a brief opinion of christianity in general

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Matt W You're not the one setting the rules, Zhravic. Tone it down.

Nothing to tone down, Matt. Fonceai, Fangrim, Kame, Phoenix Fire have all done this before: ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate. If I had some moderator help make sure people address issues & facts that have been raised there wouldn't be a need for you to read this, yes? How about it?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: wyoguy The fact that every single one of the 12 Apostles were condemned to death and killed by the state.

Actually, that's fiction.

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!

2. James, son of Zebedee (James the Greater?)

Acts 12.1,2 says simply:

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."
Later legend adds the truly extraordinary nonsense that the Roman officer guarding James converted on the spot and elected to be beheaded beside him! Even later fabrication has James traipsing around northern Spain before he dashes back to Judaea for martyrdom.

3. John, son of Zebedee.

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to take care of Mary, lead the church in Ephesus, write the Book of Revelation and write his own gospel. He even survives being boiled in oil and is given a natural death!

Actually, John bar Zebedee disappears from the yarn in Acts at the same time his brother James is more dramatically removed from the story. The last reference to John is also verse 12.2. From Acts 12.12 onward we are dealing with another John "whose surname was Mark" – a lightweight character who nonetheless is credited with authorship of the first gospel.

The impending demotion of the thunder brothers is actually prefigured in Mark's gospel (and is embellished in Matthew, where Mrs Zebedee does the talking). The boys ask for front seats in the hereafter. JC is having none of it:

"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

"Jesus said unto them ... to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John." – Mark 10:35-41.

Thus while the earthly career of Jesus features prominently brothers James and John, "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3.7), the story of the early church features a new James, "the brother of Jesus", and a new John, a sidekick to Paul and Barnabas (see below). We know little about either, although the death of James bar Damneus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9) provides a basis for the colourful martyrdom of brother James beloved of Christian apologists.

4. Andrew, brother of Peter.

Pious invention gives Andrew a wonderful career covering everywhere from Scythia to Greece, from Asia Minor to Thrace. This guy, it seems, took option 'C' on the crucifixion menu: on an x-shaped cross. Apparently this allowed him to continue preaching for 2 days.

5. Philip.

Fable places this guy in Phrygia, Carthage and Asia Minor. The fairy tale has a proconsul crucifying him for converting his wife. Perhaps the love feast got a bit out of hand.

6. Bartholomew (Nathanael)

What a traveller – India, Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia and southern Arabia! Miraculously he managed to get himself crucified (flayed alive and beheaded!) in both India and Armenia. Pretty impressive stuff. Even when dead his bits got about: a church in Rome claimed most of his corpse but 11th century Canterbury did a roaring trade with his arm! His emblem is the flaying knife. Cool.

7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel – at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.

If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas – plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? – Matthew 13.55.

8. Thomas Didymus (the Twin) aka Judas Thomas or Jude Thomas

Another grand traveller, seen everywhere from Parthia to Kerala in south India. 4th century invention, appropriately enough, gives this 'twin' 2 martyrdoms, one in Persia and one in India. He even gets a burial in Syria to boot! Yet another resting place, Mylapore, was claimed by the Portuguese in 16th century. Most famous for his "doubt", Thomas inspired a whole raft of pious flimflam: the Acts of Thomas (he built a palace for an Indian king, would you believe), the Apocalypse of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Infant Gospel of Thomas.

Now, have you still got any doubts ...?

9. James son of Alphaeus (James the Less – or is James the Just?)

The myth-makers really go to town for this guy. Thrown down over 100 feet from the pinnacle of the Temple by "scribes and Pharisees", he actually survived only to be stoned, have his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club and have his body "sawn asunder" – all this at the age of 90!

Of course, if we don't conflate James the Less with James the brother of Jesus (an identification made by Jerome and later Catholics) all this mayhem belongs with the righteous James and the fate of the lesser James is unknown.

Perhaps it's the being sawn in half which causes the confusion?

10. Jude/Thaddeus /Lebbaeus /Daddaeus

Either a serious clubbing or crucifixion for this mixed up guy in the city of Edessa or Persia. Apparently his fan-club suffered because his name sounded too much like Judas.

11. Simon the Canaanite/ the Zealot.

Invention came late for this guy. When it did, it was a beauty – crucifixion in Persia and also crucifixion thousands of miles away in Britain. He also managed to preach in Africa. Quite an act to follow.

12. Matthias.

Fantasy sends this guy to Syria, Cappadocia, the shores of the Caspian and the "City of Cannibals" (Acts of Andrew and Matthias). Death by burning. Also death in Jerusalem by stoning – and beheading. Really just makes up the numbers, sometimes merging with Matthew and sometimes swapped out to let Paul into "the twelve."

13. Judas, son (or is that brother?) of James.

Nothing yet. Feeling inspired?

14. Levi, son of Alphæus.

Refer to his alter ego Matthew.

Would you die to defend something that you knew in your heart to be a lie Z?

Here in is the major selling point of Christianity. The impossible claims of the bible are guilted away by the idea that no matter how silly and nonsensical it all may sound, a group of fictitious zealots somehow managed to martyr themselves for the cause.

Tons of people have killed themselves for Allah. Shouldn't you believe in Allah as well?

[christianmathew]

Zhavric, step down. Your starting to go off the You should know just as well, if not better, what happens when you argue with moderators. You will get in trouble.

Secondly, you must have studied christianity past what christians do to have come up with such bogus information. Simple logistics seems like it would disagree with what you are saying. And why hasn't anyone disproved these "fake martyrs", if these "myths" have been around for centuries? I've never heard such bogus until you said it, because it's not true. If you can get someone to believe your "facts", I'd be suprised.

[christianmathew]

Whoops, computer is spazzing. That first line says:

Zhavric, step down. Your starting to go off the deep end. You should know hust as well, if not better, what happens when you argue with moderators.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: christianmathew Zhavric, step down. Your starting to go off the You should know just as well, if not better, what happens when you argue with moderators. You will get in trouble. Secondly, you must have studied christianity past what christians do to have come up with such bogus information. Simple logistics seems like it would disagree with what you are saying. And why hasn't anyone disproved these "fake martyrs", if these "myths" have been around for centuries? I've never heard such bogus until you said it, because it's not true. If you can get someone to believe your "facts", I'd be suprised.

Did you expect a stranger was going to walk up to you and hand you a text book on the subject? I doubt you have heard that my computer is a Dell, but that isn't a reliable criteria for determining my computer is not a Dell.

On the credibility of the Apostle's history, you never bothered to check, for the precise reason you didn't feel like it, and you didn't feel like it because it never crossed your mind, and it never crossed your mind because you didn't bother to look, and you didn't bother to look because you liked your first impression of Christianity better. It's a fairly inescapable paradigm, all the more so because no one wants to escape it.

I would ask you to explain what you mean by "simple logistics", but by the looks of it, you have already run away.

[christianmathew]

Not quite run, but perhaps I will retreat soon. I do have family coming over any time now.

I have my faith, and you have your thoughts on the abostles. I will choose to believe in my faith, and you may choose to believe in whatever you like.

I said simple logistics because to me it doesn't make sense to just make up twelve apostles, and ecspecially give them gruesome deaths instead of makeing them heroes if you want a good story. simple logistics means something that is obvious and logical.

[Hurt]

Quote by: christianmathew Not quite run, but perhaps I will retreat soon. I do have family coming over any time now. I have my faith, and you have your thoughts on the abostles. I will choose to believe in my faith, and you may choose to believe in whatever you like. I said simple logistics because to me it doesn't make sense to just make up twelve apostles, and ecspecially give them gruesome deaths instead of makeing them heroes if you want a good story. simple logistics means something that is obvious and logical.

Why doesn't that make sense? It makes plenty of sense. Doing so would result in the exact purpose Zhavric has been saying.. it gives people the impression that Christians are being persecuted.

Anyway, aren't you kind of ignoring logistics, rather? Rather than actually evaluating these claims that do seem to have a historical basis, you're throwing them out without even considering them..

[christianmathew]

Yeah well, that's just how I roll.
Family's here, I gotta go, I won't be on for a week...

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Nope. You're wrong. The idea that Christians were persecuted is highly exagerated. What actually happened is that the Romans beat up on the Jews for reasons that had zero to do with Jesus or silencing anyone. I tell you what: since you're the one claiming that the Christians were persecuted by the Romans, why don't you post which emperors persecuted the poor Christians. Do so or we'll consider the matter settled.

Nero. The same dude who committed arson in a bad way and blamed it on the Christians.

This is outlined by Tacticus. Not some pope.

Now your turn. Prove that the persecution of Christians is exaggerated. I need the evidence.

Quote by: Zhavric The fact that Mark, the first gospel, wasn't invented until the desperate times of the fall of the second temple.

Good, this is all you had to do.

The first gospel was invented around 40 years after Jesus' death. (70c)

Not a surprise, considering Jesus wasn't a big hit until his disciples carried the word. Without internet or telephones, things took a while to get around.

The existence of Jesus cults as early as the first century bce.

The proof is this guy named yeshu (ben-pendora). Very little is known about him. Gerald's hypothesis seems to be one of many about the mysterious yeshu. Considering the genuine lack of following in the academic community, this hypothesis is likely to be lacking in factual support. I can see why from reading his speech, considering how he presents his evidence.

One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod."

The key word here is "one account"

As you can see. Most of his support springs from the assumption that Jehoshua Ben-Perachia was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus. And that all farther testimonies about Jesus are about Jehoshua.

For instance.

The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C.

One account fails in the face of many other accounts.

However, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this period of time. Nor that I fully understood all the support presented in Gerald's speech. I do think that it is telling that the experts in the academic world, many of them atheists, dismiss this theory as...garbage to put it lightly.

The fact that orthodoxy was just one of many tales of the godman that happened to win out.

I've look at some of the gnostic gospels. I don't see a huge difference in account, only narration.

The fact that the cult spread not because of any truth or popularity, but because of the political machinations of Constantine.

If it wasn't popular before, why did Constantine make it the state religion?

And how it got spread has nothing to do with Jesus' actual existence.

That it's spread through guilt avoidance and violence.

Again, nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

That people still believe it today because they're indoctrinated to do so from childhood.

Once again, nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

Debate. Or leave. But these asinine evasions end here.

accepted.

Nothing to tone down, Matt. Fonceai, Fangrim, Kame, Phoenix Fire have all done this before: ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate. If I had some moderator help make sure people address issues & facts that have been raised there wouldn't be a need for you to read this, yes? How about it?

Tell me Zhavric. Why don't the other atheists come rushing to your aid?
This is a perfect way to destroy our argument, but the atheists don't seem to picking up on it.

I think it's the same reason why all the people you named above "ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate" That your method of argument is the same as those of religious fanatics. You believe your own theory based on little evidence, but believe it with a lot of your heart. This idea is farther facilitated by the fact that you take to yelling as soon as I point out a couple of factual errors in your argument.

Matt's right. Take a chill pill, if only because it makes you seem that much more believable.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Winter wind Tell me Zhavric. Why don't the other atheists come rushing to your aid? This is a perfect way to destroy our argument, but the atheists don't seem to picking up on it.

I am not aiding him, but what would you like to talk about?

Atheism does not have a creed or a philisophy.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Zhavric Nothing to tone down, Matt. Fonceai, Fangrim, Kame, Phoenix Fire have all done this before: ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate. If I had some moderator help make sure people address issues & facts that have been raised there wouldn't be a need for you to read this, yes? How about it?

Why should we help you? If you continue to bait, you reap what you sow.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: christianmathew What is your quick opinion of christianity? .

It enables acts of heinous inhumanity to other humans without the need for personnel forgiveness, offering instead salvation by proxy.

This total lack of personal responsibility shows a childlike mentality which stupefies and stunts the evolution of the human species

[butterbut]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel It enables acts of heinous inhumanity to other humans without the need for personnel forgiveness, offering instead salvation by proxy. This total lack of personal responsibility shows a childlike mentality which stupefies and stunts the evolution of the human species

You've obviously have no idea of what true Christianity is. Read the Gospel. Jesus says, "If you love me you will obey me."

It is true however that we can never actually do enough to secure own salvation and we are saved by grace.

[Jack]

You've obviously have no idea of what true Christianity is.

Classic rebuttal. Well, I do, having been one, and I don't disagree with his assessment.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: butterbutt You've obviously have no idea of what true Christianity is. Read the Gospel. Jesus says, "If you love me you will obey me."

No. Christians don't always obey even when they love God. Mostly because humans aren't perfect.

[Derek Wolff]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mahatma Ghandi



"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
-GK Chesterton

[Aussie]

Quote by: christianmathew Yes, twist of logic. Faith trumps logic here, because my faith will save me from hell. I do believe that I won't survive if I jump off a bridge and die, logic tells me I won't survive. But faith tells me I will go to heaven, a much better place than this. So faith trumps logic.

This is what's wrong with Christianity. Believe or you'll spend an eternity of suffering kids. What child would say no?

[Derek Wolff]

If you jump off a bridge you'll go to hell for commiting suicide.

This is what's wrong with Christianity. Believe or you'll spend an eternity of suffering kids. What child would say no?

Believing doesn't take you to heaven. Confessing your sins and following the path Jesus created is the way to heaven. To confess your sins you must truely regret them and ask for forgiveness humbly before God. Christians are a little off from Christ, and a lot of their beliefs are what is popular because no one reads the bible it seems. Doubly the bible is subject to personal interpertation, making it rather difficult to find a striaght line of do's and don't's.

[christianmathew]

This is what's wrong with Christianity. Believe or you'll spend an eternity of suffering kids. What child would say no?

It is not that simple...

If you jump off a bridge you'll go to hell for commiting suicide.

true enough, though no one can really say they know, can they?

And what you said after that is pretty close to spot on. Maybe a little bit of when you start to talk about the bible.

[Derek Wolff]

And what you said after that is pretty close to spot on. Maybe a little bit of when you start to talk about the bible.

Then what is the stigma between Jews and Christians? Or Christians and Catholics?

Jews believe in the laws, Christians believe in the truth, and Catholics believe in both but are too muttled with ancient traditions.

true enough, though no one can really say they know, can they?

It says so in the Bible I believe.