Do you agree with the following statement?

[txag007]

Do you agree with the following statement?

...to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of 'cooperation' over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[FortunaMaximus]

The tower falls if the cement mix is substandard and you use warped wood.

[metsandfinsfan]

the wording of your quote is horrible. Many people believe that both the bible is false and that there is a creator who made a master plan

[Lestat]

A massive cooperations towards what? That's the question. Sure there's been massive cooperation. But that's because the bible has been a great way for rulers to gain control of people and get them to do and act as they wanted them to.

A massive cooperation for no other reason than to perpetuate a fairy tale? No, I don't agree with that. If there were no other reason than this, to keep the bible going then I think you have a point. Unfortunately, you miss all the other bona-fide reasons people had to perpetuate the myth.

[Piers]

WTF does "Pronounce the Bible false" mena?

Do you mean that by this that there is a flase statment somewhere in the bible, or do you mena that every statment in the Bible is false? Or what exactly?

[kurto]

Yeah. The question is kind of odd. Not sure what he means by 'cooperation' or what he thinks the implications are.

Does it require a lot of people believing and reteaching an untruth? Sure.

Is this rare? Not really.

How long did people think and teach that the earth was flat? How many people perpetuate beliefs in UFOs, Ghosts, ESP, etc? The number of believers has no bearing on whether or not something is real.

[arahant]

Sad.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with the following statement?

[ QUOTE ]
...to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of 'cooperation' over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your survey needs another option: Your statement is too bizarre to be classified.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the key to my answer (which was "no", FWIW). It would be helpful if you stopped thinking of the Bible as somehow unique to all other literature in history (other than it's supposed authorship).

There's nothing unique about a bunch of people being wrong about something and writing down their thoughts anyway.

Have you ever considered what would be required to pull off that B.S. story most Mormons believe?

[Prodigy54321]

I voted no...

do you mean false on even just ONE account or detail? (I believe you would mean..'completely false' as in..it was all simply made up...correct?)

you should define what you mean by 'cooperation'

a conspiracy of sorts? with hundreds or thousands or even more (I'm thinking of witnesses to supposed miracles and such) people consciously contributing to deception?...(I believe that there are other more reasonable ways to explain what happened in these cases, than that so many people knowingly contributed to the lies.

huge amounts of people with conscious intents to decieve people is not needed for the development and to a greater extent advancement of a religion...

if it IS needed, then the development and advencement of other religions would seem to mean that it is indeed possible...unless of course we've determined the development and advancement of christianity would require a far greater amount of conscious intent to decieve people (or whatever you define as 'cooperation') than other religions...it seems that you would hold this to be true..

why is that? (I probably don't know as much about the early development of christianity and other religions to make a fair assesment..so that is a genuine question)

it COULD also be developed with NO people with a concious intent to decieve people if the people at the very beginning actually believed what they created in their minds..this, however, I would say is very unlikely...I don't know nearly enough about the early development of religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Christianity to make a confident assesment, but I would guess that at some of the earliest points in the developments of these religions, there was a conscious intent to decieve people.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more predictable than sad. Or is it sad because txag is so predictable?

[Hopey]

So far it's 14-3 for "No". Only txag and his two gimmick accounts (Carded and Sharkey) have voted "Yes" so far.

Another win for the heathens.

[David Sklansky]

He is sort of quoting me. But not the part about EVEN IF there has to be a massive conspiracy for it to be false ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT FALSE.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT FALSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's your answer for why he continues to repeat your quote.

[revots33]

Depends on how you define "massive cooperation". If Txaq tells his kids that the bible is true, and then they all tell their kids, and so on for generations... it will at some point go from a silly cult-like belief to a widely-held one. All it takes is a few delusional people at the beginning.

[samsonite2100]

I don't understand the question. "False" in what way? I assume you mean "false" in the sense of "things that the Bible says happened didn't really happen." In that which case, no, it doesn't take a massive conspiracy for a bunch of people to be hugely incorrect about something. The geocentric universe and the children's game "telephone" both spring to mind as different but germane examples here.

[hmkpoker]

All things considered, this wouldn't really be very hard. This was well before the information age, and most of the population was illiterate. The church was a large and powerful structure with government-like power, and recognized as the rightful authority on scripture. If the church hierarchy was at all powerhungry and loose in morals (as history suggests it was), it's not that hard to believe that the bible could be systematically edited. By today's standards it would be cake.

[Phil153]

txag,

have you ever heard of the Sai Baba? Because his existence and following, even in this modern age, proves how little both you and Mr. Sklansky understand human nature and history.

[SBR]

Since I can replace the Bible in the quote with quran or vedas or Tipitaka or <insert text here> I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

[Phil153]

Change that last line to: "proves how easily these fables can arise and gain a following, without widespread conspiracy".

I'm just getting [censored] off at txag's insistent assertions, that would disappear if he put a millisecond of thought into the issue. His posts are motivated by his desire to believe, not the desire to expand human reason and seek out the truth. He picks and grabs whatever he thinks supports his belief, with no regard for its validity. Which God, if he existed, would doubtless find weak and pathetic. I think even BluffTHIS would agree with me here.

There are some decent arguments in support of God, but while people like txag are taking the low road you'll never hear them. He shames his faith by putting forth such absurd arguments.

The other thing that [censored] me off was Sklansky's (of all people) support of his absurd position.

End of rant. I'll be nice for a month now.

[txag007]

Here is what we know:

1. There are over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Here are some of them:

Genesis 22:18 says the Messiah would be the seed of Abraham.

Genesis 21:12 says the Messiah would be born through the lineage of Isaac.

Numbers 24:17 says He would come from the lineage of Jacob.

Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2 say He would come from the tribe of Judah.

Micah 5:2 also says He would come from Bethlehem, which was fulfilled when Jesus was born there.

Isaiah 11:1 says He would come from the lineage of Jesse.

Jeremiah 23:5 says He would come from the lineage of David.

Psalm 72:10 and Isaiah 60:6 say He will be presented with gifts from the kings of Sheba and Seba, which was fulfilled upon his birth.

And of course, the book of Daniel contains many Messianic prophecies as well. We know by analyzing the Dead Sea Scrolls that Daniel was written centuries before Jesus’ lived.

2. We can confirm several important details of Jesus’ life through the writings of early historians, many of whom were not Christians and did not support Christianity. Some of these early writers and historians are as follows:

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born 52-54 A.D.)

Lucian of Samosata (lived in 2nd century)

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born 37 A.D.)

Gentile writer Thallus (writing in 52 A.D.)

Phlegon (first century historian)

Justin Martyr (writing in 150 A.D.)

3. Early Christians suffered persecution even to the point of death for their beliefs. We know this also through the writings of early historians, such as the ones mentioned above. Yet even still, the church grew exponentially and other religions disappeared.

4. The early apostles and church founders did not grow rich and powerful because of the church. They also suffered because of Christ and died willingly died horrible deaths. Peter even asked to be crucified upside down because, as he put it, he didn’t deserve to die in the same manner as his savior.

But this isn’t sufficient evidence to confirm the truth of the Bible, you say. That’s not my point. We gather this information from sources apart from the Bible, so it is with this knowledge that I ask you the following: If a) it’s not true and b) it’s not a conspiracy, what is your theory on the rise of Christianity?

How did it happen?

How could it have happened?

[Phil153]

Your prophecies are nonsense, on many levels. As is the large part of your "historical evidence". Many intelligent and learned Christians agree with me, so I have no interest discussing it. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

As for the rest of it, they are reasonable questions. But it's not my job to teach you history or psychology. If you answer my post:

[ QUOTE ]
txag,

have you ever heard of the Sai Baba? Because his existence and following, even in this modern age, proves how easily these fables can arise and gain a following, without widespread conspiracy.


[/ QUOTE ]

then I'll answer yours. Explain to me how a known fraud can get ten million committed followers in this scientific age, without a " MASSIVE amount of 'cooperation' over decades. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man."

Can you see the parallels between this and the Jesus story? Can you see a how a myth gets replicated, and gains fervent believers? If not, do you realize this happened in every ancient civilization on Earth, and that some of these religions (for example, Islam, which you shun, and Hinduism, which you shun) also have hundreds of millions or billions of followers, and holy books, and fulfilled prophecies, and martyrs. Don't you see that those SAME arguments you use, if logically valid, can be equally used to undermine Christianity?

It's a big world out there. Open your eyes, and get back to me when you have.

[FortunaMaximus]

Considering the state of Christianity today, things could have been a lot worse.

That I'll grant you, txag, where other atheists won't.

But there's no doubt about the exploitation that they got up to over the centuries and that they still do get up to today.

There had better be a damn good reason. Can you state them in a sustainable proof, without faith-derived bias?

[Prodigy54321]

1) you've started long discussions on the prophesies before...I forget which thread it's in...but I'm sure we've discussed it before..

2) what does this have to do with cooperation or conspiracy?..I agree that this guy we call Jesus probably existed.

3) yes..they probably believed in their religion..just as muslims who give their lives for theirs.

4)again...I don't know of specific people's motives, so they may have consciously decieved people, but I would guess that most of them truly believed

How does all of this back up your argument?..none of this seems to show signs that a huge conspiracy was needed.

[txag007]

Compare the religions you mention to Christianity:

How many of them were founded following the death of their "founder"?

If Christianity isn't true and isn't a massive conspiracy, to whom can you point as the persuasive one who fooled the naive?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Early Christians suffered persecution even to the point of death for their beliefs. We know this also through the writings of early historians, such as the ones mentioned above. Yet even still, the church grew exponentially and other religions disappeared.

4. The early apostles and church founders did not grow rich and powerful because of the church. They also suffered because of Christ and died willingly died horrible deaths. Peter even asked to be crucified upside down because, as he put it, he didn’t deserve to die in the same manner as his savior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these the only cult members to ever die rather than renounce their beliefs?

The Heaven's Gate cult members all killed themselves, does that increase the likelihood that their beliefs were true?

Which is more probable if we consider the death of Peter?

A. He died because Jesus was the Son of God.
B. He died because he believed Jesus was the Son of God.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If Christianity isn't true and isn't a massive conspiracy, to whom can you point as the persuasive one who fooled the naive?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are sill persuasive ones fooling the naive. They are called missionaries.

[Prodigy54321]

txag, you're not doing a very good job of showing how this "information" you provide relates to your OP and whether or not a huge conspiracy is needed.

and you still have explained what you take parts of the quote to mean..

please tell us what you are considering 'cooperation'.. and what 'false' means there

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare the religions you mention to Christianity:

How many of them were founded following the death of their "founder"?

If Christianity isn't true and isn't a massive conspiracy, to whom can you point as the persuasive one who fooled the naive?

[/ QUOTE ]
The naive fool themselves. That's the whole point that you're not getting.

Islam didn't become a bona fide religion until after Muhammed's death. He had followers just like Jesus. He was also considered a prophet while alive. And 1.3 billion people believe in him today. Must be a conspiracy, right? I don't know enough about Hinduism to offer any insight.

Does your whole point rest on the idea that the religion was founded after his death? You're really grasping at straws here. If anything, it shows that someone was smart enough to invent a good fable. Or that a story about a spiritual man got twisted in later decades and turned into a religion, perhaps for the purposes of rebellion from occupiers. Not that I'm saying that happened. But what does founding after his death have to do with anything?

You still haven't offered an explanation for the Sai Baba.

[txag007]

So your theory is that Jesus existed and the church founders truly believed he was resurrected three days after his death. Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying. What would be their motivation for lying? They didn't gain power or money from it, they died because of it, and unlike the beliefs of radical Islamic terrorists there, would have been no reward waiting for them in heaven. So why do it?

[txag007]

So what is your theory on the growth of Christianity?

[txag007]

Which would be a massive conspiracy, unless you can point to one person who deceived us all.

[txag007]

Who wrote the Koran? One guy.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that Jesus existed and the church founders truly believed he was resurrected three days after his death. Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying. What would be their motivation for lying? They didn't gain power or money from it, they died because of it, and unlike the beliefs of radical Islamic terrorists there, would have been no reward waiting for them in heaven. So why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is txag, almost none of this verifiable. Not Jesus appearing. Not the 500 people who claimed to have seen Him do so. Not what the church founders did (or didn't), believe. It's not even 100% verifiable that Jesus existed at all! Although I do think most historians tend to agree that there was a man named Jesus around this time.

You are putting the cart before the horse left and right. You're presupposing one thing in order to lay claim on a subsequent proposition. You can't do that! Well, maybe YOU can... It's just not the way the vast majority of logical people would go about it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Who wrote the Koran? One guy. </font>

You're avoiding the question. Explain why over ONE BILLION people believe in Islam. According to you:


[ QUOTE ]
...to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of 'cooperation' over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the case for Muslims?

[txag007]

Islam was founded by one man who gained power and wealth because of it.

[txag007]

So what is your theory on the rise of Christianity and the growth of the Christian church?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Islam was founded by one man who gained power and wealth because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Buddhism is a mirror effect of Islam? What does that make Christianity? A misfired incorrect to keep those two mirror religions in balance?

[arahant]

[quote
You still haven't offered an explanation for the Sai Baba.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you saying? That Sai Baba isn't divine? I've personally received holy ashes that he materialized for me from nowhere .

For txag...I don't know much about the churches view of Sai Baba; does the bible provide any explanation for the miracles he performs?

om sai om sai om sai

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is typical. ONE person claims in a letter to someone in another country that he knows of an event where Jesus appeared to 500 people. No information is given about how to find them, and as far as I know, no other account of this event exists.

Yet this is repeatedly brought out as an example of "look, you can ask them yourself". How the hell is someone in Greece supposed to find these unknown people who live in some unknown town/city in some unknown country?

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is your theory on the rise of Christianity and the growth of the Christian church?

[/ QUOTE ]
That there have been several billion people on the planet who are no more skeptical than you are. I tried pointing out the roots of Jediism to the believers here (http://www.thejediismway.org/smf/index.php?www); they didn't deconvert either.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that Jesus existed and the church founders truly believed he was resurrected three days after his death. Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying. What would be their motivation for lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that when there are 500+ witnesses, and all the people that those witnesses know, another 20 to 100 times that, the only record is in the bible! Seems like a scam to me!

[David Sklansky]

"The other thing that [censored] me off was Sklansky's (of all people) support of his absurd position."

You are misconstruing me. I was simply willing to STIPULATE to a massive conspiracy being the only explanation for bible stories as an alternative to them actually being true. Because such a conspiracy is stills immeasurably more likely than the sun really standing still.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what we know:

1. There are over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Here are some of them:

Genesis 22:18 says the Messiah would be the seed of Abraham.

Genesis 21:12 says the Messiah would be born through the lineage of Isaac.

Numbers 24:17 says He would come from the lineage of Jacob.

Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2 say He would come from the tribe of Judah.

Micah 5:2 also says He would come from Bethlehem, which was fulfilled when Jesus was born there.

Isaiah 11:1 says He would come from the lineage of Jesse.

Jeremiah 23:5 says He would come from the lineage of David.



[/ QUOTE ]

Many do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. The Jews and Muslims consider Jesus just a prophet.

[Dane S]

Ummm, history itself is a colossal fudging of data. Language is a colossal fudging of data. What makes you thinks a few books wouldn't get fudged together and then taken too seriously at some points along the way?

Read Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces. The stories of the Bible are not unique to the Bible.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that Jesus existed and the church founders truly believed he was resurrected three days after his death. Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying. What would be their motivation for lying? They didn't gain power or money from it, they died because of it, and unlike the beliefs of radical Islamic terrorists there, would have been no reward waiting for them in heaven. So why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know..I wasn't there

if you would like to provide us with the testimonies of the 500 individuals..I would love to look over them...

I don't know if jesus actually appeared to anyone...and I'm not taking the bible at its word...

[ QUOTE ]
If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe the guy who said that it happened was lying...or maybe he heard that it happened and believed that it did.

500+ people didn't have to lie for it to get into the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
and unlike the beliefs of radical Islamic terrorists there, would have been no reward waiting for them in heaven. So why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you only follow your religion to get a reward?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that Jesus existed and the church founders truly believed he was resurrected three days after his death. Do you believe they were mistaken? If so, how do you explain the 500 people Jesus appeared to at one time? If this didn't happen, then the church founders were lying. What would be their motivation for lying? They didn't gain power or money from it, they died because of it, and unlike the beliefs of radical Islamic terrorists there, would have been no reward waiting for them in heaven. So why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

500 isn't very many. Google Elvis sightings. There are over 440,000 entries.

I believe Jesus was an actual person.
I believe 500 people thought they sighted Jesus.
But had Jesus died? Can we trust the doctors of that time.
Was that really Jesus? There weren't photos in those times. How would people know if it were really Jesus?
I still don't believe Jesus was white.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
500+ people didn't have to lie for it to get into the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]
How do you explain the founding of the Church and the massive growth of Christianity within the first few decades after Jesus' death?

[ QUOTE ]
so you only follow your religion to get a reward?

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed my point. That was in response to those who say that christianity isn't the only religion with martyrs. Look at the persecution and deaths of the church founders. If they were making it up, they would have known their suffering was for nothing. Why would they have put themselves through that?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Look at the persecution and deaths of the church founders. If they were making it up, they would have known their suffering was for nothing. Why would they have put themselves through that? </font>

There have been many pursuasive people throughout history. In the last 40 years alone you have Manson, Jones, LaRouche, and many more. Their followers also were willing to die for them. And many did just that, or were persecuted.

Who knows why Christianity flourished? But the fact that it did, lends nothing to your claim. There are other religions both before and after Christianity, that have also persisted until this day. Many have huge followings.

The question can easily be turned around.. If Christianity were the one true religion and Jesus really did appear after death, why wouldn't EVERYONE believe it and be Christian! A guy walking around 3 days after he was dead, would be a pretty powerful sign to me. Who in their right mind would say, "That doesn't impress us... We're sticking with Judaism"?

[txag007]

Crucifixion was a common method of execution in Palestine. How familiar are you with the crucifixion process?

If Jesus was not dead from crucixion, nor from the puncturing of his side with a spear, then the wrapping of His dead body in spices according to the custom of Jewish burial would have killed him. How familiar are you with this process?

If you think that the multitude only thought they saw Jesus alive, who was it that they did see? Also, what about the times Jesus appeared to the apostles and church founders following His resurrection? Were they also mistaken? And if so, who was it that they did see? Or were they the ones behind it all? And if so, why die for something they would have known is false?

[Prodigy54321]

txag..

we are in a discussion that is largely about whether or not the bible is true..

yet you are assuming that things happened the way that the bible says they do...

wtf

[txag007]

No. Read the OP. This discussion is not about whether or not the Bible is true. This discussion is about whether or not the Bible could be false without the occurence of a widespread conspiracy. Plus, many of my sources have been non-biblical.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows why Christianity flourished?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this something you should try to answer before you decide that it's false?

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that it did, lends nothing to your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this without knowing why the growth of the early church occured?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who knows why Christianity flourished?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this something you should try to answer before you decide that it's false?

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that it did, lends nothing to your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this without knowing why the growth of the early church occured?

[/ QUOTE ]
tag, you've played this game before. You present a false dilemma and attempt to force people to give up or do a ridiculous amount of pointless research.

Religous beliefs are independent of the truth of the beliefs so all the success of the idea means is that it appealed to people. We already know that religous beliefs are very fit and some of yuou love to believe them.

Asking why is was a succesful idea has no more bearing on the divinity of jesus then asking why some pop group sells millions of records.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…End of rant. I'll be nice for a month now.

[/ QUOTE ]


Who will watch the time clock? If this happens, then we will have witnessed a miracle. David S., for sure, will very readily convert. Others, who are a bit stubborn and illogical, will need to be educated how this would surely be a miracle.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Read the OP. This discussion is not about whether or not the Bible is true. This discussion is about whether or not the Bible could be false without the occurence of a widespread conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easily. A few questions:

How widespread and routine were miracle claims in biblical times ? How skeptical were people ?

Answer: Not very much at all. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html) If you were to be intellectually honest, you would believe that Jesus was the son of God, Mani was the comforter promised by Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana was divine, etc.

Were the gospels written by eyewitnesses, independently, shortly after the events they portray ?

Answer: No. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm) They were written in Greek, by unknown authors, &gt;30 years after Jesus died. They have been appended, edited, and were copied from each other.

People are gullible and will believe anything. They have demonstrated their willingness to die for no good reason repeatedly.

I'll give you an example how ridiculous you sound. Resources: 10 people + boxcutters. That's it. Without divine guidance and blessing, there is no way 10 people armed with boxcutters can take down the World Trade Center. Therefore, Allah.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Read the OP. This discussion is not about whether or not the Bible is true. This discussion is about whether or not the Bible could be false without the occurence of a widespread conspiracy. Plus, many of my sources have been non-biblical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, but you are asking questions that assume that what is said in the bible actually happened...

like your question about the 500 people who saw Jesus....

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Quote:
Who knows why Christianity flourished?


Isn't this something you should try to answer before you decide that it's false?
</font>

It's not important for ME to answer, because I'm not predisposed towards putting significant weight into ancient writings by people who still thought the earth was flat, and didn't even know what caused things like tsunamis. This is what I meant by you putting the cart before the horse.

<font color="blue"> Quote:
But the fact that it did, lends nothing to your claim.


How can you say this without knowing why the growth of the early church occured? </font>

For the same reason why you insist on ignoring the question of why there are over ONE BILLION Muslims in the world who are just as sure their beliefs are correct as you are of yours!

Why do you suppose Islam has flourished for so long and continues to grow to this day? I'm not sure, but it might even be outpacing Christiantiy.

I'd like to hear you answer your own questions in this thread, only about Islam? Care to give it a shot?

[txag007]

I'm not asking anyone to assume the Bible is true. I'm asking for theories, if it is false, as to why that may be and how christianity grew in spite of that. So far nobody has come forward with such a theory.

[txag007]

I'm asking for theories. Simple as that.

[txag007]

How can you pronounce something false without evaluating the reasons for its growth?

How can you be so sure Islam isn't actually the true religion?

[txag007]

Islam is growing because people believe in it, but how did it start? By one founder who gained power and wealth because of it during his lifetime.

Christianity is growing because people believe in it, but how did the Church start? By numerous founders who lost their lives because of it.

Which one is more likely to be true?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Which one is more likely to be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

The single author one, obviously!

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Islam is growing because people believe in it, but how did it start? By one founder who gained power and wealth because of it during his lifetime.

Christianity is growing because people believe in it, but how did the Church start? By numerous founders who lost their lives because of it.

Which one is more likely to be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Islam was founded by one man and grew because people believed in it, and Christianity was founded by one man and grew because people believed in it. (correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't claim to be all that knowledgable about Christianity. But it's my understanding that Christianity branched off from Judaism after Christ. They even use the same bibles except for the NT).

So the big difference you seem to be clinging to is that some of the early church founders died because of their beliefs. Is there anything else? Do you have anything more? Do you know for a fact that none of the early Muslims died because of what they believed? Some of them certainly seem willing to die for their beliefs now, don't they?

Even if ZERO Mulsims died because of their beliefs (and I doubt that and I'll try to look into early Islam when I more time), it STILL doesn't place significant weight on Christianity being the one and only correct religion!

The problem here, is that you're unwilling to step outside of your beliefs for even one second and take a look around from ANY other different perspective. So it's hard to keep up a logical dialog with you, because you're arguments are all based on presuppositions which you're not willing to let go of long enough to look at things objectively.

[txag007]

Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright in a Christianity Today interview, January 18, 1963:

"In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between A.D. 50 and 75)...Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teachings of Christ and his immediate followers between cir.25 and cir.80 A.D."

[txag007]

The founders of the church were in the immediate position to know if they were dying for a false belief.

Early Muslims were not in the position to know if they were dying for a false belief because their belief was directly reliant on the truth of Mohammed's visions.

[txag007]

Why?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking for theories, if it is false, as to why that may be and how christianity grew in spite of that. So far nobody has come forward with such a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

alright...

Jesus lived..at some point he and others believed that he was the son of god since he aparently fulfilled preophecies and such...he had mroe and more followers...he got crucified..later on, stories of his life and death were told and eventually written down even hunreds of years later..the religion grew...

sweet theory, eh?...that's my best guess since we have close to no knowledge of what actually happened.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The founders of the church were in the immediate position to know if they were dying for a false belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

how so?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking for theories. Simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not. You're suggesting that there's some problem that requires in depth historical knowledge to resolve.

There simply isn't any such problem.

Its just a tactic that you use again and again to try to obsure the nature of your unreasonable beliefs (or as you like the weight of DS's words: moronic beliefs).

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The founders of the church were in the immediate position to know if they were dying for a false belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

how so?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so, and...

Do you mean to imply that it was ONLY the 500 people who saw Jesus appear that believed in Him? No one else at the time did? If anyone who didn't actually SEE Jesus appear yet believed He did even if it never happened... Then they would not know if they were dying over a false cause, now would they? Much the same spot you just put the first Muslims in, isn't it?

Can't you see the problems that presupposing one thing, in order to get to another creates?

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright in a Christianity Today interview, January 18, 1963:

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't quote biblical archaeologists' opinions when you are trying to convince us of the bible's veracity. Googling him, he is delusional enough to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright) "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details."

I will only accept the opinions of historians - historians who know about the era and investigate more than the bible - if you are trying to convince me of something that supposedly historically happened. If you accept favorable theological opinions of the bible, you can only compare them to favorable theological opinions of other holy books. If you want to convince me of actual events in history, cite an actual objective historian.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Googling him, he is delusional enough to say "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details."


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL nice find

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Googling him, he is delusional enough to say "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details."


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL nice find

[/ QUOTE ]
By Tag's false op either the guy is telling the tuth or part of some huge conspiracy.

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking anyone to assume the Bible is true. I'm asking for theories, if it is false, as to why that may be and how christianity grew in spite of that. So far nobody has come forward with such a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many converts to Christianity have missionaries made in Africa and Latin America, in the last century alone? How is this so different than the growth of the early church? You underestimate the power of an attractive message delivered to persecuted/suffering/unsophisticated people.

I have no doubt that the early church founders really believed Jesus was god. They were obviously able to convince many others of this, just as today's missionaries are able to convince people.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is what we know:

1. There are over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Here are some of them:

Genesis 22:18 says the Messiah would be the seed of Abraham.

Genesis 21:12 says the Messiah would be born through the lineage of Isaac.

Numbers 24:17 says He would come from the lineage of Jacob.

Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2 say He would come from the tribe of Judah.

Micah 5:2 also says He would come from Bethlehem, which was fulfilled when Jesus was born there.

Isaiah 11:1 says He would come from the lineage of Jesse.

Jeremiah 23:5 says He would come from the lineage of David.



[/ QUOTE ]

Many do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. The Jews and Muslims consider Jesus just a prophet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he is. Read the bible.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the single author at least has consistency, whereas the multiple authors one is demonstrably riddled with contradictions. OTOH, I find both the bible and the koran really barbaric books/philosophies.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the single author at least has consistency, whereas the multiple authors one is demonstrably riddled with contradictions. OTOH, I find both the bible and the koran really barbaric books/philosophies.

[/ QUOTE ]


why do you find them 'barbaric'? what do you find un-barbaric (and why)?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you find them 'barbaric'? what do you find un-barbaric (and why)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that exemplifies anger, murder, genocide, change of mind as related to such subjects, I find barbaric.

Bunny's idea of christianity, being one of love and tolerance, without such atrocities as eternal damnation, I find un-barbaric even they do contradict the bible.

[txag007]

How can you form an opinion of something when you don't even have all of the facts straight?

[Phil153]

txag,

One of your problems is that you seem to think the account of Jesus and Christianity you've seen in the movies represents reality. Which is amusing to say the least.

Allow me to offer an alternative explanation that doesn't involve a massive conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen.

Firstly, let's pretend we agree on a few things.

- Jesus was at the very least a wise man and popular public speaker, and at least some of his sermons took place. He was one of the few willing to do that under Roman rule and oppression at the time.
- There was no television or print press at the time of his existence.
- The first Christians were members of that highly oppressed group, and most news was spread by word of mouth.
- The bible was transcribed from oral stories by mostly well meaning people.

I think we can probably agree on these points.

I'm going to present this possible explanation as a story, in order not to put too much strain on your reason molecule. If you find anything I say here impossible or extremely unlikely, please tell me what.

-------------The Life and Time of Jesus Christ---------

A man called Jesus was born in 0 AD, in a small town in the middle east. He had fairly normal parents and upbringing. The times were troubled, as the Romans demanded heavy taxes from the local Jewish leaders, oppressed their culture and political life, and treated some citizens poorly. As Jesus grew up, he became interested in the politics of the region, and was unhappy with the Roman oppression of Jewish people, and his homeland. In his 20s he spent time with the local priests and town councils, learning their ways and talking often about the Romans and what could be done.

In his early 30s, being well regarded in the local community, he headed off with some followers to the capital, to spread resistance to the Roman rule among the people. He talked to everyone he could find, about the coming kingdom of the God of the Old bible, and how time would get better, and the Jewish people would be free again, as promised. These were uneducated and superstitious times, and people were given hope by his words. In the process he gained something of a following.

As time progressed, word spread of a leader of the Jewish people, talking of resistance to Roman rule and return to the old ways. Mythical stories began to spring up. A lady named Judy told a friend about how her daughter with the bad eye could see better after hearing him speak. God must have blessed them. The friend told another person, who told another, who told another, and Judy's daughter became blind, and Jesus became her healer. With a touch. People began to rumor that he was the messiah long prophecised. Word spread ahead of him, and crowds were filled with hope and excitement, much as they do today at Benny Hinn gatherings. People swore that the sickness they had was gone the next day, the arthritis they had for years was suddenly gone. People with fevers got better, and the the healing was attributed to Jesus and the coming revolution. Those who didn't were soon forgotten, lost in the fever of the times. With each telling, the stories became more and more miraculous. Jesus was the messiah prophecized in the old holy books. He was born of a virgin. Then one day a man who trying to impress his friend after seeing a sermon, said he had seen Jesus turn water into wine, and the friend told the story in first person to another. And the story spread, embellished each time as it does with retelling. When a person heard it from two sources, they took it as confirmed. A legend had built up.

Eventually word got out to the Roman rulers, who liked to keep an eye on possible resistance and quash it. His speeches to to the local population had to stop. Jesus was brought before them, put up into a mock trial, and sentenced to crucificion, the common punishment for political enemies of the time. His supporters and followers were devastated....

------The story now splits into three possible endings. Possibility #1 is below----

....He died on the cross, and was put into a tomb. People came to visit. Three days later, his body was gone, taken out by his supporters for a traditional Jewish burial. Those who came to the tomb were suprised to find him gone.

Then, an old lady who wasn't very aware any more mentioned that Jesus had talked to her, yesterday! Her story was proclaimed to the crowd, and told at gatherings. Then another, caught up in the fever, remembered that she had seen someone who looked like Jesus, in the distance. She told her family, and they told people that their Katie had seen the messiah arisen! Before long, there were many witnesses, and the legend of this story spread. None of it was amazing, or unbelievable, not to those who had heard the story of his healings and miracles before. The rumor spread that a savior had come, who performed miracles. He had died for the Jewish people, and then transcended death. Prophecy had been fulfilled. The days of old had returned, while a new covenant was born. It emboldened the oppressed against their oppressors. It gave them courage in the face of their fear. This was theirs, and no one could take it away from them.

Years later, stories were written down about this time, firstly by one authors, and then by others who copied and added to the original story, mixing bits of memory and legend, and filling in the gaps. The New Testament was born.

--------Possibility #2------------

....Jesus was brought before them, put up into a mock trial, and sentenced to crucifiction, the common punishment for political enemies of the time. His supporters and followers were devastated....

....He died on the cross, was buried in a shallow grave, and was forgotten. People got on with their lives, but the story of Jesus, the man who had told of a new era, was sometimes told.

Years later, in a time of turmoil with their Roman oppressors, a prominent Jewish leader, and his council, decided that something was needed to bind the people together. The oral story of Jesus had credibility, and they wove together bits of the story, filling in the blanks, and describing the fulfillment of prophecy. It was added to the religious and history books of the time, as part of the history of the Jewish people. The story was later rewritten and embellished by other authors, and the New Testament was born.

----------Possibility #3-----------------

....He died on the cross, but the story of his life persisted. Some of Jesus's followers, one a prominent historian, decided that this story should be told, and it was written down in several of the prominent books of the time, without an author's name for fear of persecution by the Romans. The story was then used again and again, and added to by other authors. It was taught to children. As the decades and centuries passed, it became part of the holy book of the Jewish people, and more and more bits were added to fit the needs of the early church, and to bring the story more in line with the prophecies of Old. Eventually, through the haze of memory long forgotten, it became the Christian religion. The New Testament had been born.

[txag007]

Instead of attacking his character, why not focus on the evidence mentioned in his quote? A fragment of the gospel of Mark was found in Qumran that scholars have dated to somewhere around the middle of the first century.

In addition, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died in 130 A.D., mentioned in his writings that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

[txag007]

What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the early church founders really believed Jesus was god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe he really appeared to them alive or were they lying about that?

[txag007]

Later on? An existing fragment of the gospel of Mark has been dated to the middle of the first century. How does that fit in your theory?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?

[/ QUOTE ]

what about them? what's the point you are trying to make?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
tag, you've played this game before. You present a false dilemma and attempt to force people to give up or do a ridiculous amount of pointless research.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the research pointless? Surely you haven't formed an opinion without evaluating the existing evidence?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Later on? An existing fragment of the gospel of Mark has been dated to the middle of the first century. How does that fit in your theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? I don't understand your question?

it fits perfectly with my theory...

how does my theory not allow fot that?

[txag007]

Is that enough time for legends to develop of the magnitude that you are suggesting?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that enough time for legends to develop of the magnitude that you are suggesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely, 2+ decades is more than enough time

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is what we know:

1. There are over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Here are some of them:

Genesis 22:18 says the Messiah would be the seed of Abraham.

Genesis 21:12 says the Messiah would be born through the lineage of Isaac.

Numbers 24:17 says He would come from the lineage of Jacob.

Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2 say He would come from the tribe of Judah.

Micah 5:2 also says He would come from Bethlehem, which was fulfilled when Jesus was born there.

Isaiah 11:1 says He would come from the lineage of Jesse.

Jeremiah 23:5 says He would come from the lineage of David.



[/ QUOTE ]

Many do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. The Jews and Muslims consider Jesus just a prophet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he is. Read the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

what an arrogant, thickheaded statement

[vhawk01]

I'm (nearly) positive he was being sarcastic.

[metsandfinsfan]

Phil153:

Your post 10 posts up is one of the best posts ever in this philosolphy forum imo. All of those 3 are all possibilities

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tag, you've played this game before. You present a false dilemma and attempt to force people to give up or do a ridiculous amount of pointless research.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the research pointless? Surely you haven't formed an opinion without evaluating the existing evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

it is pointless because it is in an attempt to find a solution to your false dilemma..such as

[ QUOTE ]
What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?


[/ QUOTE ]

these and

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that the multitude only thought they saw Jesus alive, who was it that they did see? Also, what about the times Jesus appeared to the apostles and church founders following His resurrection? Were they also mistaken? And if so, who was it that they did see? Or were they the ones behind it all? And if so, why die for something they would have known is false?

[/ QUOTE ]

these, etc.

if we do not come up with solutions to these, you seem to think that yours is the winner.

if I have a book that says that some people saw Zues...and that is the only account of it that we have..are we to assume that it actually happened the way that this book said that it did, or that it even happened at all?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tag, you've played this game before. You present a false dilemma and attempt to force people to give up or do a ridiculous amount of pointless research.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the research pointless? Surely you haven't formed an opinion without evaluating the existing evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
because the research isn't into evidence that could ever make any difference. It could only be of historical interest but could never provide a reason to believe in god.

Its irrelevent as I think you know.

chez

[arahant]

Yeah. It's my new standard for these types of threads. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Still, it's kind of funny that one man's sarcasm is another's sincerity. Makes me wonder if maybe txag actually just shares my sense of humor, but is quite a bit more dedicated about it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking anyone to assume the Bible is true. I'm asking for theories, if it is false, as to why that may be and how christianity grew in spite of that. So far nobody has come forward with such a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil's post seems to provide a good example of how christianity could grow, even if the stories presented within it were false.

It doesnt seem controversial that politics and religion were very closely related "back then". Anyone trying to start a political movement would have good incentive to claim spiritual authority for their cause.

Ultimately, the problem atheists have is that when you say something like "500 of the early followers of jesus reported seeing him alive days after his death". They would counter that you are only entitled to claim that several decades after his death, 1 guy wrote down that 500 of the early followers of jesus reported seeing him alive days after his death.

The second formulation they will accept, but it's pretty obviously much weaker evidence with many alternative explanations.

[Bataglin]

[ QUOTE ]
What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."



[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is covered in "Phils letter to txag", 2:1.

In the year 4000 they'll all be Philians.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that the early church founders really believed Jesus was god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe he really appeared to them alive or were they lying about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they were lying about that, but they still believed he was god.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of attacking his character, why not focus on the evidence mentioned in his quote?

[/ QUOTE ]
The quote you gave started out with the words "In My Opinion," for crying out loud.
[ QUOTE ]
A fragment of the gospel of Mark was found in Qumran that scholars have dated to somewhere around the middle of the first century.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, exactly. The gospel of Mark was the first one written, roughly around 65 C.E. - the middle of the first century and about 30 years after Jesus supposedly died.
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died in 130 A.D., mentioned in his writings that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

[/ QUOTE ]
All fine and good if you wish to convince me of Papias' theological position. Historians who try and put together the best account of what actually happened have this to say (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html):

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.

The author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian. Eduard Schweizer writes (The Good News according to Matthew, p. 16):

The Jewish background is plain. Jewish customs are familiar to everyone (see the discussion of 15:5), the debate about the law is a central question (see the discussion of 5:17-20), and the Sabbath is still observed (see the discussion of 24:20). The dispute with the Pharisees serves primarily as a warning to the community (see the introduction to chapters 24-25); but a reference to leading representatives of the Synagogue is not far below the surface. Above all, the method of learned interpretation of the Law, which "looses" and "binds," was still central for Matthew and his community (see the discussion of 16:19; 18:18). Preservation of sayings, such as 23:2-3, which support the continued authority of Pharisaic teaching, and above all the special emphasis placed on the requirement not to offend those who still think in legalistic terms (see the discussion of 17:24-27), shows that dialogue with the Jewish Synagogue had not broken off. On the other hand, a saying like 27:25 shows that the Christian community had conclusively split with the Synagogues, even though hope for the conversion of Jews was not yet totally dead.

Schweizer joins most scholars in favor of a Syrian provenance for the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 15-16):

As the place of origin, Syria is still the most likely possibility. On the one hand, an association with Palestinian Judaism and its interpretation of the Law is clearly discernable; on the other hand, a full recognition of the gentile world and the admission of pagans into the post-Easter community are accepted facts. The destruction of Jerusalem plays some role; but it was not experienced firsthand, and the exodus of Christians from Jerusalem is perceptible only in the tradition borrowed from Mark, not in Matthew himself. . . But Syria is suggested by the major role assigned to Peter, esepcially his authoritative interpretation of Jesus' commands as referring to new situations (see the discussion of 16:9); for according to Acts 12:17 Peter had left Jerusalem. He was certainly in Syrian Antioch, as we know from Galatians 2:1 ff.

Larry Swain has summarized the evidence by which we locate Matthew in Antioch (e-mail correspondence):


Patristic testimony re: Jerusalem, while deemed incorrect has a negative value of demonstrating that noone thought Matthew came from anywhere else except the East.
It is doubtful that it would have been accepted so early and so widely unless one of the larger, more important churches sponsored it. Since Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Jerusalem all have very important reasons against them, that leaves Antioch.
Peter's status in Matthew accords with his standing in Antioch, said to be the first bishop there. Not a strong argument on its own, but it fits the pattern.
Antioch had both a large Jewish population as well as being the site of the earliest Gentile missions, Matthew more than the other gospels reflects this duality.
Only in Antioch did the official stater equal 2 didrachmae, Matt 17.24-7.
The two texts which seem to refer to Matthean tradition (in the one case to the text of Matthew in the other case possibly to the text, but more likely to M material) are the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and the Didache whose provenance is also Syria or northern Palestine thus placing Matthew fairly firmly in those areas at the end of the first century.
We know that in the third century there was a school in Antioch which claimed to go back to ancient times which had several OT textual traditions available, if the tradition is true, then this accords with both the Matthean citations of the OT as well as the "Matthean School" tradition; particularly since members of this Antioch school are said to have known Hebrew and Greek, which again points out a strong parallel with the author of Matthew.
There are some strong similarities between the Lucianic text of the Hebrew Bible and Matthew's citations of OT texts in some instances. Lucian lived and worked in Antioch and is believed to have worked with an Ur-Lucianic text, i. e. one of the above mentioned OT traditions to which author Matthew had access.
One of the concerns within the Matthean text is a conservative approach to the Torah which again accords well with Antioch as well as Palestine
The text also seems to be concerned to react against some of the material coming out of Yavneh, which again places it in an area which Yavneh had some influence, thus northern Palestine and Syria, and Antioch.
The community described in Matthew has usually been understood as a wealthy one, which rules out Palestine after the war of 70.

To set the terminus ad quem, Ignatius of Antioch and other early writers show dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Dependence on Mark sets a terminus a quo for the dating of Matthew, which should be assumed to have been written at least a decade after the gospel upon which it relies. Several indications in the text also confirm that Matthew was written c. 80 CE or later.

J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11):

The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110. But how long before?

Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See, for example, 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had now been turned out.

Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 7-8):

It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70), and the widespread acquaintance with it which is exhibited in all the Christian literature of the second century makes it difficult to place its composition any later than the opening decade of that century. If the Sermon on the Mount can be regarded in any sense as 'the Christian answer to Jamnia. . . a kind of Christian mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there' (Davies, Setting, p. 315), this would indicate a date a few years before or after the turn of the century.

Concerning the knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem that the author evinces, Schweizer writes concerning Matthew 22:7 (op. cit., p. 418):

The wrath of the host is mentioned by both evangelists, but it is impossible to conceive of the king coming with his army not only to slay those who had been invited but to burn down their city (not "cities"), and doing all this while the feast stands ready for the newly invited. The parable deals with ordinary citizens, who buy fields and use oxen, not with men who rule entire cities. After his punishment, furthermore, the verdict of the king in verse 8 is pointless. Verses 6-7 are thus clearly an interpolation in the narrative, which earlier passed directly from verse 5 to the wrath of the king (beginning of vs. 7), and then to verse 8. Here the events of A.D. 70 - the taking and burning of Jerusalem by Roman armies - have colored the language of the parable.

If you wish to educate yourself about the bible, stop googling to non-scholarly apologetic b.s. Go get a book on the history of the New Testament by a historian - not a theologian. Metzger. Ehrman. Somebody.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm (nearly) positive he was being sarcastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, duh. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

Txag- can you explain how the early Aztec religions developed? How about Zeus? most of the 100s of religions that had masses of followers for 100s of years?

Txag... this may be your worst argument you've ever started on this forum.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the first century dating of the fragments of the gospels that are still in existence today?

[/ QUOTE ]
What about them? My stories cover that completely.

[ QUOTE ]
What about Papias writing that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew?

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain the significance of this as it relates to my point.

[ QUOTE ]
What about this quote from Flavius Josephus who was born in 37 A.D.: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandoned his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

[/ QUOTE ]
Firstly, you're quoting a very shaky source. Historians and theologists agree that this passage has almost certainly been altered from the original. Secondly, if he did write this, he reported this 30 years after death of Jesus. 30 years, from something he had never seen with his own eyes.

Thirdly, even if this passage is completely accurate, I fail to see how this isn't covered.

[ QUOTE ]
And according to the Bible, it was not the Romans who had a problem with Jesus, but primarily the religious Jews of the time. Why would they create/promote false stories that they initiated the killing of their own Messiah?

[/ QUOTE ]
As Christianity split off from the Jewish religion of the time, and fought a power struggle against it, wouldn't it make perfect sense to pass blame onto the Jews? It would be a small alteration decades later, in a time without the press or widespread writing.

But that's irrelevant anyway. My stories were not designed to present a complete picture of the possibilities. They were to help you see that no conspiracy is needed for a religion like Christianity to get off the ground. And certainly not a "the most massive conspiracy and fudging of data, the likes of which the world has never seen". The Sai Baba proves that anyway.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sai Baba proves that anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I always wondered about that one... It is more recent than JC, in any case... more witnesses too... and there are others of those dudes too! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
My stories were not designed to present a complete picture of the possibilities. They were to help you see that no conspiracy is needed for a religion like Christianity to get off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring too many details for that point to be made.

[Phil153]

BS. It's a simple matter to write these details into a coherent story that has a likelihood of having happened.. The important thing is how the legend of Jesus could have developed. How it was later written down is largely irrelevant.

Modern myths and fables, as well as ancient ones (including Islam with a billion followers) are the proof of how easily these things can happen.

[arahant]

It was a good story. I've never bothered to work out as much as you did (presumably extemporaneously), so i thoroughly enjoyed it. I assume you didn't think that txag would actually accept it, so i therefore assume it was for my benefit instead...so ty!

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My stories were not designed to present a complete picture of the possibilities. They were to help you see that no conspiracy is needed for a religion like Christianity to get off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring too many details for that point to be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

are you asking him to write something as comprehensive as the bible?

how about pointing out some specific points as well as why they are impossible or at least more improbable than your theory.