Do you call it blind faith?
I am pretty sure the ID/Creationist crowd is in your camp, not mine.
That is not what he meant.
1 Like
Unfortunately, there are some Christians who are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between the following claims:
claim 1. I just won the biggest lottery in history.
claim 2. I just came back to life from being dead one week.
Both claims are unlikely, but claim 2 is on another level of unlikely. Some Christians can’t tell the difference, apparently. I’m not sure if it’s intentional on their part.
1 Like
Why did his movement disappear?
Oh, BECAUSE HE DIED! That’s my point. His death also seriously strained the credibility of the Rabbi that endorsed him (considered by some to be the greatest Rabbi ever).
Only if you discard the Bible outright. Your claim is actually outrageous.
Nobody claimed that John the Baptist was the Messiah, and he explicitly denied it.
Are you suggesting it originated there? But there is ample evidence of early Christianity in Galilee; I have no idea where you are getting this claim. I’ve visited some of the notable archeological sites.
No. It’s not “very unlikely.” It’s extremely or extraordinarily unlikely.
History does not work like science does. Is it possible to “cross the Red Sea”?
Not enough time historically for that kind of apocalyptic story to develop and gain a following. The early Church grew and influenced culture too soon after Jesus’ to give any credibility to the “legend theory.”
Your explanations defy credibility. They are outright demonstrably wrong or they themselves become “extraordinary claims” (which then require sufficient or “extraordinary” evidence.).
1 Like
I know it’s unlikely when you don’t believe in God.
But when you do, There isn’t a problem.
Most of these come from Matthew and Mark (and since Matthew pretty closely follows Mark --no big surprise there). Herod gets singled out as being worried that it is John come back to life, though the speculation is attributed to unnamed others as well. None of this seems problematic since the authors seem to just be reporting what they hear as “word on the street” so to speak. A reporter today could find folks who believe all sorts of things (including that the earth is flat), but his commenting on it (“some say this … others say that…”) doesn’t mean that the reporter or our present culture as a whole is into flat-earthism. Curiously, the only mention Luke gives of all this is when Jesus is asking his disciples (Luke 9:19) who people say that he is. “John the Baptist” is one of the answers given … and this is before Jesus death and resurrection! It would seem to us that surely people knew that Jesus and John were both alive at the same time and had even done things together; so why would anyone think that one somehow became the other?! It seems more likely to me that there is a different cultural understanding (between them and us now) about how these things work and that we probably don’t know how people thought about such things back then. Remember that you could arrive at two contradictory conclusions about whether or not John the Baptist was really Elijah returned. According to Jesus (Matthew 11:14) John really is “Elijah who is to come” … but Jesus qualifies this as “…for those who are willing to accept it.” (See also Matthew 17:12 for a reinforcement of Elijah’s return.) Luke 1:17 tells us that John is coming “in the spirit and power of Elijah, …” which gives us more of the picture. So we see that John can definitely be thought of as Elijah, and yet when John is asked point blank whether he is Elijah (John 1:21) he flat-out denies it. So it would seem that even then, they recognized that it makes a difference how you mean it. Is he “in the spirit of Elijah”? or Elijah returned? Resurrected? Those are all different questions apparently. And Jesus doesn’t seem all that concerned to make sure people parse this all out correctly.
[edits]
1 Like
Think about what you are saying. The resurrection of the Saints in Matt. 27 has allegedly happened just a few days before Jesus’ resurrection. Yet, Matt 27 Saints are apocalyptic imagery but Jesus is the real resurrection? They are similar events.
Secondly, you are talking about movements. It’s impossible to know what was the original Jesus movement. New Testament paints a contradictory picture, with Paul (practically a founder of the Gentile Christianity) claiming Jesus rose from the dead because he ‘appeared’ to Paul! But the appearance was a visionary one, not the kind that one would expect in a literal resurrection. And what is worse, for your view, is that Paul does not seem to be aware of any different ways Jesus ‘appeared’ to others.
1 Cor 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
Jewish Christianity, founded by Jesus, is nowhere to be found. It seems to be just a story, without any historical backing!
Looking at Acts 1, it seems to be story sold to the readers
Acts 1:15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,…
120 persons. This is after three year of preaching by Jesus and the mission of the 12 (Matthew’s Gospel) where the disciples were told to preach to the Jews only.
Now, in Acts 2, the Pentecost, Peter and others start preaching in diff languages, so that non-Hebrew speaking, Hellenized Jews could hear the message and voila, 3000(!) believe.
This is at the very beginning of Christianity (supposedly). We are told there were more Hellenized Jews than the Orthodox Jews. But this is a problem for Christian apologists, because Hellenized Jews were little different from the Greeks in what they believed, including familiarity with the Greek mythology.
In other way, according to the Christian Scripture, Christianity started growing among people who very likely never heard of Jesus. All of the Christian Scriptures are in Greek, the language Orthodox Jews abhorred as you needed to study mythology along with the language.
What were the earliest Christians in Galilee? Who was their leader? Christians know who the Roman Christian leader was, after Peter, but what about Galilee? Any Christian letters written between Churches of Galilee to the Church in Jerusalem? Or Nazareth? What happened to those Christians?
On a hover board, why not? All we need is faith.
Similar. Not the same.
He seems quite aware. Second Temple Jewish culture believed in ghosts (including the “ghosts of dead people”). This is well attested to in the New Testament. Nobody said Jesus was a ghost (well, not after the resurrection, anyway).
Jesus didn’t “found Jewish Christianity.” Jesus was the Messiah of Judaism. Some Jews recognized this. Others did not. Jesus did not “found a new religion.”
Many of the earliest followers of Jesus were Pharisees (one of whom was Paul). This is fairly well attested to in the Testament.
“We are told this”? By whom?
There is significant historical evidence that many Diaspora Jews were, in some ways, “more faithful” Jews than many of their Judean counterparts. They were hardly “little different from the Greeks in what they believed.” Where on earth are you getting this from!?
I’m not sure what you mean by, “What happened to those Christians?” What are you suggesting happened? That they vanished?
What about when Napoleon does it in more recent recorded history? Is that a figment of someone’s imagination? Is it exaggeration or lie? As I said, the more recent the extraordinary happens, the less likely we question it.
What’s funny is that the Bible doesn’t even say that the Israelites crossed the “Red Sea.” The original language says “reed sea.” But just within the past few hundred years we actually have documented history of Napoleon crossing the Red Sea! Extraordinary! But “all we need is faith”? How much of recorded history must you dismiss because it’s “extraordinary”?
"May 4 is the 44th anniversary of the shooting deaths of four students by National Guardsmen at Kent State University, in Kent, Ohio. The shootings of May 4, 1970, occurred during an ongoing series of antiwar protests on campus, sparked by the April 30 announcement of President Richard Nixon that American forces had begun an incursion in Cambodia.
The four students who lost their lives that day were Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glenn Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder. By what seems to be nothing more than a surprising coincidence, three of the four were Jewish – surprising, because the percentage of Jews in the Kent State student body never exceeded five percent. In addition to the four deaths, the 67 rounds fired by the troops over the course of 13 seconds wounded another nine people, one of whom ended up paralyzed."
That’s an extraordinary “coincidence”! Does it take “faith” to accept it? Or is it historically documented enough for you? Where’s that line?
You tell me. You are the one making equivocation between improbable natural events and a resurrection. Resurrections are not possible. Everything else you quoted IS possible. Winning a lottery is possible (even if highly unlikely). But raising from the dead is impossible.
I can’t believe you don’t see the difference.
Well, YOU are the one who claims Jesus followers began with Jesus. What happened to them? DID they vanish? There were plenty of Jesus’ followers in Rome. What happened to his followers in Judea and Galilee?
Pharisees who were followers of the Law of Moses, and who (apparently) wanted Paul killed. New Testament paints a picture of warring factions.
If you read Acts 21, there is a bit there about thousands of believers (apparently, “Christians” who are zealous for the Law (of Moses). I wonder what they thought of Jesus’ sacrifice. We know what Paul thought, what about them?
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Sounds like James is trying to protect Paul’s life here from fellow brethren, who believed but were zealous for the Law.
Gal 5:11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
Notice, the issue was not bodily or otherwise resurrection of Jesus. It was matters of the Law. And Christians probably were killing each other (persecuting, at the very least).
Early “Christianity” is a soup of beliefs. Just as any other religion. It must start somehow. Tell me, where did the VERY FIRST belief in the resurrection come from? Was it based on a literal resurrection as you understand it?
You don’t think that you are the first one to question the Resurrection of Jesus Christ I hope.
People have been questioning it from the beginning, so it has not been the case that it has just occurred to people that it might not have happened. There have been many books written for and against, so I don’t see that you have any new arguments.
The only thing that might be new is that new atheists think that people of faith and/or people who lived before science do not have any minds. On the contrary it seems to me that the new atheists have lost the ability to think beyond science because they have narrowed their minds to the physical which is only a fraction of Reality.
Humans cannot live without the spiritual and rational. Science itself cannot survive if it focuses on the objective or the mechanical and not the human needs of people for life, freedom, and justice.
3 Likes
So you’ve already determined what is “impossible” despite historical evidence. I guess that’s the end of the conversation then.
The spiritual and physical descendants of those believers are around the world today numbering in the billions.
Paul himself was a Pharisee. There was a significant contingent of Pharisees present at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). As much as Jews were (and are) not religiously homogeneous, neither were the Pharisees at that time. Many recognized Jesus as Messiah. That does not eradicate their “Jewishness,” their “Judaism,” or their “Phariseeism.”
I wonder what he thought about himself? We have some pretty good clues in letters like Philippians and Galatians.
Um…what?! There was certainly consternation about “what to do” with gentiles, but that’s some very creative reading you have there. What was the result?
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your outlandish claims–that Christians were killing one another!? Truly you are a man of faith!
No question, whatsoever. Without the resurrection, nobody is following Jesus. In fact, Jesus’ own disciples packed up and were ready to move on after the crucifixion…until the resurrection.
1 Like
The belief of the author is not errant. The Holy Spirit ensures that what is recorded is what He intended.
Prophecy is another case. Prophecy comes from a direct communication from God to the prophet. The phrase “thus says the Lord” I believe is frequently used.
I know of no place in Scripture when the author indicated that the history they were writing came directly from God. If you can show me such a reference I would appreciate it.
1 Like
To you, Because you don’t believe in God.
I can’t keep saying this enough but if you are going to discuss the resurrection you should argue about the existence of God instead of probability. You can always say what the historical evidence is but if you don’t believe in God it won’t work!
I don’t think you understand how HISTORY works, with all due respect. The job of a historian, is to determine what likely happened, and miracles, by definition, are LEAST likely to happen.
Not all of them. In fact, most were in Jerusalem. There is an actual study, called “When Prophecy Fails”, that shows people/cults remain believing even in-spite of contradictory evidence.
The truth is not on the side of the believer in the supernatural.
And we all know that it’s impossible to cross the Red Sea on foot (or on a horse), so Napoleon never did…
…right?
So, should we posit universe creating pixies when we discuss physics, math and science, in general?
No. But you should invoke God when it is an act of God. 
I don’t think that. Smart people can have not so smart convictions.
But I get the sense that Christians, believe belief in Jesus’ resurrection is so unique in history. It’s not.
The Holy Spirit of God inspired men of the Christian Church and Old Testament Jews to write things, accommodating the people of the day. He may have used Ancient Science to communicate spiritual truths; however, that does not make the Holy Writ less valid. The Bible is the road map to salvation, not a doctrine of the sciences.