too common in the early 1st century CE) executed for seditious teachings that is all it would evidence? That such a human existed and was executed?
Do you understand that?
Then the gulf between the actual human Yeshua and what your religion made of him would have to be explored and evidenced. Do you think that is remotely possible Joy?
That is why many compare Harry Potter with the texts you revere.....we know London exists, but Diagon Alley and its inhabitants ar pure story telling. .and that is where you are Joy. Left at the entrance of a non existent magic alley to nowhere even if we could evidence the life and death of a Yeshua Bar Yussuf who lived and died in the first third of the 1st Century CE.
The existence of a Jesus figure as described in the Gospels is improbable.
The existence of a very human jesus figure in the first third of the 1st century is " Not Proven" a verdict in Scottish Law that you would do well to look up if you want to understand my point.
@ Joy
"I've said it before and I will say it again, even if Jesus's fucking face was found minted on coins, and a crown of thorns turns up that they could match his DNA to, it still wouldn't make any of the woo woo supernatural claims assigned to him any less risible.”
Well, at least you are honest that no amount of evidence would sway you. As if I suspected otherwise."
This is where you fail to make any difference between a human who was killed by the state,and some miracle zombie who had supernatural powers. In your mind, any mention of "jesus" automatically classifies that name as some entity with supernatural powers.
Even if there was 100% proof that some dude wandered round and spread dissent, then was later crucified, that does not prove anything supernatural.
First you must prove this dude existed, then prove this dude had supernatural powers.
@joy
'Wow, you sure know how to pick’em. Once again, that’s a shame. There are so many amazing priests who can answer all those questions and more. Heck, now you can even do a Google search and find a plethora of awesome, beautiful, and sound explanations for all of those great questions."
Context:
I was 16 in 1964. There was no internet, and no decent library nearby.
Although trained in theology and apologetics, 'my' Passionist was lovely because of his deep empathy and compassion .Not because of his sophistry, but in spite of it.
I have never had any respect for theology as a discipline. That is because I think it is intellectually dishonest. IE it is presuppositional ; The existence of god is assumed as a given, which it may not be in any serious discussion with me.
The top catholic theologian of of his day was Frederick Copleston, SJ. In 1948, he had a radio debate with arguably the greatest philosopher of his generation, Bertrand Russell . Copleston argued the existence of god from contingency. Russell handed him his head, imo.
Below is a clip for an anthology of the debate, specifically for the student. (recommended) The second clip is an 18 minute edited version of the debate, . The full transcript is also available on line.My apologies if you are already familiar with the debate. Today it is not all that well known., if indeed it ever was except among philosophers and academics. (It wasn't mentioned when I was studying the existence of god at university)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc-UpQu2ofU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E
Pages