kk.. to be fair, i am stealing this from a friend. i take no credit for this... just thought i should post this as a RE: to the consertives wanting to rewrite the bible thread.... have fun with the Great wall of text



The title is to be fair, purposefully inflammatory. But I have heard this claim in one form or another throughout my life, and I am hearing it with increasing frequency in relation to the current push for social medicine. And although I disagree with those who promote Jesus as a figure for socialism, I am jealous of their talent for brevity. For in one idea they are able to demonstrate a profound ignorance of both government and religion. Unfortunately, the very real differences between the ideals of Jesus and those of the socialist have not helped to slow the spread of this popular but misguided way of thinking. Worse still I believe there is a trend within the church where believers are not able to articulate a refutation of the idea, and often are even persuaded by it. So I feel it necessary to put down on paper what I believe to the many chasms that exist between Christianity and socialism.

The argument typically goes like this: Jesus said to take care of the poor. Socialists say to take care of the poor. Jesus was therefore a socialist (or would at least support social programs). The massive leap in logic that has just taken place should be obvious. The line of thinking is similar to saying: A police officer works for money. A criminal works for money. A police officer and a criminal are the same thing. Although the officer and criminal both work for money, their motives and methods are so different that none of us have a problem distinguishing one as different from the other. Such is the case with Christianity and socialism. Although one of the expressed tenants of Christianity and socialism is to take care of the needy, the differences in motive and method are so great that the two become wholly different and incompatible things.

Before getting into these many differences it is important to set up some context, especially for anyone reading who is not familiar with early Christianity. Shortly after Jesus was executed the eleven remain apostles started preaching of the resurrection. The Bible records a brief period of time where Jesus did this himself after coming back to life, but I will do my best to stick with facts that non believers agree on or can easily verify. The Apostles spread Christianity through modern Israel and eventually with the addition of Paul Greece, South Eastern Europe, and eventually Italy. The best and most complete record of how the church was set up by the Apostles (presumably under instruction of Jesus while on Earth and then via the Holy Spirit if you are a believer) is the New Testament of the Bible. This is the text given the most authority when it comes to the functioning of the first Christian churches, and is generally supported by secular references from the period (again, leaving out the mentions of miracles and the resurrection).

The churches created by the Apostles were really a series of affiliated house churches; affiliated by their relationships and respect for the twelve Apostles. These churches ranged greatly in size, location, and some even in certain beliefs (an occurrence recorded frequently throughout the New Testament). However, their common origins and frequent communication with the Apostles created many general similarities with one another.

One of these similarities is, in my opinion, one of the greatest reasons the claim that Christianity supports socialism has been able to survive. The early Christian churches obeyed the various commandments of Jesus as they related to helping the poor through extremely generous giving administered by the local church leadership. The New Testament makes many references of the first Christians offering up their wealth whenever any had need. Financial support for fellow church members was an integral to part to how the first churches, presumably those closest to what Jesus would have wanted, functioned.

There are a couple popular misconceptions related to this giving. One is the idea that early Christians had no private property. This is simply not true. All property was private. It had to be given the church pool. And the withdrawing of funds from the church pool was not an automatic right, but a decision made by the church leadership. The Bible does make much mention of all property belonging to God. But it also makes mention of how property is entrusted to individuals and how they will be judged on stewardship of that property. These passages have been abused to mean that a Christian has no right to personal property. This was not the Jewish understanding of property rights or the Christian understanding. It cannot be stated enough that all gifting was voluntary. And in numerous passages both Jesus and the Apostles say that if you don’t give with the right attitude you should not give at all. Christian property rights were not and are not the same thing as socialist property rights were a man has no claim to material possessions, and the needy have claim on the possessions of others (This misconception is tied to the many differences which will be discussed later).

Some say early Christians lived on what they call communes. This is unsupported at best. Many of the early Christians were not open about their faith. Most of the first churches met in private homes and many of the participants were not necessarily boisterous about their religion. This would have jeopardized many things in their communities, most of which were not welcoming of Christians. To say that Christians ran or lived on anything that would be comparable to a commune is lacking in historical evidence, at least on any significant scale. And to think that there would be a large enough supply of Christians willing to do something as public as leave their normal lives to go live on these so called communes seems very unlikely. This perception may have started from New Testament reference to farm land being given to the church, and then that land being used for the congregation. But having a church run plot of land that was gifted by one of the members was not only common in Jewish culture (a significant if not majority of the first Christians were Jews) but doesn’t come anywhere close to living on a commune.

With at least a rudimentary background on the early church, the differences between Christians and Socialists become more obvious. The first difference I will discuss is one that non believers will have a hard time understanding or accepting. But the point of the article is to explain why Christians are not socialists, and this is what the Christian Bible teaches. The purpose of Christian giving which is done through a system administered by the church is to glorify God, and by doing so save lost souls. God did not create poverty, but he has allowed poverty and the miseries that come with it for many and complex reasons. One of these is so that he can use the Church to express his love to the lost, and that they might be drawn to him. Virtually every time the system of giving is mentioned in the New Testament, the writer reminds the church members that Gods love for the lost will be shown by their love for one another. Christians are not called to give to meet physical needs, but to meet spiritual needs. The physical needs are real, but they are of secondary importance to Jesus, the Apostles, and most Christians from the early days to now. The socialist system on the other hand is meant to meet only physical needs. It holds the sating of physical needs as the utmost in moral value and purpose. This is wholly contrary to Christian giving which is means to an end. For socialists the giving is the end. This may have originated in the fact that almost all of the great socialist thinkers, including Marx the original socialist, were very hostile towards religion and Christianity in particular. Not only was there no spiritual need for these thinkers to satisfy, but many of them explicitly meant to stamp out the perception of the spiritual by so satisfying physical needs that people would abandon superstitious beliefs they held to deal with their painful physical existence. So if a Christian were to give money to a socialist instead of his church, it is possible that the same poor person may be given the same help (It is doubtful from the many inherent failings of socialism, but I will try and keep the topic on religion). But in doing so not only would the Christian forfeit the opportunity to witness to the needy, which is of course the real reason for giving, but the Christian would steer the person to a community that is rooted in the ideology of fiercely anti Christian men.

Purpose is of course not the only difference. Many of the differences are rooted in more practical considerations. One of the biggest of these is who administers the funds held for the needy. In the system envisioned by Jesus the church leadership administers funds. For the socialist the funds are administered by a central government authority. An entire book could be written about the implications of the two systems, but I will try and highlight a few of the more important. Church leaders are much closer to those actually benefiting from the funds. This is useful both in allocating scarce resources as really needed, and preventing abuse. Abuse prevention is done both by the personal relationship the church leaders have with the individual and by the ability of the leaders to cut off recipients. The central government system is the exact opposite. The massive faceless pools of wealth make it easy for abuse to be perceived as victimless. And the political nature of those in charge of the massive fund means not only could they not successfully identify abusers, but there is a political disincentive to preventing abuse. This is especially the case in democratic socialist nations were the abusers have the ability to vote. These all contribute to the observable phenomenon that faith based organizations are significantly more efficient in the use of their resources for helping the poor than the federal government.

Very closely related to the administration is the size of the funds. The Christian communities in the Bible were rather small, maybe a few hundred people. This is nothing compared to the modern nation with hundreds of millions of citizens. The public funds in socialist government systems come from a vast faceless, and by perception victimless, population. Furthermore, it takes a very small amount of money from each individual in the nation in order to pool a large amount of wealth. This disincentives fighting abuse, because the cost of any one individual resisting is greater than the cost of the abuse itself. At the same time it makes it significantly easier to justify abuse, being that no one person is significantly hurt by it. However, this fundamental and obvious flaw in large scale resource pooling has throughout history given rise to so many small instances of abuse that collectively they threaten the system’s sustainability, if they don’t outright destroy it. But even when their collective effect is recognized the abuses are so well hidden, their origins so complexly masked by the massive size of the fund that eliminating them is impossible short of complete disillusionment of the fund. Large scale resource pools are then left with the choice of being destroyed because of their fundamental predisposition to abuse, or being dissolved in order to protect those citizens that are being abused. This makes large scale pooling extremely short term by nature, and unsustainable in any successful form. I suspect this is one of the many reasons (Practical and divine) that the system set in place by the Bible is meant for very small, functionally independent communities. So just as with the purpose, what may appear to be similar systems turn out to be in reality fundamentally opposed to one another.

The issue of system scope could be a subset of size. Certainly pooling resources for more purposes would require more resources and the pool size would increase, brining all of the problems associated with that. And this may be why the number of things “covered” so to speak by the church system is significantly less than those in socialist systems. Generally speaking, early Christians met each other’s basic physical needs such as food and shelter. Our own social programs in the United States cover food, many forms of shelter, education, job placement, transportation, healthcare, retirement, and even forms of entertainment such as public television and radio. And even where the systems do overlap such as food and shelter, the church system provides these on a temporary, emergency basis. Socialist systems provide these purposefully perpetually. It is in the interest of the system administrators, especially in democratic societies, to allow citizens to draw from the pool in perpetuity. But scope could also mean who is allowed to draw from the pool. Now there certainly were many exceptions to this rule because the early churches just like the church today do all they can to help everyone in the community. But the instances in the New Testament where Christians were making sure no one was in need that so often draw accusations of socialism were referring to how Christians took care of fellow Christians. This is tied to the purpose of the system which is to draw people to the Christian community evidenced by the many proclamations that others would know Jesus’ love for them by their love for each other. Again, this is not to say that early Christians did not give and give generously to people outside the church. But the passages about giving that get compared to socialism are all in the context of the church giving system that supports other Christians. God does not harbor the idealistic and naive notion that all physical needs can be met and all suffering can be relieved. Again he has not created it, but he is the one who allows such suffering. What he has done is command his followers to act as an example of how he provides for all spiritual needs through the church members taking care of each other’s physical needs.

Although the differences listed are significant (especially the purpose although I understand why that is often not accepted by non Christians) they leave out the biggest, most fundamental, and most important difference of all. The Christian church system is, was, and always has been one hundred percent voluntary. Membership in the church was voluntary. Giving as a member of the church was voluntary. Nothing was ever coerced or forced out of anyone. The socialist government system by nature cannot be voluntary, and is always coercive. The government enforces all its laws with the implied threat of force. If you do not obey, armed men in the form of police will come and punish you. Most of the time this is both appropriate and necessary. But when this implied threat is used to enforce something as subjective and personal as generosity it changes the situation completely. The implications of forced giving on abuse can never be overstated. Even if you could identify the abuse and even if you were motivated to resist it one is hopelessly dependent on the administrator of the fund. If the administrator wants to enforce the system, which they always do in one form or another, the individual is hopelessly tied to the theft. The difference between giving voluntarily and giving under the threat of physical punishment is so complete any other similarities in the systems are meaningless. It destroys freedom, choice, personal responsibility, and the spirit of generosity. The internal journey that leads one to voluntarily giving never takes place when giving is mandatory. Christians are often accused of forcing their morality on others. But Christians with only a few exceptions in thousand years of history have never forced anyone into anything. Socialists in only two hundred years of history have forced (literally) billions into their flawed and fundamentally enslaving system at the barrel of a gun. To say that Christianity and socialism are the same is to say that freedom and tyranny are the same.

Why then has the notion that Jesus would endorse socialism become so popular with non believers if it is so easily rejected? It is possible that many Christians are just simply not well enough versed in political philosophy. This could be for many reasons, some legitimate. The urgings of Jesus to focus on the next world over this one being one of those legitimate reasons. It is also possible that non believers honestly misunderstand Christianity. Many of the things mentioned are not common knowledge outside the Christian community, and a non believer probably doesn’t spend much time pondering the intricacies of a religion they don’t believe in.

It is also possible that the argument for Jesus endorsing socialism is rooted in personality more than policy. What is meant by this is that even if you understand the differences between church giving and government giving, a serious question remains. Would Jesus have tolerated socialism? And to be honest, the answer I come up with is possibly, maybe even probably. And it seems likely that non believers more familiar with Jesus’ general personality than his extremely complex teachings would come to the same conclusion. So then the argument goes something like this. You know that Jesus would have tolerated socialists/ism. Therefore Jesus endorses socialism. This is wholly incorrect and wholly unlike Jesus. There is an unstated conclusion from this line of thinking that socialism is good. But Jesus may have tolerated socialism precisely because it is not good. Jesus was tolerant of many evils at his own expense, the greatest being his own murder. If Jesus was willing to die in order to fulfill God’s law, I would think that he would be willing to sacrifice material things in order to remain submissive. Although Jesus was most certainly complex and there are accounts in the New Testament of him showing righteous fury at various things, including theft/money changing in the temple. What he would have done we today can only guess. But to say that Jesus’ perfect submissiveness is a tacit endorsement of evil is wholly offensive to Christians and a complete misunderstanding of Jesus.

Unfortunately for non believers Christians are not perfect like Jesus. And if someone commanded a Christian to sit quite while he was being robbed because Jesus would have he would soon find a very un-Jesus-like Christian to deal with. This is because the implied admission by the thief that I know what I am doing is evil but I am going to do it anyway rightfully inflames the Christians sense of right and wrong. And being imperfect a Christian is likely to act on their anger. If the non believer is then going to use Jesus’ submissive behavior as an argument for socialism he must return to the incorrect line of thinking where submission means endorsement.

Again, this is not how Jesus’ submissiveness works. And hopefully this discussion has revealed that in substance the things that Jesus advocated for are different and often fundamentally opposed to the things advocated by socialists.

Now in the context of our day and time, Jesus would not endorse social/government medicine. Jesus endorsed a system of giving that was administered by the church and which is fundamentally different from the government social program that universal health care requires. A simple answer to a very complex issue. Hopefully any believers reading this will be able to encompass some of my ideas and use them to elaborate on that answer. And for non believers, I hope that you can at least understand that Christians are not, are not required to be, and in most ways are opposed to socialists and social programs. You may obviously disagree, but I challenge you to see a difference in disagreeing with underlying assumptions about the world that make you disagree with Christianity in general, and disagreeing with the conclusion that the underlying Christian assumptions do not support socialism. I think many of the disagreements on the topic are actually people angry with the underlying assumptions and beliefs of Christianity more than people struggling with why Christians are opposed to social programs.

Yes he was a socialist. When you're the son of God, I suppose it works better than when you're the Father of the Hammer and Sickle

When did socialism become such a dirty word anyway?

Da Boss wrote:When did socialism become such a dirty word anyway?

4 Letters "USSR"

Edit: Nevermind.

wow... 4 responses in a few mins after posting.... way to READ the thing.

Youngblood.... wow... it is VERY clear you dident read it

I read half of it and decided I wanted to post.

Da Boss wrote:I read half of it and decided I wanted to post.

Q: how long dose it take a kid with A.D.D. to change a light bulb???

A: lets go ride bikes

Hey, at least I'm being honest. Guy that wrote that was too verbose.

Envy89 wrote:wow... 4 responses in a few mins after posting.... way to READ the thing.

Youngblood.... wow... it is VERY clear you dident read it

Caught me. I'll go read the whole thing and then reply with something resembling formulative thought.

Da Boss wrote:Hey, at least I'm being honest. Guy that wrote that was too verbose.

he has a habbit of just sitting down and writing term papers every once and a while...

If someone handed me that in, I'd ask them to reformulate it in more concise language.

The ADD joke had me chuckling, sorry for not contributing but wall of text crits and all that Im afraid.

Having braced myself and read the whole thing, I can now happily say "What a pile of ignorant tosh."
Whoever wrote that is not presenting an honest picture of socialism at all. It's terrible.
Really, really terrible. The stench of bias is so overwhelming as to render the argument meaningless.
I mean, I can argue against pretty much anything too, if I make up my own definition of it.

Da Boss wrote:Having braced myself and read the whole thing, I can now happily say "What a pile of ignorant tosh."
Whoever wrote that is not presenting an honest picture of socialism at all. It's terrible.
Really, really terrible. The stench of bias is so overwhelming as to render the argument meaningless.
I mean, I can argue against pretty much anything too, if I make up my own definition of it.

*removed by Envy to help keep this open and pervent flamwar*

Uh, you want to answer what I actually said, instead of the argument you wish I was making?
I never said socialism was perfect.
Personally, I favour a mixed economy, where some aspects are free market and others are state controlled.

Wikipedia says:

"Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other.

A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

There are some interesting ideas expressed here. I agree that socialism as a specific political system looks very different from what Jesus and the early church espoused. However, the early church had some very communistic (as in, sense of strong community) practices. At the end of Acts 4, the church is described as being of one heart and mind "and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common" (vs 32). Although the passage does go on to say that the proceeds from possession sales were given to the church leaders. Providing for a person's physical needs was an expectation (Matthew 6:1-4), this was the early church following that expectation. This was probably out of necessity also, considering that they weren't looked on to kindly by the government at the time.

I mean, seriously. If you're going to argue against something, you could AT LEAST look up what it IS first.
Cheers Killkrazy.

Modquisition on:

Politeness people or this thread will be closed quickly.

Was someone being impolite?

But there is a fundamental difference in a church taking in donations and deciding on who NEEDS the help... I.E. the guy who just lost his job, and needs help while he is out of work and looking for a new job.

and a governmental system that takes your money, and gives it out to those who claim they need help... yes, the guy you just lost his job and is looking for a new one will still get some help... but so will the guy who has been "unemployed" for 5 years.

You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times.

Da Boss wrote:Was someone being impolite?

Yes half of the posters on this thread. Don't push it. This could be an especially interesting topic. If you are going to post argue the merits without flippant comments or sarcasm.

Minorities can be discriminated against more easily if all social programs are left in the hands of religious groups. And of course, stalwart atheists would be denied help.

But that's not actually the point I was making either. I was making the point that what the guy writing the argument calls socialism is not what socialism is for a lot of people, it's a distorted strawman version.

As for people abusing the system- well, you know, no one has EVER abused the free market. No sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No sarcasm!?
What am I gonna do now!

"You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, and movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times."

The plural of anecdote is not data. (A tangent to our debate, but worth pointing out)

Envy89 wrote:But there is a fundamental difference in a church taking in donations and deciding on who NEEDS the help... I.E. the guy who just lost his job, and needs help while he is out of work and looking for a new job.

and a governmental system that takes your money, and gives it out to those who claim they need help... yes, the guy you just lost his job and is looking for a new one will still get some help... but so will the guy who has been "unemployed" for 5 years.

You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times.

Those people are in churches too. I've seen it. They typically go there after the government refuses.

Oh and by the way: I suppose I'm happy enough to admit that Jesus was not a socialist in the modern sense. That's cool. I still think he'd probably be in favour of socialism, if he was around today.

I've invited Dogma and Polonius to the discussion as well via PM. This might be interesting.

Hahahahah!
Must be a slow day at the office Fraz, you're making work for yourself, are you?

Another thing to note, at this time the "church" was little more than a group of like-believing people who met in houses to share stories and support each other (physically, emotionally, spiritually). I don't think that Jesus would be for socialism, but He probably wouldn't be rushing out to give his heavenly savings to Benny Hinn either.

Envy89 wrote:But there is a fundamental difference in a church taking in donations and deciding on who NEEDS the help... I.E. the guy who just lost his job, and needs help while he is out of work and looking for a new job.

and a governmental system that takes your money, and gives it out to those who claim they need help... yes, the guy you just lost his job and is looking for a new one will still get some help... but so will the guy who has been "unemployed" for 5 years.

You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times.

I don't know about the US. In the UK, social security payments are paid in return for filling in a lot of forms and being unemployed, having no money and that sort of thing generally.

It's not to say the system is perfect, or that there aren't cheats, but the basic principle is to check if people need money, not just hand it out to any Tom, Dick or Harry who rolls up and asks for it.

I assume the Church has some kind of checking to prevent freeloaders from grabbing all the alms.

There is another question of what needing money or alms means in modern society. For example, is a cooker an essential of life, a cooker, a TV, a car?

It's easy to be a socialist when your means of production are miracles. Everyone can have a loaf of bread and a fish when there's no end to them.

All out of wine? The Son of God can take care of that.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I assume the Church has some kind of checking to prevent freeloaders from grabbing all the alms.

There is another question of what needing money or alms means in modern society. For example, is a cooker an essential of life, a cooker, a TV, a car?

Not much more than asking the individual questions about search for jobs, bills, etc. I love the church that I get together with, but sometimes we just give money when the person probably needs something different (counseling, food (as opposed to just cash)). I get the feeling that some churches give money instead of spending time with a person or actually serving them (watching kids, preparing meals, just hanging out) as a way to put on a good face without actually getting to close to the issues.

For example, a friend of mine loses his girlfriend to a missile in Afghanistan. The church was going to send him some gift certificates for restaurants, but me and a friend thought "boy, I bet he would rather hang out and talk about this gak instead of eating out alone." It seemed like a cop out to me, a way to look like service while ignoring the true issues.

Da Boss wrote:Hahahahah!
Must be a slow day at the office Fraz, you're making work for yourself, are you?

Not slow but this is an interesting topic to me.

Unless I've totally missed something, Jesus preached charity, not socialism. Socialism is a form of government/economics, and Jesus has said maddeningly little about politics. He did famously say "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," implying to me at least that his followers were to still obey the laws of man.

Socialism works by taking, by force or threat of force, wealth from some people and transfers it to others. Nearly all governments now are somewhat socialist, even our own. Modern day socialist states, including western europe, tend to emphasize "cradle to grave" support, so that a person can always count on a place to live and food to eat.

That's just not what Jesus preached. He preached charity, the helping of the poor by the rich, and he linked aid to the poor to holy works "whatsoever you do to the least, that you do unto me," but Jesus never said "take what the poor need from the rich."

Most attempts to peg Jesus into any sort of politics ends poorly. He simply wasn't overly interested in groups of people and how they act. Even for the church, all he really did was appoint Peter the "rock" of the church, but that seemed to come with no real authority.

As for the early churches, they were meant to represent large families, not small nation states. It's not socialism when Dad buys Junior a coat or Mom give him a meal. Same thing with a wealthy church member giving the same to a poor member.

Well, I tried to read the original post, but stopped after this:

Christian property rights were not and are not the same thing as socialist property rights were a man has no claim to material possessions, and the needy have claim on the possessions of others.

Right off the bat:
1) Socialism neither denies individual property rights, nor provides a claim for the needy to the possession of others.
2) There is no such thing as 'Christian property rights'. The Bible speaks to the defense of what one has, but never explicitly discusses what is legitimate possession.

I expect the rest was more of a thinly disguised rage against socialism, rather than an argument that Jesus was not a socialist.

Really the whole thing is kind of silly.

Jesus was not a socialist, because Jesus was about faith, and socialism has nothing to do with faith. The most the J-man has to say about politics and the economy is, as Polonius said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." But that isn't an endorsement of the state so much as it is a reminder to coexist with laws other than those of God (in the event that they do not offend God, and his laws, under certain interpretations).

Envy89 wrote:But there is a fundamental difference in a church taking in donations and deciding on who NEEDS the help... I.E. the guy who just lost his job, and needs help while he is out of work and looking for a new job.

and a governmental system that takes your money, and gives it out to those who claim they need help... yes, the guy you just lost his job and is looking for a new one will still get some help... but so will the guy who has been "unemployed" for 5 years.

And?

I mean, I could get into relative percentages of abuse, but I don't feel like digging up the statistics at the moment. Suffice it to say 'abuse' has very little to do with the problems we're having with welfare.

Also, I'm pretty sure someone who has been 'unemployed' for 5 years can't collect unemployment.

Envy89 wrote:
You know... the people who go to wal-mart and pull out a massive wad of cash to buy video games, movies, smokes, and booze... then a city-link card to buy food with. Something I have seen more then a few times.

So, because they shop at wal-mart with massive wads of cash they must be unemployed?

The gist of what I got from the article was that while not advocating socialism in a modern sense, he would much rather approve of us all simply living to acquire more worldly assets and wealth to hoard or squander.

Remember, Jesus says that contributing to a social program so that unemployed folks, their dependents, or those who have had their insurance claims denied for ridiculous reasons,might be granted the most basic health care coverage is bad!! /sarcasm

Envy89 wrote:
Now in the context of our day and time, Jesus would not endorse social/government medicine. Jesus endorsed a system of giving that was administered by the church and which is fundamentally different from the government social program that universal health care requires. A simple answer to a very complex issue. Hopefully any believers reading this will be able to encompass some of my ideas and use them to elaborate on that answer. And for non believers, I hope that you can at least understand that Christians are not, are not required to be, and in most ways are opposed to socialists and social programs. You may obviously disagree, but I challenge you to see a difference in disagreeing with underlying assumptions about the world that make you disagree with Christianity in general, and disagreeing with the conclusion that the underlying Christian assumptions do not support socialism. I think many of the disagreements on the topic are actually people angry with the underlying assumptions and beliefs of Christianity more than people struggling with why Christians are opposed to social programs.

He never told anyone how to pool their money. He stated that a person giving all they had to the temple to devote themselves to God was a good thing.

He simplified the commandments into two very simple commandments.

1. One should love Yahweh with one's entire heart, soul, mind, and strength
2. One should love one's neighbor as one would love oneself

Neither of these can be seen as an explicit rejection of socialism (like capitalism a concept which would not arise until two millennium had passed).

As a Christian of the Canadian Anglican persuasion I explicitly reject the main theses of the overlong somewhat verbose tripe that was presented:
1. Not all Christians reject Socialized medicine or public forms of welfare. Many Christians believe that social programs of various natures are good things. The founder of Canadian medicare Tommy Douglas was a Baptist preacher.
2. Jesus who was born at a time and place very different from our own and did not ever endorse an economic model, nor did His Church.

Further to that, capitalism would, without a doubt, present an equal number of challenges to justify.

Edit to remove unneeded jokes and say more seriously. I don't think Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist. He opposed greed, which really is the underlying theme of capitalism as it's practiced today. My personal belief as a Christian is that He does not want people to starve or die in agony, and so that is why I as a Christian am in favour of Social programs.

Polonius wrote:Unless I've totally missed something, Jesus preached charity, not socialism. Socialism is a form of government/economics, and Jesus has said maddeningly little about politics. He did famously say "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," implying to me at least that his followers were to still obey the laws of man.

Socialism works by taking, by force or threat of force, wealth from some people and transfers it to others. Nearly all governments now are somewhat socialist, even our own. Modern day socialist states, including western europe, tend to emphasize "cradle to grave" support, so that a person can always count on a place to live and food to eat.

That's just not what Jesus preached. He preached charity, the helping of the poor by the rich, and he linked aid to the poor to holy works "whatsoever you do to the least, that you do unto me," but Jesus never said "take what the poor need from the rich."

Most attempts to peg Jesus into any sort of politics ends poorly. He simply wasn't overly interested in groups of people and how they act. Even for the church, all he really did was appoint Peter the "rock" of the church, but that seemed to come with no real authority.

As for the early churches, they were meant to represent large families, not small nation states. It's not socialism when Dad buys Junior a coat or Mom give him a meal. Same thing with a wealthy church member giving the same to a poor member.

I have quoted this post, written by another person, to show that I also believe it to be true.

Some think that charity means personal charity, others think that if one has some say over the system int is than a moral imperative to make the system more charitable. This really isn't that complicated.

Besides we all know Jesus was an environmentalist member of the Green Party.

efarrer wrote:I don't think Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist. He opposed greed, which really is the underlying theme of capitalism as it's practiced today.

The desire for more material things is the underlying theme for any economic system though, isn't it?

I think Jesus would be in opposition to any preoccupation with economics. You can't take wealth into heaven, no matter how you recieve it.

The OP was very interesting. I think that if we could ask Jesus about socialism, he would tell us how unimportant the subject is in regards to eternaty. This is of course my personal opinion, I am in no way claiming to know what an omniscient being thinks. Although from what I know of Karl Marx, He and Jesus would not get along.

Also, what I believe Jesus meant by "give unto Caesar what is caesar's" is simply pay your taxes, I think God wants us to follow any laws of man that are both ethical and fair, but any laws that don't fall into this category should be disregarded.

Finally just to lighten the mood, Jesus was a libertarian, like all great men.

I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I know there's more evidence for Old King Cole's existence than King Arthur's.

(That's not too surprising though. It's not like Old King Cole is a particularly strange character.)

Wasn't he just a merry old soul? and a merry old soul was he? I don't know much else about him.

Norwulf wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I will resist the thoughts/Urge of taking this OT : )

I was simply saying how I agreed with him

I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

Norwulf wrote:Wasn't he just a merry old soul? and a merry old soul was he? I don't know much else about him.

He smoked a pipe.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Norwulf wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Polonius here. If he did exist : )

In addition, he was the worlds first Jewish Zombie... (except for Lazarus maybe?)

Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

I will resist the thoughts/Urge of taking this OT : )

I was simply saying how I agreed with him

Oh okay, you meant if Polonius existed, gotchya. *giggle*

And yes, I for the most part, think Polonius got this one right. I kinda-sorta disagree slightly about the ginving unto caesar bit, thats it.

I answer the topic...
Jeus is a socilist basturd and KILLED MANY NAVTIVE AMERICANS
I am sorry, but I would rather die than belive Jeus
Ha HA HAHAHAHA, I CAN'T GO TO HELL AHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i spell his deathly name wrong...he shall not receive proper spelling!

Polonius basically nailed the issue. Socialism is a view of economic structures and the role of government. Christianity is guide to how an individual should lead his life. It’s frankly nonsense to proscribe economic views to any historical figures before Smith, people simply didn’t address those issues in anything like modern terms. Even Marx is hard to properly consider in modern economic terms, as the field still was very new at that time (indeed, he was creating much of it).

Envy89, I will tell you that your understanding of socialism is very limited. I can go through your post and point out the errors, but it would take a while and I’m not certain you’d be that receptive. If you’re genuinely interested I’ll do it.

Norwulf wrote:Well I've heard theres more evidence to Jesus's existance than Juius Caesar. Not sure on the source though. Whether you believe he was the messiah or not, it's hard to deny some dude named Jesus existed at some point. Even muslims, among other religious groups agree that Jesus was a real person.

Yeah, umm, that’s just wrong. When you say ‘even muslims’ you’re missing a whole lot of context. Islam came out of the religious tradition of Abraham, and shares much in common in terms of early religious figures. This includes Jesus.

There is simply no material proof Jesus existed. Nor should any be expected, we’ve got large historical blackspots over entire kingdoms and their rulers, it shouldn’t be a surprise a rabbi with a small following wouldn’t leave a lot of evidence after his passing.

We do know a lot about the time, and the story of a rabbi travelling the countryside, building a following while arguing subversive politics is certainly very plausible. But in terms of actual evidence, there’s none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

I don't think there's any respected work going in to the issue, one way or the other. How would you disprove the existance of a rabbi 2,000 years ago? And if you wanted to prove it, what sort of evidence would such a person leave behind?

It's an historical non-issue.

Well, I think the analogy would be that we don't spend a lot of time questioning figures mentioned in ancient histories written decades or centuries after the events they describe. The gospels themselves are full of some pretty mystical stuff, but it's not that out of control compared to some of the stuff written about figures in the ancient world.

Seeing as we live in a world where we apparently aren't sure where a person born 50 years ago was actually born, reality can sometimes feel more malleable than we like.

As for my reality, well, if I were fictional I'd be far more interesting, I would imagine.

I'm well aware of how Islam got it's start, what I'm saying is this: Muslims dont believe Jesus was the son of God, but they do believe he was a real person.

Your right though, as far as I know there is no physical proof of Jesus's existance. IDK if they still have any roman census records from that period, (that's the best piece of evidence I imagine could be found). My point was that it is highly likely, a jewish guy from Nazereth named Jesus did infact exist, and most people whether they believe he was the messiah or not, agree that he probably existed.

The part about Caesar was just something I heard, like I said I don't know the source. I wasn't claiming it to be a fact. I was told there is little physical evidence of Julius Caesar existing, I still believe he did in fact rule Rome at one time though. I also believe that England once had a king named Arthur at some point, whether or not he hung out with a wizard and had had a sword named excalibur.

I heard that the Romans had a record of his execution, actually, but I don't know from where.

Humans are socialists. Many of us are just very, very bad socialists.

Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Humans are socialists. Many of us are just very, very bad socialists.

Humans are fascists. Many of us are just very, very bad fascists.

Humans are Muslims. Many of us are just very, very bad Muslims.

Humans are X. Many of us are just very, very bad X.

Polonius wrote:Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

I've heard they view him as a prophet as well. I had a muslim boss at my last job and asked her after work at some point on what she thought of Jesus, she said she viewed him more as a philosopher and valued the way he said to treat people. She didn't believe him to be divine in any way though.

Honestly, before this thread. I had never heard of Jesus being a socialist.

Norwulf wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, Muslims believe that Jesus was a holy person, or a prophet of sorts. It's not shocking that they'd believe he existed, as he's a relatively major figure in their theology, similar to say Isiah is to Christians.

I've heard they view him as a prophet as well. I had a muslim boss at my last job and asked her after work at some point on what she thought of Jesus, she said she viewed him more as a philosopher and valued the way he said to treat people. She didn't believe him to be divine in any way though.

Honestly, before this thread. I had never heard of Jesus being a socialist.

Pretty much. He's respected for helping to spread monotheism and for preaching humility towards god, the idea that salvation comes only through divine grace.

sebster wrote:There is simply no material proof Jesus existed. Nor should any be expected, we’ve got large historical black spots over entire kingdoms and their rulers, it shouldn’t be a surprise a rabbi with a small following wouldn’t leave a lot of evidence after his passing.

We do know a lot about the time, and the story of a rabbi traveling the countryside, building a following while arguing subversive politics is certainly very plausible. But in terms of actual evidence, there’s none.

And the mention of Christ in Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" doesn't count because?

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think any respected academic has ever denied the reality of a man named Jesus. It is usually fringe 'historians' like ones that are holocaust deniers.

I don't think there's any respected work going in to the issue, one way or the other. How would you disprove the existence of a rabbi 2,000 years ago? And if you wanted to prove it, what sort of evidence would such a person leave behind?

It's an historical non-issue.

I personally consider it to be a major issue. There is arguably no one who has had a greater impact on world history. Whether or not he existed would seem to be a major historical sticking point, and as Ahtman said, few historians would doubt the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

There are actual artifacts that point to him existing as a human being besides the Bible. Learn2Research. Socrates is older than Jesus and we know he existed, why would is it so hard to believe that there are some tablets that allude to Jesus?

Norwulf wrote:I'm well aware of how Islam got it's start, what I'm saying is this: Muslims dont believe Jesus was the son of God, but they do believe he was a real person.

And I'm saying the error with that is that both come from the same source religion. It's a bit like saying the Stanley Cup is the most important trophy in world sports, and saying this must be true because despite their rivalry, the New York Rangers and the New York Islanders both think it is. Because of course they would, they're both hockey teams.

In the same way, the idea that two religions following the same tradition of Abraham are going to agree on many things, but none of it would count as independant verification.

Your right though, as far as I know there is no physical proof of Jesus's existance. IDK if they still have any roman census records from that period, (that's the best piece of evidence I imagine could be found). My point was that it is highly likely, a jewish guy from Nazereth named Jesus did infact exist, and most people whether they believe he was the messiah or not, agree that he probably existed.

The idea that there was a guy called Jesus who was a rabbi and who gave subversive sermons, is not an outrageous claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:And the mention of Christ in Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" doesn't count because?

... the only source for it is 300 years after the fact, written by a Christian, and it is of dubious authenticity.

I personally consider it to be a major issue. There is arguably no one who has had a greater impact on world history. Whether or not he existed would seem to be a major historical sticking point, and as Ahtman said, few historians would doubt the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

It's an historical non-issue because the idea that there was a preacher called Jesus can't be disproved, and even if it were proved one way or the other it wouldn't really impact on the importance of the bible.

I agree with you that Jesus has an incredibly powerful and influential personal story, and the effect that story has had on the world is right up there with anyone or anything as being one of the most significant things in world history. But what really matters in that story, his morales and his sacrifice, can't be made true or untrue by proving that there was a subversive rabbi alive 2,000 years ago.

Yes, there probably was a guy called Jesus. There were probably quite a few such people. There were certainly plenty of travelling rabbis. The non-mystical elements of his story fit closely with our understanding of the period. That's why establishing whether or not one guy at the time was called Jesus really is an historical non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:There are actual artifacts that point to him existing as a human being besides the Bible. Learn2Research. Socrates is older than Jesus and we know he existed, why would is it so hard to believe that there are some tablets that allude to Jesus?

It isn't hard to believe there might be direct source documents for a guy called Jesus... but there aren't any such things.

We know about lots of people older than Jesus, but there are billions of people who lived much more recently for whom there is simply no record. The size of your historical record is dependant, unsurprisingly, on how powerful you were in your life. Jesus, in his lifetime, was not a king, not a powerful religious figure, and he only led a few men. That such a man would leave no direct historical trace is unsurprising.

sebster wrote:It isn't hard to believe there might be direct source documents for a guy called Jesus... but there aren't any such things.

Yet we do. I suppose this hinges on what you are classifying as 'direct evidence', which you have now added to previously saying there is no proof. As I stated, there are some things that allude to him but there is no document he wrote himself or strangely even a photo. There are documents that tell of a guy causing trouble at the temple as well as some Roman records. Of course he isn't headline news and is on page F8 but they are there. Is it overwhelming like a great flood? No, but then hardly anything from that long ago is. Acting as if there is absolutely nothing, unless it is a video tape with a time stamp, is just not true. These kinds of 'direct documents' don't really exist for almost anything at that time unless, as you said, they were very powerful. Yet we do have records and stories and information on people who did nothing from a position of power. I can't definitively prove to you that yesterday actually took place, let alone 2000.

sebster wrote:The size of your historical record is dependent, unsurprisingly, on how powerful you were in your life.

It also doesn't mean we have no records of anyone else either. Just because 12 books haven't been written about someone doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge they existed.

Oh, and Socrates wasn't a very powerful guy either. He was a troublemaker and he was killed for it. The evidence for his existence isn't really any better. People talked about him and his students, or disciples, wrote about him. Sounds awfully familiar.

OP, your blurring Socialism with Communism.

Being a socialist means being dedicated to the principals of state funded health care, social care, education etc.

It is a sense of responsibility in your community and a willingness to aid the less fortunate to become productive and enable them to contribute. Socialism does not prohibit private business but certainly does not embrace monopoly (see UK private water companies).

Communism is the absolute rule of the state in all matters, Socialism calls for moral responsibility of the citizens within the state. Communism is against religion, Socialism is not. Communism is extremist, Socialism is moderate.

As a socialist I strongly support the Welfare, NHS, Social Services and Education my country provides and keep they will find greater funding, as a socialist I do not like one bit those who make sponging off the benefits created to support short term those off work and want to see them reintegrated to the workforce.

Christ taught us to support those in need, to aid those who required it. Argue all you want if Christ was a socialist, I believe He was, He was most certainly NOT a capitalist!

The argument about whether Jesus can be proved to have existed is as useless as the argument about whether Homer wrote the Iliad and Odyssey or they were in fact done by a different man with the same name.

The point is that the works were produced, they still exist and have inspired people through the ages.

Ahtman wrote:Yet we do. I suppose this hinges on what you are classifying as 'direct evidence', which you have now added to previously saying there is no proof.

When looking at history, the two are inter-changeable. I shifted terms to try and make my point more clearly. What would you consider proof in terms of history that wasn't direct evidence.

As I stated, there are some things that allude to him but there is no document he wrote himself or strangely even a photo. There are documents that tell of a guy causing trouble at the temple as well as some Roman records.

Do you have a source, because if there was such a document, and it had more to it than 'a guy caused trouble in a temple' then that would be something, but I've never heard of such a record.

I know there is a record of a guy with a name similar to Jesus who had five disciples, and was hung for witchcraft, that was traced to 70 AD. But that a single paragraph with more differences than similarities is a pretty big fail in my opinion.

Of course he isn't headline news and is on page F8 but they are there. Is it overwhelming like a great flood? No, but then hardly anything from that long ago is. Acting as if there is absolutely nothing, unless it is a video tape with a time stamp, is just not true.

I think saying 'there is no evidence' when there is no evidence is pretty reasonable. There is stuff appearing seventy or more years later, but that's not evidence that there was a guy called Jesus.

These kinds of 'direct documents' don't really exist for almost anything at that time unless, as you said, they were very powerful. Yet we do have records and stories and information on people who did nothing from a position of power. I can't definitively prove to you that yesterday actually took place, let alone 2000. It also doesn't mean we have no records of anyone else either. Just because 12 books haven't been written about someone doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge they existed.

No, but it does affect whether or not we can say we have any evidence of a person existing.

What I’m saying is that we don’t have any evidence for a guy named Jesus. His story is quite plausible given what we know of the time, and it’s entirely likely that a rabbi named Jesus led some disciples, gave some stirring speeches, then pissed off the rabbis enough that they had him killed. But it’s also quite likely that the story of Jesus was an amalgam of the stories of multiple figures from that time. We just don’t know.

Oh, and Socrates wasn't a very powerful guy either. He was a troublemaker and he was killed for it. The evidence for his existence isn't really any better. People talked about him and his students, or disciples, wrote about him. Sounds awfully familiar.

Socrates was a key figure in the political and cultural dialog of Athens. The importance of Jesus' teaching was only given proper place after his death. Unsurprisingly, given their relative places during their lives, we have more evidence for one than the other. Like you said, duh.

sebster wrote:
Socrates was a key figure in the political and cultural dialog of Athens.

Not really. He represented a key perspective in the dialogue of Athens, but he may have simply been a caricature invented by Plato.

dogma wrote:Not really. He represented a key perspective in the dialogue of Athens, but he may have simply been a caricature invented by Plato.

Fair enough, my knowledge of philosophy is not great.


So now that you've said Socrates may not have existed, do you think you'll get the same reaction as when I said there's no direct evidence for Jesus?

sebster wrote:
So now that you've said Socrates may not have existed, do you think you'll get the same reaction as when I said there's no direct evidence for Jesus?

Probably not. But that may be because my language was less deterministic than yours.

Honestly, I agree with you. There really isn't any direct evidence of Jesus. At least where direct evidence is akin to something like "Hello, my name is Jesus, I am the Christ, and your eternal Buddy. Remember, Kevin Smith is fat donkeycave." But, once you get 2000 years into the past, it 'proof' becomes a very hazy thing. Though there is some credence to the notion that, if something survived for X^n years, it must have some kernel of truth within.

I thought there were some records indicating Socrates trial and execution?

(He was charged with "Corrupting the Youth" and drank hemlock)

There aren't even any written eyewitness accounts from people born whilst Jesus was alive. And his name wasn't Jesus, it was Yeshua - a common Jewish name at that time. Also, there is evidence that 'Messiah' figures popped up sporadically around that area of the middle east, being as they are a large aspect of Jewish mythology. Think of it as a David Koresh kind of thing (absolutely NO offence intended!). Jesus the Annointed One is just the one that stuck - or maybe even just a composite. The truth is we'll probably never know. Doesn't take away from the importance of his teachings which were, for the time, revolutionary.
Meanwhile, back on topic - Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Jesus seemed to believe in social equality, and you can extrapolate from 'love thy neighbour' a belief in respect and tolerance for other members of your... erm... society.

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

*Jesus walks in from thread down the block*

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

Just to be clear... you are getting historical references from the bible right? I don't even understand what you mean by... *THERE IS THE WHOLE BIBLE RIGHT?*

Well... sure there is... what did you expect, half a bible? Or the koran? I mean really though, chicken pox and a banana cream pie for you my friend...

I'm just saying that there ARE eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testamen (half the bible lol). Simply because it has religeous aspects, no one seems to take it seriously?

And your last sentence made almost no sense.

Why would you cite historical information from the bible though? Highly regarded historical text is flexible enough as it is.

We can talk about how Jesus was a midget again though, that was interesting.

Oh. and my last sentence... did make sense. It also appears the banana cream pie has actually had impact.

We can continue to pontificate, or we can take Jesus as he was meant to be taken. Not as a historical figure such as Napoleon, but as a iconic figure that really has no place in history as many concede to view it. Jesus... the man that knew no time .

Let Jesus be the emoticon that lays waste and heals all other emoticons... totally kickin' ass with Jesus.

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

I happen to think that it's pretty dumb to believe in God - at least I know how to be polite. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible, the books that make up the new testament were written at least 200 years (approximately) after the the death of Jesus. There exists nowhere in the world any gospel documents directly authored by the characters in question (Matthew, Luke et al.).
So before you start slinging personal insults around, you might want to get your facts right. It'll make you sound like less of a petulant child.

Albatross wrote:There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible, the books that make up the new testament were written at least 200 years (approximately) after the the death of Jesus. There exists nowhere in the world any gospel documents directly authored by the characters in question (Matthew, Luke et al.)

Oh, so you must follow the "research" of Hermann Detering et al. He seems to be one of the few people who think the Gospel of Mark (earliest gospel written) was written in the second century. The large majority of scholars put the gospel of Mark conservatively before the year 70. Seeing as Jesus lived to 33 (popularly believed), the author of Mark was almost assuredly alive and well when Jesus was around. Even if the author didn't see Jesus, he clearly spoke to people who apparently did. The point has been made before though that 2,000 years is a lot of time for facts to get misconstrued.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

To albatross' point (kind of), there were very few "eyewitness" authors in the Bible. On top of that, only 5 books deal with Jesus' actual "living". (I say five because I include Acts because Jesus' life is still accounted in that). Most of the other books deal with how people should respond to Jesus and each other.

Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with (presumably) little to no research is....

youngblood wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with little to now research is....

I have a pet peeve with that branch of atheism that seems to think that they've figured out some sort of cunning secret in not believing in god, and that it makes them smarter and wiser than us fools that do. It's the flip side of how many religious folks assume that all non-religious folks are immoral and evil.

Polonius wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with little to now research is....

I have a pet peeve with that branch of atheism that seems to think that they've figured out some sort of cunning secret in not believing in god, and that it makes them smarter and wiser than us fools that do. It's the flip side of how many religious folks assume that all non-religious folks are immoral and evil.

We're all so full of religious zeal aren't we? Purveyors of the light? Illuminatis of grand scale. We all just want people to know the truth. Whatever truth we adhere to.

Phew! Youngblood and Polonius handled all the problems with some of these posts.

@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

Hmm. Nevermind this post, I think I'm being too argumentative here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Phew! Youngblood and Polonius handled all the problems with some of these posts.

@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

Quite a few texts were preserved via Arabic channels (I don't know which.) It could be argued they had the same motive to modify them in favour of evidence for Jesus, due to him being held as a prophet by Islam.

Off course, a counter theory is that an organisation as large and diverse as the early and mediaeval Church would never have been able to track down and destroy every copy of all the books, and replace them with modified versions. I don't think it would have been possible.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yet we do.

Do you have a source, because if there was such a document, and it had more to it than 'a guy caused trouble in a temple' then that would be something, but I've never heard of such a record.

How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

Just tagging in to follow the thread.
Please continue.

Wow, I was staying away from this thread, and I check in on it, to see it has veered into denying the existance of Jesus.... AGAIN? Guys, we have allready done this here. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/257008.page

I'm just going to paste my posts from that thread...Bottom line Jesus is a historical figure no matter if you believe the gospel account's or if you deny he is the Son of God.
By the way Pauline epistles and the gospels, the entire new testement was/were written by contemporarys of Jesus, not 200 years after the fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention the four Gospels, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquilus, Mara Bar Sarapion. These were authors or authored by contempories or at least within a generation of Jesus. There is no "assuming" that Jesus existed. It is a historical fact.

GG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that excepting the gospel accounts, the other authors I pointed out weren't Christians? They were Roman and Syrian historians.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Roman citizen
Pliny the Younger was a Roman provencial Governor
Tacitus was a Roman historian
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus Roman historian
Mara bar Sarapion Syrian

All the above were hardly sympathetic to Christianity, indeed somewhat critical. So they were hardly coolaid drinking Christian fanatics. So regardless of whether you believe the New testament account, you would be in the extreme minority of historians that believe that Jesus of Nazereth was a myth, or didn't really exist.

GG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a clarification for JEB

Some of those historians did mention miracles

Flavius Josephus_from Testimonium Flavianum
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert 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"


Tacitus_from his Annals
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular"

There are others but I don't have the time to write a book here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GG

The translations I've read of Flavius didn't go that route with the "wise man" and "perhaps he was the Messiah" phrasing. It was more of a straight account. Either way it proves the point that there are non-biblical documents.

GG: there's a difference between evidence and proof.

I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

I think it's interesting that you consider this evidence iron clad to prove Jesus's existence, but that the standard for evolutionary theory is somehow completely different.

Polonius wrote:I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

That could be applied to about any historical figure. I think the question, on just about any historical question is whether it is reasonable to believe or not. In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it. Having done a little legal work you should know that almost nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. Reason has to play a part as well. We may be starting to skirt solipsism I think.

I agree that nothing can be proven to 100%, beyond I'm not sure I'd say that the current evidence for Jesus goes beyond reasonable doubt.

That's actually part of my point. In the search for truth you look at all the evidence, weigh it based on it's credibility, and draw a conclusion based on reason.

In this issue, I think there's enough evidence for Jesus that, even though most of it is either vague or of questionable provenance, that it's likely there was a historical figure named Jesus.

What's sticking in my craw is that GG is stating that it is historical fact, which is an overstatement, and he's discussed several times, notably on evolution, an ability to reject evidence that doesn't conform to his beliefs. Here, he seems eager to accept evidence that supports his belief despite the questions that arise.

I know it looks like I'm piling on the poor guy, but even if he never understands that his beliefs are based more on faith than on reason, I think other people should.

Ahtman wrote:In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it.

No joke, I mean we don't even have those things to prove that our PRESIDENT is a real person.

Polonius wrote:GG: there's a difference between evidence and proof.

I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

I think it's interesting that you consider this evidence iron clad to prove Jesus's existence, but that the standard for evolutionary theory is somehow completely different.

Sigh......not even going to go there.

edit.... all I will say is that comparing apples and oranges doesn't mak a good point.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:That could be applied to about any historical figure. I think the question, on just about any historical question is whether it is reasonable to believe or not. In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it. Having done a little legal work you should know that almost nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. Reason has to play a part as well. We may be starting to skirt solipsism I think.

Well said Ahtman...

GG

Ahtman wrote:The translations I've read of Flavius didn't go that route with the "wise man" and "perhaps he was the Messiah" phrasing. It was more of a straight account. Either way it proves the point that there are non-biblical documents.

The best translations of Josephus, that I recommend to any, are those of the Loeb Classical Library. They are a major work library printed by Harvard University Press and it is a fairly extensive bit of work that has almost every work of every major Greek and Latin author of antiquity. The set is quite stunning and incredibly reliable.

I'll digress for moment, in which no of thius is meant to cause offence, im just curious.

Lord-Loss wrote:

Da Boss wrote:When did socialism become such a dirty word anyway?

4 Letters "USSR"

What was actually wrong with the USSR? They were a superpower that rivalled America, is that why? because America would feel the biggest?

There was nothing wrong with them after the first 3 rulers of the USSR, the first 3 werent the best, after those 3 the USSR wasnt all that bad.

So why the hate for the USSR?

Three words:

Siberian Gulag system.

Squig_herder wrote:What was actually wrong with the USSR? They were a superpower that rivaled America, is that why? because America would feel the biggest?

There was nothing wrong with them after the first 3 rulers of the USSR, the first 3 weren't the best, after those 3 the USSR wasnt all that bad.

So why the hate for the USSR?

Well I guess you are right...except for the gulags, the millions dead, suppression of human rights, starvation and the mass slaughter of foreign citizens...yeah you're right, it really wasn't that bad...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well I guess you are right...except for the gulags, the millions dead, suppression of human rights, starvation and the mass slaughter of foreign citizens...yeah you're right, it really wasn't that bad...

Again no offence is meant just curious.

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

The ability to count.

Thought this may be of interest, feel free to shoot it down!

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, was born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and that he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus.

here is the URL of the site - www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm (couldn't link for some reason... conspiracy? lol)

Sorry for the text wall! I'm not just trying to be a 'mean' atheist - I happen to the think the teachings of Jesus are important as far as human interaction is concerned. Whether or not he was the son of God is just irrelevant to me, as I don't believe in God. Not expecting to 'de-convert' anyone, or that such a thing would even be possible. I just got annoyed that someone called ME dumb, then proceded to cite The New Testament as a legitimate historical source. It's not - can we all at least agree on that?

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

Yes we can. While we Americans have done some horrible and hypocritical things, we are held to a higher standard by ourselves and the world. The Idea of the United States is a powerful and heavy burden to bare. We expect to be the best, the brightest, and the just. Yes we sometimes fail, but we try.

To quote Winston Churchill: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

Comparing 69 years of a failed system (USSR) to the entire history of the USA isn't a very fair comparison. If you want to compare how each acted while both existed would be a more honest assessment.

Ahtman wrote:69

But seriously, its kind of amusing given the mutual stimulation provided by each superpower.

Squig_herder wrote:
Again no offence is meant just curious.

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

No offense taken, its just my way. I am naturally sarcastic, and the web kind of limits my dry, sarcastic humor to come through. I am gonna agree that America has done some less then admirable things throughout its history, but if you are gonna pull from its founding, then lets go all the way through Imperial Russia as well. Russia, being the main power behind the USSR and all, has a long and "glorious" history of atrocities. Not that I am trying to excuse America, but in the same time period as the existence of the USSR there is simply no comparison of the wrongs committed.

@Albatross: I have heard that criticism of these sources before, but they don't make much logical sense. If the Church, or even individual monasteries, was so concerned with "proving" the existence of Christ they would not have relied on one minor book. They would have made certain of its inclusion in as many of the great works of antiquity as possible. But the main problem with their criticism is their nearly unilateral dismissal of evidence simply because it isn't genuinely first hand. That is how nearly all the great books concerning history are in the Classical Age. Most of these historians did not see what happened, but relied on oral history and other sources that are now lost to us. Regardless of that fact though, we still regard authors such as Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, Cicero, etc. as being the authority on the time period. To dismiss any points they make about Christ for that reason would almost require the disuse of any of their work if was not actually witnessed by them.

@JEB_Stuart - yeah totally mate, I don't disagree! I also don't doubt the existence of Jesus, just making the 'no eyewitness accounts' point. I think it's extremely likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I just resent the sniffy tone of people who use Josephus et al. as a trump card in these discussions. It's not as cut and dried as these people make out, that's all I'm saying - in the interest of balance.

If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

.... .......well..it seemed a good idea at the time..."Where's the harm" I thought...that'll teach me anyway.

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Exactly! Scientology fully agrees with this standpoint!

Wikipedia wrote:Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. While views on the origin/creation of the universe as a whole are unclear, the creation of the modern man is laid out in a highly secretive creation myth. 75 million years ago, Xenu was the leader of the Galactic Federation, a federation of 76 planets that had already existed for 20 million years. Many of the planets at the time suffered from massive overpopulation. As leader of the Galactic Federation, Xenu implemented a policy in which trillions of people were either frozen or killed and then sent to a planet known as Teegeeack (now Earth). Xenu placed the frozen souls near volcanoes and then bombed the volcanoes, destroying the remaining souls. These dead souls were later reactivated by electric forces from the Earth, in which they returned to life and entered the bodies of humans and remain there today.

Got this off of wikipedia, just thought you guys might find it interesting. Heres the link to the page. It's at the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Well, odds are somebody that fits the roughest description exists, to be sure. If the gospels were created out of whole cloth, than I'm guessing big chunks were influenced by certain historical traveling rabbis.

Christianity spread, not due to Jesus, but to his followers. If you treat Jesus the way you treat the Angel that revealed the Koran to Mohammad, it makes sense. They could have

Now all we need to do is figure out whether or not Xenu is a socialist...

Probbers not, what with being a Galactic Emperor 'n' that.

It didn't say he was an emporer, just a leader. Just thought I'd point that out.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Well, odds are somebody that fits the roughest description exists, to be sure. If the gospels were created out of whole cloth, than I'm guessing big chunks were influenced by certain historical traveling rabbis.

Christianity spread, not due to Jesus, but to his followers. If you treat Jesus the way you treat the Angel that revealed the Koran to Mohammad, it makes sense. They could have

Which other historical figures are you willing to exclude on the basis of limited primary sources?

I just want to know.

To be be fair the vast majority of figures in the ancient world do not have more then a single primary source (if any), this was made worse depending on the disruptions in the area. The vast majority are secondary sources or further. Only in places like Rome were there more (and even there some of the greatest figures are known only by their secondary sources). The majority of scholars believe that two of the Gospels were written by his contemporaries. The revolution in approximately 65 ad means that the best sources (outside of the 1-2 primary sources) were probably destroyed.

I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

dogma wrote:Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

Where are you going with that?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

Killkrazy posted that he found it hard to believe that a cult could be created around a vacuum. I was just showing him how it possibly could have done. I wasn't arguing a point or trying to non-constructive, but there was a question and I answered it.

I mean, the larger point is that I don't really have much interest in the historical existence of Jesus as a matter of my beliefs. I like my religious beliefs to be based on faith, not on evidence.

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

Killkrazy posted that he found it hard to believe that a cult could be created around a vacuum. I was just showing him how it possibly could have done. I wasn't arguing a point or trying to non-constructive, but there was a question and I answered it.

I mean, the larger point is that I don't really have much interest in the historical existence of Jesus as a matter of my beliefs. I like my religious beliefs to be based on faith, not on evidence.

I disagree. Creating a legend around an actual living person, known to many contemporaries, is exactly what happened with Jesus (IMO.) It's not a vaccuum at all.

It's like what I posted earlier on, that it matters now whether The Odyssey was written by Homer or by another man with the same name. What matters is that it was written.

Wait, am I posting nonsense?

Killkrazy said he found it hard to believe that you could create a legend around a vacuum. I think it's possible, and explained how.

I'm not saying that's what happened with Jesus. If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

Kilkrazy wrote:To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

The same way any good legend building works: go to another town.

Christianity never really took off huge in Judea, but the rest of the world took to it well. Build up a cult, create the early stories, and than export it.

The earliest reports of Christianity are what, 30-50 years after jesus died? The first gospels weren't written until roughly then either. Start small, build the legend, build the myth, and sell it well. You start maybe 10-20 years before the first gospel, and you talk about Jesus as all his deeds, in areas far enough away that nobody really questions them for historical accuracy. The message was well constructed and the apostles were gifted evangelists, it's not impossible to see them as spreading a good story. Relate enough stuff back to actual events (how many people were crucified annually in Jerusalem?) to avoid real problems, but I don't think it would be impossible.

You'd be better off picking a random name out of the ancient phone book to make the dates match up, but back then you could create a persona pretty easily.

Polonius do you believe in the historicity of Jesus? Do you believe the Gospel accounts to be fact or myth? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, since you have stated you're a Catholic. (I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Are you postulating your opinion on how a myth can be created and spread? Using Jesus as an example? Or are you saying you believe this is what actually happened, in regards to Jesus.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Polonius do you believe in the historicity of Jesus?

I'm really not sure. I mean, I believe that Jesus is the son of god. His actual existence on this earth doesn't really seem to be a big factor for me.

Do you believe the Gospel accounts to be fact or myth?

If I were to try to articulate my beliefs, I would say that they are true, in that they are good things to base one's faith off of. As for their literal factual accuracy? I wouldn't say that I'm sure of that. I feel that I can use the gospels as an instrument of faith, but I can still remain skeptical of their their factual nature.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, since you have stated you're a Catholic. (I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Well, Catholics are Christians, we don't claim to be Christians. Anybody that believes that faith in Jesus is the path to salvation is a Christian.

Few Catholics get too bogged down in biblical literalism. It's why Catholics don't have a huge problem with science now: the stories made sense, the stories are true, and if a few things are different from the stories, it's not a big problem.

I would say that I don't think every word in the Bible is literally true. I think Jesus came to earth, died for our sins, and all that, I just think that God has always erased his fingerprints from the world. The world was created so that we could explore it's past without hitting a brick wall, there's no real evidence for or against jesus's ministry. And that's a good thing. God want's faith, not obedience, which is why he gave us free will. He's interested in those people that seek him out.

Are you postulating your opinion on how a myth can be created and spread? Using Jesus as an example? Or are you saying you believe this is what actually happened, in regards to Jesus.

GG

I'm just postulating. No, I'm pretty sure there was a historical Jesus of some sort.

Polonius wrote:
Anybody that believes that faith in Jesus is the path to salvation is a Christian.

I'm not sure that I would agree totally with this. Altough technically I think you are correct, in that someone professing belief can be classified, "outwardly" at least, as a Christian, however that doesn't mean that they really are one, "inwardly".

Matthew 7:21-23(KJV)21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Of course I actually believe that these words were spoken by Jesus, not only by faith but becuase it is consistent with other parts of the Bible.

I'm trying to understand a bit better about Catholicism, so if you don't mind I'd like to ask you a few more questions.

If you do mind, just tell me to pound sand, I won't be offended. :-)

Do you believe that having faith in Jesus is the only path to God, or do you believe "all paths go to heaven".

Also do you think you, and your beliefs are typical of Catholics? I have to admit that some of your beliefs(belief in evolution,doubt about the veracity of the Bible) seem to be consistent with Catholics I have met and even consider friends.

GG

Well, let's not confuse being a bad Christian with not being a Christian. I think it's a fine distinction, and I"m hip to the idea that if you're not serious about living a christian life than you're not really a christian, but I don't think that applies. I think that if you think you can attain salvation through christ, you're a christian. If you're willing to take your chances with the rest, that's up to you.

Well, I'm very ecumenical. The Catholic Church, IMO, has officially stated that the covenant with the Jews is still valid, so there's at least one other way to attain a certain amount of salvation. Personally, I think that as a Catholic, where good works are required along with faith, it's not a big step to see the faith as something that need not be outwardly expressed. To take the idea that the best way to show faith in christ is to live as christ did, anybody that does so is showing at least some faith in him.

In the broader sense, I think that most religions, if not all, have some insight into being a path to god. I'm not afraid to chide certain religions from time to time, my own included, but Jesus is part of the trinity. I think if a person has faith in god, and obeys the laws of god, it doesn't matter if he practiced as a hindu or as a primitive baptist: it'll get you to the same place.

I think that attitude is at least in some ways part of a catholic upbringing. Catholicism is similar to Judaism in one big way: it's a very cultural religion. When you're raised catholic, you do fun catholic stuff, both that's universal and that's unique to your ethnic group. Catholicism also has wacky little rules that affect day to day life, like no meat on fridays during lent. Protestantism doesn't always have that. So you see how tightly wound religion and culture can be, and how maybe some cultures just have a different outlook. When you get down to it, having a god that's actually trinity of entities, plus angels, and saints you can pray to makes it easier to see other views, like there being many less powerful gods, with one power still binding them all.

As for my views, I'm never comfortable saying I'm typical of any group. I'm generally an outlier, but I'd say that I do a pretty decent job representing the liberal catholic side. We're called cafeteria Catholics, and that's fine. We both see the value in the structure and dogma of the Church and aren't horribly worried about it when we think it's wrong.

When you get to the Bible, the catholic church is pretty lukewarm on it, compared to protestants. We know how to teach god's word, and the Bible and its' veracity just aren't that crucial to it.

Where do artists that make violent/demeaning/hyper-sexual works that thank Jesus for inspiring them fall into this?

Ahtman wrote:Where do artists that make violent/demeaning/hyper-sexual works that thank Jesus for inspiring them fall into this?

The Internet : )

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

Where are you going with that?

GG

Devil's advocate.

Often times arguments are made not because the arguer believes in what he is arguing for, but because he is attempting to contextualize the veracity of something he does believe. For example, if I were to argue for agnosticism I wouldn't begin by addressing the benefits of the position. Instead I would approach the dualistic relationship between atheism and theism such that they could be considered on equivalent grounds, then I would denote a valid set of agnostic position along that continuum. Along the same lines, Polonius is addressing the sketchy nature of evidence with respect to Jesus' actual existence in order to characterize his take on religion as a matter of faith, rather than fact.

You've seen me do this before, I'm sure. Actually, I started to do it a little ways up the thread. It made Frigs unhappy. Oddly enough it always seems to bother atheists more than theists. Probably because they tend to equivocate religion and theism.

Jesus was more of a communist in my view (accept it or disagree i don't care) wanted power for the people under a council of peers, share everything equally (now we have heard this before, Marxism, Stalinism) worship 1 all powerful being (again Stalinism) just my view agree or disagree, it makes no difference if Jesus did exist he lived in a time of dictatorship or autocracy.

Vulkan77 wrote:share everything equally

And where is that said? Did he advocate charity and kindness, to help your fellow man? Sure. Does it say to share everything equally? Nyet. If you have more than enough food it is considered a good and kind act to share but it is no where said that you have to give away everything to everyone.

Polonius wrote: If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

That's what I think happened. More or less.

If you look/google at some of the "facts" about Elvis, a real person who many many people have met etc, and the disagreements over them, and that's in this day and age with all our technological advantages, then it seems horribly plausible to me that 2 thousand (ish) years ago it is quite likely that there would have been some...hmm..let's say distortion over time. And that's without all the myriad of linguistic (mis)translations, deliberate misrepresentation, and general typical human behaviour.

To clarify though : even if he was/turned out to be 101% fictional, i would still argue that there would be some merit in much of the essential moral message.

Polonius wrote:If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

So now you think there may have been a real person after denying it for several pages? Flip-flopper!

reds8n wrote:To clarify though : even if he was/turned out to be 101% fictional, i would still argue that there would be some merit in much of the essential moral message.

So the bible is basically like Charlotte's Web?

When did I ever deny that there was a real person? I was merely showing how it possibly could have been done.

Ahtman wrote:So the bible is basically like Charlotte's Web?

..talking animals ? Crazy idea !

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

reds8n wrote:

Polonius wrote: If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

That's what I think happened. More or less.

Just remember redsatan that when you start saying things like "That's what I think" or "quite likely that there would have been some..." those are "faith" based statements.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Just remember redsatan that when you start saying things like "That's what I think" or "quite likely that there would have been some..." those are "faith" based statements.

GG

That depends on whether you're considering faith in the colloquial sense (the sense in which is it synonymous with belief), or faith in the religious sense (the sense in which it functions independent of proof).

Red's statements seem to be based on the former sense, not the latter, as he isn't making a positive statement. He's basically saying this: "The idea that, 2000 years ago, there was a traveling Rabbi who did good thing is quite tenable as we know there were many traveling Rabbis who did good things. However, the notion that said Rabbi was able to work miracles is less likely, as we have no empirical evidence that said miracles are at all possible."

^ +1.

.. I'm tempted to argue that there's a difference between what people think and what they believe also .. but that is going totally elsewhere and OT even for this/thread/board/cliche.

..BUt... ... no.. what I "think" is not, always, based upon any/all "faith" statement either.

But let's avoid the exacting ins and outs of this area of grammatical philosophy..it's a real.. "downer".. ... man !

Suffice to say (1) : Given the varying interpretations of the Xtian... indeed pretty much any/all faiths now or in the past....I find it impossible to even try and swallow the idea that any single denomination ( of any faith or religion) has a 100% genuine grasp of
THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH (copyright applied for, TM etc .. void where prohibited).

Or any person equally so of course.

Example : I have no doubt that there was a historical basis for the person we now refer to as "King Arthur".

But even a token exploration into the "facts" of said person reveal a veritable maze of myths, misinformation and, occasionally, outright lies-- note I am not claiming however that ALL such lies are, perhaps, such a bad thing-- : this is, crassly and pissed up on several pints and a bottle of red plonk, roughly analogous to how I view Jesus. IE. : an element of "truth" ( damn you Descartes... we've never quite ,managed to disprove your theory !) but said "nugget" wrapped in a tissue of... of......


.. well... "human nature" would be the best description I reckon.


(1) For a Saturday night anyway. Damn you alcohol ! And I was sure inwas on his ignore list as well !

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

If you say so.

You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

If you say so.

Oh come on you had to get that.

Kilkrazy wrote:You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

But then I won't feel like death warmed over on Sunday morning !...

Vulkan77 wrote:Jesus was more of a communist in my view (accept it or disagree i don't care) wanted power for the people under a council of peers, share everything equally (now we have heard this before, Marxism, Stalinism) worship 1 all powerful being (again Stalinism) just my view agree or disagree, it makes no difference if Jesus did exist he lived in a time of dictatorship or autocracy.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulkan77 wrote:share everything equally

And where is that said? Did he advocate charity and kindness, to help your fellow man? Sure. Does it say to share everything equally? Nyet. If you have more than enough food it is considered a good and kind act to share but it is no where said that you have to give away everything to everyone.

Jesus himself didn't mention anything like shared ownership to my recolection, but the book of Acts describes a "multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common". (Acts 4:32) That's not communism because their possessions didn't belong to the state and no mention was made of any rulers. So the New Testament could be interpreted as advocating that kind of sharing of possessions, but you didn't hear it from Jesus.

reds8n wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

But then I won't feel like death warmed over on Sunday morning !...

Somehow it didn't work.

I feel like crap at the moment.

However, I intend to restore my average by drinking red wine with roast lunch.

Ok, to the OP

Um

What's wrong with being a socialist?

I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

generalgrog wrote:(I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Hold on, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church, the one headed by the Pope - the de facto largest and in many cases ONLY Christian church in western europe from it's foundation (was this by St.Peter or am I wrong?) until the reformation and protestant reorganisation in fourteenth century europe.

That one? Well it definitely 'claims' to be Christian! It's certainly 'as Christian' as the Greek Orthodoxy, or the Russian Orthodoxy, or any of the much (MUCH) more recent forms of protestantism (Baptism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc).

I don't follow a religion. But I think that, if you decide to live your life by any organised philosophical ideal (Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Fascism, Confucianism etc) you really should read up on it's history before involving yourself in arguments about it.

Teh_K42 wrote:That's not communism because their possessions didn't belong to the state and no mention was made of any rulers.

I'm no expert, but I thought Marx's original "communism" was actually stateless itself (and voluntary).

All property being owned by the (democratic) state was socialism, which was supposed to be the transitory phase between capitalism and communism.

ArbitorIan wrote:I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

There's a significant difference between thinking people should do something and wanting to force people into doing it.

Depending on what "socialist beliefs" entails, you could be highly opposed to them while considering personal charity very important as well.

It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the difference between kindness and political ideology going on here.

For example, charity does not mean socialism at all. You can be conservative and be charitable. It has nothing to do with how a state conducts itself.

Ahtman wrote:It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the difference between kindness and political ideology going on here.

For example, charity does not mean socialism at all. You can be conservative and be charitable. It has nothing to do with how a state conducts itself.

This is true, I'm conservative, hell I'm a stereotypical right wing wack job. But every time I see a hobo askin for change I give it when I have any. Charity is something based on a person. Socialism is something based on a country.

ArbitorIan wrote:Ok, to the OP

Um

What's wrong with being a socialist?

I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

I have said that Capitalism without socialism sucks. And vise versa. You need a healthy mixture of both. The problem with a lot of Americans is that a lot of us(not me) think that marxist leninism is the kind of socialism that Western Europe is using. I.E. they are very wrong in there understanding of Socialism.

ArbitorIan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:(I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Hold on, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church, the one headed by the Pope - the de facto largest and in many cases ONLY Christian church in western europe from it's foundation (was this by St.Peter or am I wrong?) until the reformation and protestant reorganisation in fourteenth century europe.

That one? Well it definitely 'claims' to be Christian! It's certainly 'as Christian' as the Greek Orthodoxy, or the Russian Orthodoxy, or any of the much (MUCH) more recent forms of protestantism (Baptism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc).

I don't follow a religion. But I think that, if you decide to live your life by any organised philosophical ideal (Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Fascism, Confucianism etc) you really should read up on it's history before involving yourself in arguments about it.

I don't know where this came from, but I never said that Catholics weren't Christians. You could have inserted Baptists for Catholics and the point would remain the same.

GG

Sorry for the delay in responding, I forgot this thread existed

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

I think we should view much of history with less knowing eyes. We can certainly take somethings as likely, but we should still accept that we don't know for certain.

I think both statements; 'I think it is likely there was an historical figure called Jesus' and 'I think the figure of Jesus was built up from multiple characters and legends from the time' are both reasonable.

I do not think 'We have proof of Jesus because we have a copy of document in the third century where a monk quotes a scholar who talked about Jesus 60 years after he died' is as reasonable a statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

The point is that it no-one is talking about a deliberate deception, but the evolution over time of multiple inspirational events and myths into a unified narrative. There were a lot of preachers at the time, and many of them were said to have performed miracles. It's possible that early Christianity took the stories of many of these preachers and formed them into one character.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.

That is almost exactly what I said. Did you not read my next post? There are a few other extra-biblical texts from that time period that mention Jesus. FJ is not the only one, it is just the most well known.

I've always said from the beginning that it is a question of whether or not it is reasonable, not whether it is definitive as to existence. I believe it is entirely possible that he didn't exist.

sebster wrote:
That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.

I have Josephus' Jewish Antiquities with me here, and there definitely is a small section about Christ in the text. I think that should suffice as a reliable source. It isn't drawn from some third party source, this is straight from his own work.

@JEB - yeah, but Flavius Josephus was born after the death of Jesus IIRC, making it not an eyewitness account. This is the same with most (if not all) extra-biblical texts which reference Jesus. But if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear about it. What are people's thoughts on the Gnostic Gospels (Judas, Mary Magdalene gospels et al.)? I own The Gospel Of Judas (not the original, sadly ), the picture it paints of early christianity is wildly different from it's current incarnation - well worth a read for people who are interested in this sort of area.

Albatross wrote:@JEB - yeah, but Flavius Josephus was born after the death of Jesus IIRC, making it not an eyewitness account. This is the same with most (if not all) extra-biblical texts which reference Jesus. But if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear about it. What are people's thoughts on the Gnostic Gospels (Judas, Mary Magdalene gospels et al.)? I own The Gospel Of Judas (not the original, sadly ), the picture it paints of early Christianity is wildly different from it's current incarnation - well worth a read for people who are interested in this sort of area.

True, Josephus was born after the death of Christ, but it was only 4 years after. He was born in AD 37, and wrote the Bellum Judaicum in AD 75 and the Antiquitates Judaicae in AD 94. Thus he could have and would have met at least some people who knew or saw Jesus. It is also unlikely that he would have been able to garner respect as a historian if his books were as inaccurate as to reference a myth. Not to mention the fact that the ruling class of the day would have been very upset with him for further propagating a legend as fact. As far as the gnostic gospels go, they are interesting reads, but complete rubbish. Since the earliest of them was written about 100 years after the death of Christ, they are most decidedly not written by any of his followers or even any eye witnesses. As I said before, interesting reads, but not relevant to Christian thought....

JEB_Stuart wrote:]I have Josephus' Jewish Antiquities with me here, and there definitely is a small section about Christ in the text. I think that should suffice as a reliable source. It isn't drawn from some third party source, this is straight from his own work.

Which section about Christ? Where is listed as the brother of James, or where he's described in his own right, as a wise man and all that. As I understand there's no confidence that the part about Jesus as a wise man was written by Flavius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I've always said from the beginning that it is a question of whether or not it is reasonable, not whether it is definitive as to existence. I believe it is entirely possible that he didn't exist.

Cool, that's what I've been saying from the start, that's is perfectly believable that someone called Jesus existed and lived much as the Jesus of the New Testament lived, but we don't know it.

Since the earliest of them was written about 100 years after the death of Christ, they are most decidedly not written by any of his followers or even any eye witnesses.

One could argue the same point about the books that make up The New Testament, the oldest copy of which dates back to around 350 CE.

True, Josephus was born after the death of Christ, but it was only 4 years after. He was born in AD 37, and wrote the Bellum Judaicum in AD 75 and the Antiquitates Judaicae in AD 94. Thus he could have and would have met at least some people who knew or saw Jesus. It is also unlikely that he would have been able to garner respect as a historian if his books were as inaccurate as to reference a myth.

That's your opinion. It's likely that historians from the ancient world were not judged by the same rigorous standards that they are today - there are many different ways to gather historical information in the modern age. A Jewish historian who MAY have spoken to people who MAY have known or seen Jesus, a figure who died before said historian was born is not a reliable eyewitness, that's all I'm saying. Now, records of birth, execution, Census records, letters authored by Jesus (or sent to him by someone else, even) human remains or a tomb - they would be considered more reliable.

Albatross wrote:One could argue the same point about the books that make up The New Testament, the oldest copy of which dates back to around AD 350.

Well no, that isn't true. It is the general consensus of the historical community, that the first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, and that was around AD 50-60. The rest followed shortly thereafter, with all four being completed no later then AD 75.

Albatross wrote:That's your opinion. It's likely that historians from the ancient world were not judged by the same rigorous standards that they are today - there are many different ways to gather historical information in the modern age. A Jewish historian who MAY have spoken to people who MAY have known or seen Jesus, a figure who died before said historian was born is not a reliable eyewitness, that's all I'm saying. Now, records of birth, execution, Census records, letters authored by Jesus (or sent to him by someone else, even) human remains or a tomb - they would be considered more reliable.

You are right it is my opinion, but it is at the very least logical, and well supported. And yes you are also right in that historians were not held to standards that are as strict as they are today, simply because those standards didn't exist. You don't really seem to grasp just how important Josephus was, and why he would have undoubtedly spoken to Christians, many of whom probably seen Jesus, but he would have at the very least been well connected with the Pharisees and the like, as he was a Jewish noble. He was also a Roman citizen, and that was granted to him by the emperor Titus himself. Josephus was very important, influential and well connected. It is almost a given fact that he would have come into contact with someone who met or saw Jesus. As far as records go, there just isn't anything like that in the ancient world, but we know its history because of its sources, ie: Caesar, Plutarch, Livy, Cicero, Josephus, Strabo, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc. It seems that you wanna throw out all of our historical knowledge from the era because of small details. And as far as human remains go, well being a Christian I believe in the Resurrection and that their are no remains to be had. And there are two tombs that are considered to be the possibility of the location of the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea.

Actually, Birth records, censuses (probably not the correct plural ) and tax records did exist in the ancient world, in fact the romans had a detailed birth-registration process.
Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate really...I think Jesus was a real person. But I'm right about Josephus - he wasn't there, he never met Him, he's not an eyewitness no matter how respected he WAS at the time, or IS now. That's not the same as saying Jesus wasn't real, though.

It seems that you wanna throw out all of our historical knowledge from the era because of small details.

Being an Atheist, I have similar problems with Christians, regarding evolution!

It is the general consensus of the historical community, that the first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, and that was around AD 50-60. The rest followed shortly thereafter, with all four being completed no later then AD 75.

Actually, that's disputed isn't it? The pre-75CE argument comes from a chap (forgotten his name, sorry!) who claimed they were written before this date because the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselem would have made it into the New Testament. That's an interesting (and credible) theory, but a theory is all it is because it's impossible to know for certain.

Albatross wrote:Actually, Birth records, censuses (probably not the correct plural ) and tax records did exist in the ancient world, in fact the Romans had a detailed birth-registration process.

My first instinct was that I was wrong in my initial declaration after reading this, but I sent the question along to an old professor of mine who is a Roman historian. His assertion is as follows: "The idea that the Romans had any sort of birth-registration process that was anything more then simple numbering every few decades or so is unfounded. While prominent Roman citizens, ie Patricians and Equites, did have family records covered in great detail, this was simply not the case for 90% of those who lived under the banner of Rome." Keep in mind the guy has a PhD from UC Berkeley and knows what he is talking about.

Albatross wrote:But I'm right about Josephus - he wasn't there, he never met Him, he's not an eyewitness no matter how respected he WAS at the time, or IS now.

I never claimed that Josephus was alive during the life of Christ, but merely that he is a reliable source.

Albatross wrote:Being an Atheist, I have similar problems with Christians, regarding evolution!

You do realize that not all Christians believe in Creationism right? You should not be so quick to generalize... Besides this isn't even the same as what I claimed. I am talking about historical detail and research, you are pointing to a theological dispute. Not really comparable.

Albatross wrote:Actually, that's disputed isn't it? The pre- AD 75 argument comes from a chap (forgotten his name, sorry!) who claimed they were written before this date because the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem would have made it into the New Testament. That's an interesting (and credible) theory, but a theory is all it is because it's impossible to know for certain.

Quite the reverse. It is just a few historians that think that the Gospels could have been written later than AD 75. The earliest possible dating given is AD 50, although I think that this is way too early. The most likely dates are from AD 65 to AD 75.

You do realize that not all Christians believe in Creationism right? You should not be so quick to generalize... Besides this isn't even the same as what I claimed. I am talking about historical detail and research, you are pointing to a theological dispute. Not really comparable

Actually, I didn't realise that. But surely an overwhelming number of Christians do believe that God created everything? Isn't that kind of the point? Plus, I was being facetious - I know it's not the same thing. I also know that it's a theological dispute, but thanks for patronising me.

As for the Roman thing - I did a bit of research and found an author you might want to check out regarding the birth registration topic: Fritz Schultz. He has written several texts on the subject. here is a quote from an article:

Emperor Hadrian stated in a rescript that when the age of an individual was at issue, all proofs of age should be furnished and a decision reached based on the most credible evidence. In another case, the Roman jurist Modestinus concluded that in order to prove one’s age for exemption of certain responsibilities, “age is proved either by notices of birth or by other customary (lawful) evidence.”

I didn't wanna go down the text-wall route but this SEEMS to suggest a certain amount of prevalence. But I'm going to tread carefully here - I wouldn't presume to discount what your professor says, Just putting it out there.

All I got to say is that JEB is Owning this thread.

Thanks for the insights.

GG

I think most Christians understand that Jesus never spoke about using the force of the government to take money other people earned and spend it on government programs, regardless of what the government plans are supposedly for.

He speaks often about helping those that need it, and I think over all our country does a good job. The United States is one of the most generous nations on Earth. More often than not, when the government gets involved things get worse.

I read what some socialist say about Jesus being socialist and it is just absurd. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but no where in the Bible does Jesus even hint on wanting to use the government to tax people! Some socialists don't really understand Christianity and just heard a few things and know a few verses and honestly believe that Jesus (or his message if they don't believe Him) was a big government guy. I think others that don't believe are just trying to craft a message that will play on American compassion. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian but really don't know Jesus. These are the people that may not take the time to wonder if Jesus really would be in favor of a nanny state. Jesus spent time with tax collectors because they were so despised and so lost--not because He wanted to help take money from those that earned it!!!!!

Albatross wrote:Actually, I didn't realise that. But surely an overwhelming number of Christians do believe that God created everything? Isn't that kind of the point?

The belief that God created everything and Creationism are two completely different belief systems. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis. The whole God created the Earth in 7 days thing, and it is largely held to by Christian fundamentalists. The vast majority of Christians though believe in "Theistic Evolution." This is basically a melding of the two ideas. We believe that God created everything, but through the process of evolution. One of my favorite authors, Dorothy Sayers, put it very well when she argued that God is akin to an artist, and that he used the process of evolution as his canvas for creation.

Albatross wrote:Plus, I was being facetious - I know it's not the same thing. I also know that it's a theological dispute, but thanks for patronizing me.

Sorry for that, I had no intention of patronizing you, I was merely clarifying a point. Its hard to declare the subtle nuances of the English language across the internet. I hate patronizing people, as I hate being patronized. Its part of that Golden Rule that Christ mentioned....

Albatross wrote:As for the Roman thing - I did a bit of research and found an author you might want to check out regarding the birth registration topic: Fritz Schulz. He has written several texts on the subject. here is a quote from an article:

Emperor Hadrian stated in a rescript that when the age of an individual was at issue, all proofs of age should be furnished and a decision reached based on the most credible evidence. In another case, the Roman jurist Modestinus concluded that in order to prove one’s age for exemption of certain responsibilities, “age is proved either by notices of birth or by other customary (lawful) evidence.”

I didn't wanna go down the text-wall route but this SEEMS to suggest a certain amount of prevalence. But I'm going to tread carefully here - I wouldn't presume to discount what your professor says, Just putting it out there.

Ah Fritz Shulz, not one of my favorite Roman historians, indeed Historian of Roman jurist practices is more appropriate. Two things about this point. Herr Schulz is referring to an emperor that ruled 100 years after the death of Christ. Tiberius was emperor during Christ's lifetime, and Augustus was the emperor during his childhood. Roman bureaucracy had not even come close to a maturity point to embark on something like that. It really wouldn't until the rule of Trajan. Secondly, don't be afraid to combat anything I or any of the experts I rely on with fact. I am not above admitting error and I welcome any well supported claims, if only to further examine my own positions.

@GG: Thanks for the props!

Some socialists don't really understand Christianity

Some Christians don't really understand Socialism. Obviously.

Sorry for that, I had no intention of patronizing you, I was merely clarifying a point.

No worries brother - it's hard to convey facetiousness over the internet too.

Herr Schulz is referring to an emperor that ruled 100 years after the death of Christ.

Sorry to nit-pick (hang on - look at who I'm talking to! ) but you just said the 'ancient world' in general, didn't you? Does this still qualify? Does anything post CE? I will admit to being unsure... Anyway, there was allegedly a Census around the time of Jesus' birth, wasn't there? Evidence like that is the kind I'm talking about. Real physical records and eyewitness reports. Take the Great Fire of London for example, we can say that it definitely happened because we have the Pepys diary account, as well as The London Gazette and Broadside Ballad sheets from the time, all eywitness accounts, all independent, and all of which describe it. I know that the time periods are greatly different, but my point is that we don't have THIS type of evidence in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, as we do with other ancient figures. So to beat someone over the head with the evidence - when the evidence is far from 100% conclusive - seems a little unreasonable to me, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying YOU have done that (you seem a reasonable kind of chap!) - but there have been people on here making "oh yeah? What about Josephus then? OMG you are an idiot"-type statements. I think that owes more to personal bias, than dispassionate analysis of the facts. But again, I think Jesus was a real bloke - I'm not saying Jesus wasn't real like some people.