Public School Bible Classes Plagued With Religious Bias

76

In 2007 the Texas Legislature passed a law encouraging the state’s public schools to teach about the influence of the Bible in history and literature. Schools can do that either by weaving such instruction into existing social studies and literature courses, or they can create full courses about the Bible. Today the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund released a report, authored by a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, that examines what students are learning in the 57 school districts and three charter schools that teach Bible courses.

Examples from Texas public schools:

  • Instructional material in two school districts teach that racial diversity today can be traced back to Noah’s sons, a long-discredited claim that has been a foundational component of some forms of racism.
  • Religious bias is common, with most courses taught from a Protestant — often a conservative Protestant — perspective. One course, for example, assumes Christians will at some point be “raptured.” Materials include a Venn diagram showing the pros and cons of theories that posit the rapture before the returning Jesus’ 1,000-year reign and those that place it afterward. In many courses, the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews are often left out.
  • Anti-Jewish bias — intentional or not — is not uncommon. Some courses even portray Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion that has been replaced by Christianity.

Written By: Texas Freedom Network
continue to source article at tfninsider.org

76 COMMENTS

  1. “How could such courses have gone so wrong?”

    They haven’t ‘gone wrong’- this is exactly what the Creatards planned. Public School Bible Classes- there’s the real agenda; had their intention been the study of comparative religions, then why was the Bible specified?

  2. Whoever supports such bollocks should be sent to a psychiatrist.
    I cannot understand why literate people support the Koranus and the Holey Babble.
    RD ‘s right .
    Logical atheism should be more strident ;in order to drag these idiots to a reasonable level of sanity ;based on empirical evidence.

  3. This is a total embarrassment. My question is, where are all the “constitutional defenders” who appear if the gun amendment is mentioned??? How come this blatant violation of the constitution is not offensive to them????

  4. Because the intent is to teach students about the Bible. That is not the same as preaching Christianity, which is strictly forbidden according to the language of the bill.

    In reply to #1 by Nodhimmi:

    “How could such courses have gone so wrong?”

    They haven’t ‘gone wrong’- this is exactly what the Creatards planned. Public School Bible Classes- there’s the real agenda; had their intention been the study of comparative religions, then why was the Bible specified?

  5. Actually according to the report it has been a problem elsewhere. Apparently, we’ve just dropped the ball after having been handed a great opportunity to lead the way. But, it could get better. ;-)

    In reply to #3 by faithless1:

    No surprise here. This is Texas.

  6. Just to explain the topic of my comment. Two days ago Alan4discussion, JHJEFFERY and I started to discuss historical authenticity of New Testament and resurection.

    Alan4discussion and JHJEFFERY wrote that there were no eyewitnesses of resurection of Jesus, just claiming that there were eyewitness written decades or centuries later.

    I wrote that vast majority of scholars agree that it were disciciples of Jesus who kept saying they saw Jesus alive a couple of days after his death. They are wrong that this story appeared decades or hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Because we know who claimed that Jesus rose from death – it were his disciples.

    As the debate was about the age of the Earth moderators asked us to continue somwhere else, so we agreed to move here.

    JHJEFFERY and Alan,
    I have read the discussion that you suggested, but before we continue in our debate I want to ask you openly.

    Do you aplly the same criteria when talking about the christianity to all events in history? Because if you do not, our debate is the waste of time.

    Do you accept the fact that you can not have as many records about Jesus and beginnig of christianity as you have about Winston Churchill?
    Do you accept that vast majority of records written two thousand years ago got lost, were destroyed in a fire, rain etc.?
    Or you are only critical when talking about christianity, but you require much less evidence when talking abou Caesar, Aristotle etc.?
    Because if you are not willing to apply the same criteria when talking about historical records about Jesus and christian movement as you aplly when talking about different events I am not goin to waste my time.

    To be exact, we do not have record written by 500 eye witnesses of resurection of Jesus, we have just three or four. Isn`t it enough?

  7. In reply to #11 by Robert Kubik:

    Alan4discussion and JHJEFFERY wrote that there were no eyewitnesses of resurection of Jesus, just claiming that there were eyewitness written decades or centuries later.

    I wrote that vast majority of scholars agree that it were disciciples of Jesus who kept saying they saw Jesus alive a couple of days after his death.

    We know what certain scholars say as their opinions. The problem is that these scholars simply wanted to believe this, so chose which versions of accounts they chose to believe. None of them had met or talked to eye witnesses, as far as we know. For many the dates are too late for this to be possible.

    They are wrong that this story appeared decades or hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Because we know who claimed that Jesus rose from death – it were his disciples.

    I think if you investigate the history you will find the disciples to whom the gospels are attributed were illiterate fishermen.

    JHJEFFERY and Alan,
    I have read the discussion that you suggested, but before we continue in our debate I want to ask you openly.

    Do you aplly the same criteria when talking about the christianity to all events in history? Because if you do not, our debate is the waste of time.

    I look for historical evidence in all cases and then look at what is confirmed and consistent with other forms of record – such as Roman ones where dates match. Scientific and linguistic methods of dating document of artefacts are also relevant.

    Do you accept the fact that you can not have as many records about Jesus and beginning of christianity as you have about Winston Churchill?

    Certainly. – There are many recent documents about Churchill.

    Do you accept that vast majority of records written two thousand years ago got lost, were destroyed in a fire, rain etc.?

    Many certainly did, but there are some detailed ones which give clear dates of and details of events events. – Particularly Roman ones. Some ancient documents were certainly burned! – Some even recently as this example shows!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

    Discovery at Nag Hammadi

    The story of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 has been described as ‘exciting as the contents of the find itself’.[5] In December of that year, two Egyptian brothers found several papyri in a large earthenware vessel while digging for fertilizer around the Jabal al-Ṭārif caves near present-day Hamra Dom in Upper Egypt.
    The find was not initially reported by either of the brothers, who sought to make money from the manuscripts by selling them individually at intervals.

    It is also reported that the brothers’ mother burned several of the manuscripts, worried, apparently, that the papers might have ‘dangerous effects’
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    Jung’s death in 1961 caused a quarrel over the ownership of the Jung Codex, with the result that the pages were not given to the Coptic Museum in Cairo until 1975, after a first edition of the text had been published. Thus the papyri were finally brought together in Cairo: of the 1945 find, eleven complete books and fragments of two others, ‘amounting to well over 1000 written pages’ are preserved there.
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    ..

    Robert Kubik: – Or you are only critical when talking about christianity, but you require much less evidence when talking about Caesar, Aristotle etc.?

    There is clear evidence of Ceasar – insciptions, coins, documents.

    Because if you are not willing to apply the same criteria when talking about historical records about Jesus and christian movement as you aplly when talking about different events I am not going to waste my time.

    I look for objective evidence in all cases, but will challenge stuff that is just made up, or was just made up in the past – as you did in the case of the “Gospel of Thomas”

    To be exact, we do not have record written by 500 eye witnesses of resurrection of Jesus, we have just three or four. Isn`t it enough?

    Most historical scholars accept that the NT Gospels were not written by the disciples which bear their names. As I pointed out, there are no eye-witness accounts, – just stories of eyewitness accounts written decades later. I do not say the a preacher called Jesua did not exist. – Just that there is no evidence in the historical records. It is possible that the stories are a composite of various preachers, exaggerated tales , or made-up by some of the various early Xtian sects. We know some versions contradict others, some were mistranslations, and some were made-up much later.

    JHJEFFERY and others, will probably go into more detail.

  8. Robert Kubik

    “Do you aplly the same criteria when talking about the christianity to all events in history? Because if you do not, our debate is the waste of time.”

    I’m not really sure what you mean, but I’ll give it a try. In the investigation of historical events, we use all means available. Even later written accounts of events. The siege of Troy from whence the Iliad came comes to mind. It was argued over for many years as to its authenticity–until the remains of Troy were found. But we cannot believe all of the Iliad, we can only now show there probably was a battle there.

    In the case of the NT, we are relatively certain, as Alan pointed out, that first century fisherman in the backwaters of the Roman Empire could not read and write. The oldest fragment of scripture (By memory I think it’s P52) is from the first century. The oldest complete Bibles, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, date from the mid fourth century. It is possible that one or both of them were the result of Constantine’s directive to Eusebius to create 50 (?) Bibles, although most scholars seem to doubt this. These codices prove that many changes were made to the NT after 325 CE–the most famous of which being the added ending of Mark (Mark, the first gospel, contains neither a virgin birth story or a resurrection story. These werd added later.) BTW, you keep arguing that “the vast majority of scholars” think the NT was written during the lives of the disciples. This is terribly wrong. I don’t know of ANY serious scholars who would make that claim. Look up Habermas, who is far more a fundamentalist than any other biblical scholar–if he can be called that. Even my copy of the NLT version of the NT does not claim that the disciple Mark wrote it, and gives the date between 55–65 CE (this is itself too lenient as the accepted date is between 65-70). So the writer of Mark (it was not titled until a long time later) did not have access to any eyewitness. Nor, for that matter, does he claim so.

    So the shorter answer to your question is this: scholars have been looking at the dates of the NT books almost from the beginning. Every fact available has been used: textual, historical fact (such as the burning of the Temple), historical accuracy (flat F on that one), carbon dating, publication materials and processes (the codex did not exist in the region during the time of JC). Simply saying “the vast majority . . .” gains you no points. Instead, refer me to any scholar that makes such a claim. If you care to read any of the scholars I mentioned previously, you will find that your examination of the issue is in its infancy. You will discover that Mary was not originally a virgin, that Jesus did not originally appear to the disciples (much less to 500). You will also find that Paul is not regarded as a pristine source, But you will note that his writings are earlier than the rest, therefore probably begetting the rest–and he never even claims to have seen Jesus alive. (While you’re reading Corinthians (it might be Romans) tell me whether the people around him during his gran mal seizure actually heard the voice–he tells it both ways).

    Finally, get on line and find an interview or speech from Bart Ehrman, a PhD historian at UNC, and hear what he has to say about the reliability of the Bible.

    “To be exact, we do not have record written by 500 eye witnesses of resurection of Jesus, we have just three or four. Isn`t it enough?”

    I thought it only appeared in Corinthians, no?

    PS I dropped you a link on the age of earth cite you may find amusing.

  9. JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    You asked me which document about resurection and authenticity of NT I have read. I have read books written by atheist, as well as christians. But the best of all were books written by historians which were not ideological books but books about history of ancient Rome. I collected only those information, that were accepted by vast majority of scholars and put them together.

    I asked questions like this: Do historians believe that the record of Tacitus is reliable? Why? Is record of Josephus reliable? Why not? What information do we have about first Christians? Who were the authors of books of NT? I discounted opionions that were accepted only by christians or only by atheists and I regarded only those fact that most historians accept.

    Just to make clear about objective of our discussion.
    We are discussing whether there were eyewitnesses who claimed they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion or it was just a mythology that appeared decades or centuries later.

    I am not going to write about testimonies in Gospels because not all historians believe that the apostles or apostles friends were the authors. But in the books by church fathers in 2nd century it was written that authors were disciples Mathew and John, Mark who was Peters interpreter, and Luke who was travelling with Paul in his missions. If we applied the same criteria about authorship of gospels that we apply when talking about other ancient documents, historians would agree that the authors were these four men. Alan, you were wrong – Not all Jews were illiterate fishermen. Mathew was a taxcollector and a majority of Jews were literate. But I am not going to consider records about resurection of Jesus written in gospels as not all historians believe that they were written by eyewitnesses.

    We can ignore book of Acts too. Despite the fact that archaeological discoveries in 20th centuries proved that Luke was very accurate in many details, such as geography, titles of roman officials etc. He probably wrote his book in the middle of first century, because if he had written it later, there would be a lot of anachromisms. But not all historians agree that this book was written in 60s, so do not consider it.

    But we can not omit Paul`s letters for these reasons.

    All historians agrre that the author was Paul and they were written about 20 years after crusifiction. You say that 20 years is a long time, life expectancy was 30 etc.
    Life expectancy was low because a lot of infants died, there were infections and no antibiotics, but people who lived up to the age of 60 or 70 were not rare.
    20 years is a very short time if you compare it with other ancient documents. The first biographies of Alexander the Great were written 300 years after his death.
    The first biography of Mohamed was written 120 years after his death. The first stories about Budha were written 500 years after his death etc.

    You must understand that the main way to spread ideas was not writting but oral teaching.
    Paul wrote the letters just to remind the gospel that they had heard before.
    So we are sure, that apostles started preaching message of risen Jesus a couple years before Paul wrote his letters.

    And you can not ignore the fact that there were chritians in a lot of Roman provincies in AD 64 when Nero decided to persecute them. Tacitus wrote about this new sect that started in Judah and spread everywhere. So historians agree that this cult was born immediately after crusifiction.

    And it is clear what they preached. The message was that Jesus rose from death and eye witnesses saw him. How do we know what exactly they preached?
    How do you know that Dawkins is an atheist? From his books.
    How do you know that Marx was a socialist? From his books.
    How do you know that Xtians claimed that Jesus had risen and eyewitnesses saw him alive? From early Xtians books and letters. Is that clear?

    Paul wrote this in the 1st Corinthian: „1.Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also“ (New international version)
    And not just in this text but in many letters he reminds that he is preaching the same gospel that he received from the disciples of Jesus.

    Can we agree that message that Jesus rose from death was not something that was made-up decades after his death but it was preached by apostles immediately after his crusifiction?

  10. JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    Last month I read an article about archaelogical discovery. I did not read it in a tabloid but in a broadsheet with good reputation with quite atheistic worldview.
    I found an article about this discovery in English, but this one seems to be written by Christian, but I am reminding that in my country it was written in a secular newspaper.

    http://thejesusdiscovery.org/

    It said that there was an archaeological examination by robotic camera of an intact first century tomb in Jerusalem and they found a a picture of Jonas and a big fish. The “sign of Jonah,” was mentioned by Jesus as a symbol of his resurrection.

    Moreover there was written: „The Divine Jehovah raises up from [the dead].”
    This tomb was build before 70 AD when the Jerusalem was destroyed.

    Do you know what it means?

    It means that there were people in Jerusalem before 70 AD (before 70 does not necessarily mean it was 69, it could have been in 60s, 50s, even 40s or 30s) who believed this:
    1. Jesus rose from death.
    2. believed Jesus was a God (title Jehovah is for God, not prophet)

    How is it possible that there were people believing in resurection in Jerusalem? They could have verified a lot of facts, such as empty tomb of Jesus, testimonies of eyewitnesses etc.

    Do you agree that we have enough records to say, that the story of resurection of Jesus appeared immedialtely after his crusifiction in Jerusalem?

    Whether he really rose is a different question. But historians are quite sure, that disciples claimed he had risen.

  11. In reply to #15 by Robert Kubik:

    JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    I collected only those information, that were accepted by vast majority of scholars and put them together.

    One of the problems with fundamentalist claims is that statements like, “were accepted by vast majority of scholars ” is usually just repeating what some preacher or fundamentalist text said. – Not factually correct information.

    I have seen similar statements saying creationist claims “are accepted by the vast majority of scientists” when that is clearly not the case.

    I asked questions like this: Do historians believe that the record of Tacitus is reliable? Why? Is record of Josephus reliable? Why not? What information do we have about first Christians? Who were the authors of books of NT? I discounted opionions that were accepted only by christians or only by atheists and I regarded only those fact that most historians accept.

    This is using confirmation bias in place of evidence, as a measure of reliability. It is a method which has no connection to objectivity. Personal beliefs, or what people WANT to believe, should not make a difference in honest investigations.

    How would you possibly know who were unbiased historians unless you previously knew the facts, or other evidence?

    Just to make clear about objective of our discussion.
    We are discussing whether there were eyewitnesses who claimed they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion or it was just a mythology that appeared decades or centuries later.

    The first objective evidence is simply that dead bodies do not rise from the dead.
    There are no contemporary written records. Also the Romans were very conscientious in checking the crucified were dead.

    I am not going to write about testimonies in Gospels because not all historians believe that the apostles or apostles friends were the authors.

    Can you produce ANY example of a historian with evidence that any of them were the authors?

    But in the books by church fathers in 2nd century it was written that authors were disciples Mathew and John, Mark who was Peters interpreter, and Luke who was travelling with Paul in his missions. If we applied the same criteria about authorship of gospels that we apply when talking about other ancient documents, historians would agree that the authors were these four men.

    Of course they would not! This is just wishful thinking. It is well known that early Xtian sects claimed their texts were authored by known “celebrities” to try to add credibility to their claims.

    Alan, you were wrong – Not all Jews were illiterate fishermen. Mathew was a taxcollector and a majority of Jews were literate.

    The majority of Jews certainly were not literate! Scribes and Romans were literate. From descriptions, it is possible that Matthew and Judas were literate – if such people actually existed.

    But I am not going to consider records about resurection of Jesus written in gospels as not all historians believe that they were written by eyewitnesses.

    Again you assert “NOT ALL”, (implying some do) when the absence of evidence indicates “NOT ANY”.

    But we can not omit Paul`s letters for these reasons.

    All historians agrre that the author was Paul and they were written about 20 years after crusifiction. You say that 20 years is a long time, life expectancy was 30 etc.

    I think there is a consensus that Paul wrote Paul’s letters – long after claimed events. (They don’t even have a record or date for “the crucifiction” so dates are doubtful.)

    Life expectancy was low because a lot of infants died, there were infections and no antibiotics, but people who lived up to the age of 60 or 70 were not rare.

    Actually there were some old people around but they were uncommon – even rare. Most died much younger than this. Travel was also very limited at this time.

    You must understand that the main way to spread ideas was not writting but oral teaching.

    We are very aware of the unreliability of gossip and oral story telling. There are all sorts of wierd and wonderful exaggerated stories around at the present time, which bear minimal factual relationships to actual events!

    And you can not ignore the fact that there were chritians in a lot of Roman provincies in AD 64 when Nero decided to persecute them. Tacitus wrote about this new sect that started in Judah and spread everywhere. So historians agree that this cult was born immediately after crusifiction.

    As I have pointed out earlier, “THIS CULT” was not “ONE CULT”. – It was a whole varied selection of small cults with conflicting stories and magical myths who were a small minority of the population.

    Can we agree that message that Jesus rose from death was not something that was made-up decades after his death but it was preached by apostles immediately after his crusifiction?

    You have produced no historical evidence to support this dating, – only conjecture and speculation.

  12. In reply to #16 by Robert Kubik:

    JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    Last month I read an article about archaelogical discovery. I did not read it in a tabloid but in a broadsheet with good reputation with quite atheistic worldview.
    I found an article about this discovery in English, but this one seems to be written by Christian, but I am reminding that in my country it was written in a secular newspaper.

    http://thejesusdiscovery.org/

    It said that there was an archaeological examination by robotic camera of an intact first century tomb in Jerusalem and they found a a picture of Jonas and a big fish. The “sign of Jonah,” was mentioned by Jesus as a symbol of his resurrection.

    This is indeed an interesting discovery.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/jesus-discovery-jerusalem_n_1305355.html

    Archaeologists who work on the history of ancient Judaism and early Christianity disagree over whether there is any reliable archaeological evidence directly related to Jesus or his early followers.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    Most are convinced that nothing of this sort has survived, not a single site, inscription, artifact, drawing, or text mentioning Jesus or his followers, or witnessing to the beliefs of the earliest Jewish Christians either in Jerusalem or in Galilee.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    Jesus was born, lived, and died in the land of Israel. Most scholars agree he was born around 5 BCE and died around 30 CE. We have abundant archaeological evidence from this period related to Galilee, where he began his preaching and healing campaigns, and Jerusalem, where he was crucified.

    There is evidence related to Herod Antipas, the high priest Caiaphas, and even Pontius Pilate, who had him crucified, but nothing that would connect us to Jesus himself, or even to his earliest followers — until now.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    Our hope is that these exciting new discoveries can become the catalyst for reconsidering other archaeological evidence that might well be related to the first Jewish-Christian believers.

    The oldest copies of the New Testament gospels date to the early 4th century CE, well over two hundred years after Jesus’ lifetime.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    There are a few papyri fragments of New Testament writings that scholars have dated to the 2nd century CE, but nothing so far in the 1st century.

    The earliest Christian art is found in the catacomb tombs in Rome, dating to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries CE.

    Our discovery effectively pushes back the date on early Christian archaeological evidence by two hundred years. More significantly, it takes us back into the lifetime of Jesus himself.

    You will see that some of your earlier claims about “historians”, and “scholars” are disputed here.
    Nevertheless this looks like evidence of an early Xtian tomb.

    Robert Kubik: – Whether he really rose is a different question. But historians are quite sure, that disciples claimed he had risen.

    I think this is the book you are referring to:

    http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Discovery-Archaeological-Reveals-Christianity/dp/145165040X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330387039&sr=8-1&tag=vglnkc7200-20

    The story of a stunning new discovery that provides the first physical evidence of Christians in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus and his apostles

    In 2010, using a specialized robotic camera, authors Tabor and Jacobovici, working with archaeologists, geologists, and forensic anthropologists, explored a previously unexcavated tomb in Jerusalem from around the time of Jesus. They made a remarkable discovery. The tomb contained several ossuaries, or bone boxes, two of which were carved with an iconic image and a Greek inscription. Taken together, the image and the inscription constitute the earliest archaeological evidence of faith in Jesus’ resurrection.

    Since the newly discovered ossuaries can be reliably dated to before 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, they also provide the first evidence in Jerusalem of the people who would later be called “Christians.” In fact, it is possible, maybe even likely, that whoever was buried in this tomb knew Jesus and heard him preach.

    The newly examined tomb is only 200 feet away from the so-called Jesus Family Tomb.

    This controversial tomb, excavated in 1980 and recently brought to international attention, contained ossuaries inscribed with names associated with Jesus and his immediate family.

    Critics dismissed the synchronicity of names as mere coincidence.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    There have been many inferences in this geographical area, drawn from archaeological finds, in which beliefs are superimposed extending conclusions beyond actual evidence. (Some Orthodox Jewish archaeologists are known to work checking their finds with their Torah, to see if the “interpretations”are correct!)

    It will be interesting to see how these claims check-out, when independently checked and tested.

  13. Alan,
    you wrote that I have produced no historical evidence to support this dating, – only conjecture and speculation.
    So you deny that the cult which worshiped resurected Jesus appeared in Judah a very short time after his death.
    You also deny that they claimed that Jesus rose from death.

    So perhaps you can answer these questions:

    When did Christian faith come into existence?

    What did the first christians preach if not that Jesus had risen?

    Which evidence do you have to support your claiming?

    You rejected all my evidence. Which criteria do you think historians should use to find out:

    1. When did the first Xtians appear?

    2. What mnessage did the first Xtians preach?

  14. Alan, you wrote: “It is well known that early Xtian sects claimed their texts were authored by known “celebrities” to try to add credibility to their claims.”

    In fact the authors of gospel of Thomas, gospel of Peter etc. did this to try to add credibility to their claims.
    Thomas and Peter where dead in that time when their gospels were written.

    But except from John, authors of the four gospels did not have a good reputation. Mathew had the worst reputation as a tax collector, Mark and Luke were not among the twelve disciples.

    Do you apply the same criteria when talking about different texts? If people in second century believed that these four men were the authors, it is likely they really were the authors.

  15. Alan, you wrote:
    “I think there is a consensus that Paul wrote Paul’s letters – long after claimed events”
    What do you mean by long after claimed events? How many years after claimed events?

  16. In reply to #19 by Robert Kubik:

    Alan,
    you wrote that I have produced no historical evidence to support this dating, – only conjecture and speculation.

    So you deny that the cult which worshiped resurected Jesus appeared in Judah a very short time after his death.

    This is not a rational conclusion from my post. I do no “deny” the existence of Xtian cults, but would dispute any claim that there was only one cult. The question of when the resurrection claim is first recorded, is unclear, but was certainly decades later.

    You also deny that they claimed that Jesus rose from death.

    No I do not deny that such a claim was made – I only point out the lack of evidence as to when it was first made.

    So perhaps you can answer these questions:

    When did Christian faith come into existence?

    . . . Probably as the preacher’(s’ ) disciples scattered through the area. The use of the term “Xtian” was probably applied retrospectively. The early sects had invidual names ( Gnostic, Coptic, followers of named disciples etc.)

    What did the first christians preach if not that Jesus had risen?

    This is uncertain, but there are a few differing accounts from the various sects.

    Which evidence do you have to support your claiming?

    I do not make any claims, apart from noting the lack of supporting evidence for many other Xtain claims.

    You rejected all my evidence. Which criteria do you think historians should use to find out:

    Radiometric dated documents, artefacts, cross-checking events which are confirmed in Roman records etc. – the normal material evidence used by historical researchers and archaeologists. If there is none at present on some issues, then simply say so.

    It is well know even in modern history, that accounts of the events differ widely because of authors, religious groups, or governments political agendas.

    I did not reject “all your (rather sketchy) evidence”. I questioned the independent verification of the archaeologists claims about the tomb I also pointed out that some of your unsupported claims, conflicted with the account I had linked, regarding the general view of historians and archaeologists.

    When did the first Xtians appear?

    There was clearly a following during the life of their preacher, which persisted, split into sects and cults, and eventually was pulled together by the bishops in AD. 325 to become the established church of Constantine’s Rome.

    What message did the first Xtians preach?

    This is probably unknown. There are no early records. As I said elsewhere in an earlier post – the whole area was over-run with itinerant Jewish preachers at that time.

    I think others here will deal with your other questions.

  17. Robert Kubik

    Robert, I don’t think I’m going to fool with you anymore. Both Alan and I have challenged your more ridiculous assertions (most jews were literate, not all historians believe that the apostles or apostles friends were the authors–as Alan pointed out, it should read “not any”) and asked you for NAMES of the historians you claim make these assertions. You just keep making the same erroneous assertions. I have given you names. Try “Jesus Misquoted” by Bart Ehrman or “Jesus; a Revolutionary History” by JD Crossan. Read these, and read the thesis I sent you by email and then come back. But if you do come back, be ready to back up your vague allegations with fact. Also read “The Gnostic Gospels” by Valentinus (sp), to learn the other types of Christian teachings contemporaneous with those of the protoorthodox. You must learn to distinguish current orthodoxy from protoorthodoxy–which you have obviously been unable to do. Nothing you have alleged is accepted by even a tiny minority of scholars, so for you to allege, again vaguely (you apparently don’t know the names of the scholars) that a “vast majority” believes such and such is just plain dishonest.

    I do sympathize with you desire to have the story come out as you have been taught it, but the people who taught you were either ignorant of the truth, or, more likely, very naughty.

  18. BTW, there is no concensus on the authorship of Paul’s letters. Some scholars question several of the books supposedly written by Paul, mostly, if I recall, on textual abnormalities. I take no position on this.

  19. Alan4discussion

    You wrote: „The first objective evidence is simply that dead bodies do not rise from the dead.“ I deffinitely agree with you. Of course dead people never rise unless they are risen by God. Your problem is that you do not allow the idea that there could be God who can rise someone from dead. In this case you can have as many testimonies as possible it will not persuade you.

    Not even a testimony which is not two thousand years old, but the testimony which is 12 years old. It is about Daniel Ekechukwu who died after a car accident, the doctor examinated him and decided he was dead. He was about 42 hours dead, but his wife brought him to the CfaN campaign, where people prayed for him and was risen. This story is well known, perfectly recorded (death certificate, testimony of the hospital staff etc.) but some peole are not willing to believe it.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2003/04/daniel-ekechukwu-modern-day/

  20. JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    I asked you at the beginning of our discussion whether you use the same criteria when investigating the history af Xtianity as you use when talking about secular history. You said Yes.

    But using your criteria we need to cross off 90 prer cent of ancient history and 80 per cent of medieval history from history textbooks.

    We have 27 books of NT. All of them were written in the 1st century. All of them preach the same message: Jesus died on a cross, rose from death and was seen by his disciples.
    And you keep saying: ” there is lack of evidence, this is uncertain what they preach. There are no early records etc. “

    Just two examples from ancient and medieval history.
    Using your criteria I must say that it is uncertain whether Aristotle ever existed and wrote his books. We have no record about him. The only thing we have are copies of copies of his books written 1,300 later after the original books were written.

    In the territory where I live was an empire in the 623 -658 AD. The only written record about this empire are five sentences in the chronicle. The chronicle was written in the 9th century, but we only have copy from 11th century. All historians are certain that this empire really existed.

    Either you are an agnostic who denies 90 per cent of history or you are not using the same criteria when talking about early christianity and you require much more evidence.

    I’m not going to fool with you anymore either.

    And if you wish to focus on mistakes in my text that do not change the main idea (such as the level of literacy among Jews), I could do the same (“The Gnostic Gospels” were not contemporaneous with those of the protoorthodox. They were written a hundred years later.) But it is not my way. I alwas stick to the main objective of discusssion.

  21. In reply to #25 by Robert Kubik:

    Alan4discussion
    You wrote:
    „The first objective evidence is simply that dead bodies do not rise from the dead.“

    I deffinitely agree with you. Of course dead people never rise unless they are risen by God.

    I think you would need to produce some evidence for the existence some god and how it interacts with the material universe, – only being detectable on occasions when its followers want to believe in miracles!

    No such evidence has ever been produced. The only scientific evidence is in the psychology of the believers.

    Then you would need to show why this would be the particular god you have chosen acting as described.

    Your problem is that you do not allow the idea that there could be God who can rise someone from dead.

    I don not believe in tooth-fairies, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, or magic spells – for the same reason – no evidence. – Just wishful stories – ancient and modern.

    There are very remote possibilities that certain types of remote deist gods could exist, . – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities – but many of the thousands of theist gods, have claimed properties which are easily refuted by science.

    I do actually know where gods exist – in the brains of believers. I also know the limitations of their capabilities are restricted to motivating and deluding those believers. (Read Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”)

    http://mysticpolitics.com/brain-damage-linked-to-spirituality-and-religious-fundamentalism/

    The patients with damage to the vmPFC also were more likely to have authoritarian and religious fundamentalist beliefs than patients without damage to this area.

    According to Asp and colleagues, the prefrontal cortex “is critical in mediating doubt, and thus damage to the prefrontal cortex should result in a “doubt deficit’”. This could be because such patients struggle to tag new religious notions as false, or because their memorised religious doubts were erased by their injury (or perhaps a combination of the two).

    Whatever the explanation, they are careful to point out that this doesn’t mean that fundamentalists are brain damaged! Rather, this illustrates the kinds of psychology that could link to fundamentalist beliefs.

    From my perspective, I think it’s nice to contrast this result with those of the Johnstone study. Together they nicely demonstrate that not only is there no such thing as a ‘god spot’ in the brain, but that what we call ‘religion’ is in fact a mix of different psychological traits – and ones that are not necessarily linked.

    The effects of readiness of believers to accept supernatural magic as an explanation, are based on a lack of critical thinking and education, which would provide the alternative more credible natural explanations.
    These experiments with brain damaged patients show which parts of the brain are responsible for imagining gods and producing spiritual feelings.

    In this case you can have as many testimonies as possible it will not persuade you.

    Not at all. If scientific evidence is confirmed by competent medical researchers I will accept this. Stories made up by unqualified wishful thinkers do not count.

    Not even a testimony which is not two thousand years old, but the testimony which is 12 years old. It is about Daniel Ekechukwu who died after a car accident, the doctor examinated him and decided he was dead. He was about 42 hours dead, but his wife brought him to the CfaN campaign, where people prayed for him and was risen. This story is well known, perfectly recorded (death certificate, testimony of the hospital staff etc.) but some people are not willing to believe it.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2003/04/daniel-ekechukwu-modern-day/

    The obvious more realistic explanation is a misdiagnosis of the “death”, with eventual recovery from a coma.
    Such events are rare, but well known in medical literature.
    Dead bodies decompose beyond any chance of recovery quite rapidly. – If their self-preservation and healing mechanisms are still working, they are not dead.

    The supernatural is a paradox – if it has any effect in the material world, it is part of natural science – if it has no effect it is non-existent or irrelevant!

  22. In reply to #26 by Robert Kubik:

    JHJEFFERY , Alan4discussion

    I asked you at the beginning of our discussion whether you use the same criteria when investigating the history af Xtianity as you use when talking about secular history. You said Yes.

    But using your criteria we need to cross off 90 prer cent of ancient history and 80 per cent of medieval history from history textbooks.

    Some history is well evidenced, some is not, some text books have errors. I am open to new evidence.

    I would not even claim to have studied 80% of human history. Humans have been on this big rocky planet for thousands of years creating numerous cultures.

    We have 27 books of NT. All of them were written in the 1st century. All of them preach the same message: Jesus died on a cross, rose from death and was seen by his disciples.

    You just keep making this stuff up – or copying it from people who have made it up – as JHJEFFERY has pointed out.

    And you keep saying: ” there is lack of evidence, this is uncertain what they preach. There are no early records etc. “

    There are very limited scraps of preserved information. There are certainly no records supporting many of the claims you are making, with what records there are, contradicting you.

    Just two examples from ancient and medieval history.

    Using your criteria I must say that it is uncertain whether Aristotle ever existed and wrote his books. We have no record about him. The only thing we have are copies of copies of his books written 1,300 later after the original books were written.

    Poor analogies only make for irrelevant side-tracks.

    In the territory where I live was an empire in the 623 -658 AD. The only written record about this empire are five sentences in the chronicle. The chronicle was written in the 9th century, but we only have copy from 11th century. All historians are certain that this empire really existed.

    The existence of an empire is a different issue from supernatural claims or details in myths related to it. Empires leave archaeological evidence.

    Either you are an agnostic who denies 90 per cent of history or you are not using the same criteria when talking about early christianity and you require much more evidence.

    This is just another unsupported assertion expressing your wish to believe stories you have been told by people you trusted. I seem to recall you questioning the Age of the Earth/universe in an earlier discussion – That is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of history.

    I’m not going to fool with you anymore either.

    You do not seem to be learning from any of the facts or evidence we have provided, but came with the intention of sticking to very limited preconceived ideas. Perhaps you were surprised that some of those here have studied the subjects you have raised.

    That is the difference between scientific debate which follows the evidence to its conclusion – (up-dating its view when new evidence is confirmed), – and faith – which starts with preconceived ideas, without evidence, and tries to “win an argument” supporting its prior view.

    And if you wish to focus on mistakes in my text that do not change the main idea (such as the level of literacy among Jews), I could do the same (“The Gnostic Gospels” were not contemporaneous with those of the protoorthodox. They were written a hundred years later.)

    Gazoing!!! An argument lacking evidence and full of mistakes, is unsurprisingly – not very convincing – especially in a forum which takes pride in checking information.

    But it is not my way. I always stick to the main objective of discussion.

    Or more precisely – you stick to YOUR objective of the discussion – which is to confirm your prior viewpoint – even in the face of the evidence.

    That is how fundamentalist beliefs obstruct learning about how things work in the real world, along with obstructing learning about how scientific evidence supports or refutes stories from history.

  23. Alan4discussion,

    About Daniel Ekechukwu you wrote: “The obvious more realistic explanation is a misdiagnosis of the “death”, with eventual recovery from a coma.”

    But the account said: “Finally they drove to the Eunice Clinic, and there Daniel was confirmed to be dead by Doctor Josse Annebunwa. There was no breathing, no heartbeat or pulse, and Daniel’s pupils were fixed. The doctor said that there was nothing he could do. A death certificate was issued at 11:30 P.M., November 30, 2001. “

    So it was not a coma, pupils were fixed, no pulse or breathing . He was dead and 42 hours later risen. Witnesses said his body was cold and stiff.

    Talking about resurection of Jesus I admitt we do not have much. It was two thousand years ago, but comparing to the other ancient documents we have a lot.

    We know from Roman historians (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius etc.) there were people in the 1st century who worshiped Jesus who had been crusified and these christians were persecuted for their faith. And we know from early Christian books what message they preached – risen Jesus.
    So we have enough information to put them together and claim that the cult who believed in risen Jesus did not apppear in the 4th century but in the 1st

  24. Robert Kubik 26

    “I asked you at the beginning of our discussion whether you use the same criteria when investigating the history af Xtianity as you use when talking about secular history. You said Yes.”

    Demonstrably false.

    “But using your criteria we need to cross off 90 prer cent of ancient history and 80 per cent of medieval history from history textbooks.”

    Demonstrably false.

    “We have 27 books of NT. All of them were written in the 1st century”

    Demonstably false. Check the date on Revelation.

    “All of them preach the same message: Jesus died on a cross, rose from death and was seen by his disciples”

    Demonstrably false. Mark contains no such method. Several others do not as well.

    “All historians “

    Would you PLEASE stop committing the fallacy of argument from authority. Either you know a historian who agrees with you and can name him or you do not and are just lying.

    “(“The Gnostic Gospels” were not contemporaneous with those of the protoorthodox. They were written a hundred years later.)”

    I knew you didn’t know even what protoorthodoxy means. The Christian religion was protoorthodox until 325 CE–long after the Gnostic Gospels were written.

    So long.

    JHJ

  25. In reply to #30 by JHJEFFERY:

    Robert Kubik 26

    “I asked you at the beginning of our discussion whether you use the same criteria when investigating the history af Xtianity as you use when talking about secular history. You said Yes.”

    I think Robert is referring to his asking me about my criteria, even though comment 26 is addressed to both of us -

    You said Yes.”

    and I did confirm I use the same criteria for examining secular and religious historical claims.

    (I think the use of “>” or “>>” at the beginning of quoted lines + double line spaces at the end of them, would make posts and quotes clearer.)

    Your other challenges to made-up wrong assertions are quite valid.

  26. I mispoke too curtly in response to the first question. I was thinking that we do not give the same weight to all historical evidence. I do believe, unlike some on this site, that the Bible must be considered historical evidence. It’s just very weak historical evidence and could be trumped by almost anything.

    I thought I tried using > on this new site and it didn’t work. Is there some new method, or is it just like the old? Double lines spaces will produce a single space? Let’s see.

    OK

    JHJ

    In reply to #31 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #30 by JHJEFFERY:

    Robert Kubik 26

    “I asked you at the beginning of our discussion whether you use the same criteria when investigating the history af Xtianity as you use when talking about secular history. You said Yes.”

    I think Robert is referring to his asking me about my criteria, even though comment 26 is addressed to both of us -

    You said Yes.”

    and I did confirm I use the same criteria for examining secular and religious historical claims.

    (I think the use of “>” or “>>” at the beginning of quoted lines + double line spaces at the end of them, would make posts and quotes clearer.)

    Your other challenges to made-up wrong assertions are quite valid.

  27. Robert, if you haven’t already left, let me make a suggestion to you. All of the works I cited before will help you understand, but you are not yet grounded in the overall depth of the subject matter. You have not read David Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” You need to read Chapter X of that work. It’s available on line (I went and fetched it for you–wasn’t that nice?) at:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/david_hume/human_understanding.html

    It is fairly brief and to the point. Opens one’s eyes.

    JHJ

  28. JHJEFFERY

    Thank you, I am going to read it.

    I do not think I can suggest you to read The case for Christ by Lee Strobel because atheists in my country alwas say: “I am not going to read such a rubbish.” Perhaps they are worried it might destroy their worlview.

    But I suggest you to read ANY book about history of Roman empire and you will find out these facts:

    1.Jesus was crusified.
    2.A short time after his death his disciples started to claim that they saw him risen.
    3.They were persecuted, but did not stop preaching that Jesus had risen and majority of them died as martyrs because of their faith.

  29. In reply to #35 by Robert Kubik:

    I do not think I can suggest you to read The case for Christ by Lee Strobel because atheists in my country always say: “I am not going to read such a rubbish.”

    The reason why atheists and scientists do not read “YEC rubbish”, is because it is simply made-up by people who want to believe their bible is literally true, but whose arguments are comically incompetent – just unsupported assertions – ignoring the research which has been done on the subject on Roman history, the early Gospels of differing Xtian sects, or the following bible versions.

    They do “know” that “THE BIBLE” is “true”!… – Having been told so in childhood – .. ….

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    That is:-

    The Hebrew Bible (Tora)

    The Septuagint (Greek translation)

    The New Testament (Paul’s letters)

    Latin Vulgate Translation, (Commissioned by pope)

    Alcuin Bible, (Charlemagne)

    Paris Bible,

    Wycliffe Bible ( First English translation 1382)

    (1408 RC archbishop forbids English translations)

    Gutenburg Bible,

    Dutch scholar Erasmus translation ( Latin and Greek)

    Luther Bible,

    William Tyndale English translation 1526 (which leads to his execution),

    (Henry VIII takes over C of E from RC),

    Coverrdale Bible 1535,

    Matthew Bible 1537,

    Great Bible 1539,

    Geneva Bible 1560 (Published in English in Switzerland),

    Douai-Rheims Bible,

    King James Bible 1611,

    New English Bible.

    These repeatedly translated, miss-translated and contradictory works are all pronounced to be THE UNERRING TRUTH! – Usually by people who have never heard of them and never read them! Still that’s fundamentalism!!

    History records the various sects burning books, and fighting and killing each other, over differences in these texts.

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    Perhaps they are worried it might destroy their worldview.

    That seems very unlikely – It’s a bit like expecting some Young Earth nonsense from someone demonstrating a profound ignorance of the working of physics, stars, galaxies, planets and moons, to destroy my understanding of astronomy!

    You seem to forget that many atheists were Xtians before they investigated the facts and became educated in subjects like science and history – rejecting childhood fantasies about fairies, gods, and magic.

    I have read many links to YEC writings – all the ones I have seen are not only wrong, but are comically incompetent – even at biblical subjects! Some “Old Earth Creationist” work, is of a better quality.

    But I suggest you to read ANY book about history of Roman empire and you will find out these facts:

    1.Jesus was crusified.
    2.A short time after his death his disciples started to claim that they saw him risen.
    3.They were persecuted, but did not stop preaching that Jesus had risen and majority of them died as martyrs because of their faith.

    I think you must have been home schooled or taught by missionaries or preachers.

    The reputable, researched, scholastic works say nothing of the kind! There is an absence of authenticated documents on the subject.
    The Romans put down rebellions and crucified thousands of “trouble-makers” – anyone who defied their rule.

    Conscientious researchers check information sources for evidence, before claiming to have “facts”!

    These claims are in story simplistic books – just like the Greek ones about Jason and the Argonauts or Hercules getting help from Zeus or other Greek gods in wondrous adventures and super-human feats! They are an interesting view into the story-telling of the time, but are not historically accurate any more than Robin Hood or Harry Potter is today .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked-Bible

    Some mistakes in copying bibles were blatant and quickly changed Alt Text – (Right click and select “view image”)
    Others were perpetuated passing on misconceptions.

  30. You wrote: “You seem to forget that many atheists were Xtians before they investigated the facts and became educated in subjects like science and history ”
    What kind of argumentation is it?
    I could write the same about Lee Strobel who used to be an atheist but investigated the facts and converted. The same thing happened to a geneticist Francis S. Collins known for spearheading the Human Genome Project.

    But talking about your rejection to read books that have a different worldview than yours. My father has been telling me since my childhood: “Never make a conclusion if you have not read all the argumentation and all the contradictory wievs.” I have been doing this all my life.
    You are probably so clever that you can make a conclusion without having read all the contradictory wievs.

  31. In reply to #37 by Robert Kubik:

    You wrote:

    “You seem to forget that many atheists were Xtians before they investigated the facts and became educated in subjects like science and history “

    What kind of argumentation is it?

    It is informed judgement. I was a Xtian as a child before I grew up and dumped childish thinking and beliefs in magic as a teenager.

    But talking about your rejection to read books that have a different worldview than yours. My father has been telling me since my childhood: “Never make a conclusion if you have not read all the argumentation and all the contradictory views.” I have been doing this all my life.

    Really?? All the different worldviews?? How many hundreds of years did you spend on this activity??
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
    … Or more realistically you have only looked at your local and family one and a few stories about others!
    Nobody looks at all the ill-informed opinions of people who have not studied.

    I have done some studies on anthropology – but have not looked at a fraction of the total number.

    You are probably so clever that you can make a conclusion without having read all the contradictory views.

    When I drop a rock off a cliff – I do not need to read all the “contradictory views” to know that gravity works, or that accelerations and speeds can be calculated accurately. I only need views which have been checked for competence multiple times. All views are NOT EQUALLY VALID!

    In science (and history) there is a system called “peer review” in which specialists in particular subjects publish their results from investigations, and other experts in the same subjects, examine them to learn from them OR to point out faults in the procedures, calculations or reasoning. Tests have to be independently repeatable. That is the difference between informed expert opinion and made up ignoramus opinion based on “wanting to believe”. Scientists throw away failed ideas, and so build up an understanding of how things work in the real world – so precisely that they can land roving vehicles on Mars or photograph the moons of the outer planets.

    The skills of the scientist are recognising the separation of stuff that works in reality, from fanciful thinking.
    It is usually fairly easy for someone with skills in a specialist subject to recognise the basic beginner mistakes of a poser pretending to be an expert authority on a subject where they are ignorant.

    It only took me about a minute to recognise that the further link from the link on this discussion of a textbook -

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/news _articles/2013/1/29/scientist-publishes-first-climate-change-textbook-for-college-students.

    .. … . . .. led to a ranting poser, who had no understanding of the climatology which had produced the figures he was misrepresenting.

    A fake historical document or artefact is easily identified when independent tests from two labs, show the dates don’t match or references are made to a place which was not built until a later date.

  32. Lee Strobel investigated the facts and converted?

    The facts are that the earth is 4.6 million years old, Robert.

    The facts are that the universe is 14.7 billion years old, Robert.

    The facts are that evolution is an observed process, Robert.

    There may have been a man called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, but there is no proof of such beyond the writings of interested parties – which, as any historian would tell you, naturally brings their authenticity into question.

    As to whether he was the son of a god who created the earth in six days six thousand years ago who travelled to earth via the womb of a married woman only to deliberately commit suicide thirty odd years later in order to save the planet from a bloke called Adam and a woman called Eve who ate from a magic tree after being tempted by a magic talking snake?

    Well, what can I say?

    Perhaps your Father may have told you that views being simply contradictory does not allow them equal weight?

    No young earth – no Garden of Eden. No Garden of Eden – no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve – no Fall. No Fall – no need for redemption. No need for redemption – no need for The Son of God.

    No need for the God hypothesis at all, really.

    Nobody here is rejecting reading anything because they hold a different world view. We know the arguments in Strobels books. We have heard them all before. They are nonsense and collections of nonsense fron interested parties.

    There is nothing wrong with studying the historicity of the founder of a religious sect or cult – Stanford or Yale (I think?) both do academically rigorous – and free – courses on this very subject, but you need to throw away the desire for a belief in magic.

    It doesn’t exist.

    Nobody came back from the dead.

    Sorry to break that to you.

    Anvil.

  33. Robert Kubik 35
    JHJEFFERY

    Thank you, I am going to read it.

    I do not think I can suggest you to read The case for Christ by Lee Strobel because atheists in my country alwas say: “I am not going to read such a rubbish.” Perhaps they are worried it might destroy their worlview.

    But I suggest you to read ANY book about history of Roman empire and you will find out these facts:

    1.Jesus was crusified. 2.A short time after his death his disciples started to claim that they saw him risen. 3.They were persecuted, but did not stop preaching that Jesus had risen and majority of them died as martyrs because of their faith.

    Well, here we go again. If you post again, please have a new story to tell about “ANY’ book of history. You statement is false. And since that has now been brought to your attention (several times), your repeated insistence that their are real historians who believe as you say, becomes a lie.

    And I have read hundreds of books about Roman history. I took two semesters of it in undergraduate school and it became the nexus of my master’s thesis. I did send you the thesis, which should have contained a bibliography of the works I studied in order to write it. I have never read any book of Roman history that makes the claims that you say they all do.

    I have also read Stroebel, although not the book you mention. I have read articles and heard speeches by W.L. Craig (awful man). WIthin the last couple of years I have read: “The Shack,” by Young, “Origins of LIfe,” by Rana and Ross; “The Final Exodus,” by Blood; “The Age of Revelation,” by Boudinot; “Mere Christianity,” by Lewis (grossly over-rated); “The Harbinger,” by Cahn; “Darwin’s Black Box,” by Behe; “Soul Harvest,” by Lahane; and many more. These, by the way, are not written by historians and are not history books. Have you read “The God Delusion?” Have you ever read any book of Roman history. If you have, I dare you to name it, because you do not understand the subject in any sense. You just keep repeating the same lie–all historians agree about Jesus. This is a lie. Robert, it is not true. Understand? You may stop lying whenever the mood strikes you. As you now know, you are on my territory, and just repeating a lie that I know to be a lie does not actually make me think well of you. I doubt that Jesus would be impressed either. The type of argument you make (if it can be called that) is often made by Christians on this site, so much so that we have a special designation for the practice: “Lying for Jesus.” Unless you can come up with one of these books that you claim exist in abundance, we will have to assign you into that club. You lie like a creationist.

    You seem very young and very naive. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t lie about it. Learn to find your facts before you spout off about what “all history books say.” To continue to insist on a point you cannot possibly make is dishonest. Look for the truth, however unattractivie it may be.

    PS I have also read the BIble, which in unintentionally hilarious in some spots and barbaric and gruesome in others. I tend to disagree with RD that it is a work of great literature. Certainly compared with contemporaneous works, such as The Iliad for the OT, and The Aeneid for the NT, it fails miserably.

  34. Robert

    One other thought which may be confusing you. The findings you hope to find in the history books about Jesus’ execution and resurrection are not, strictly speaking, Roman History. The life of Jesus Christ had no immediate effect on any aspect of Roman civilization. It was years later, as the story slowly spread into other parts of the Empire that the religion began to impact Roman history. What you are talking about is Christian history.

  35. JHJEFFERYF.

    You were right, the link you provided in #34 did not work.

    You wrote: “The life of Jesus Christ had no immediate effect on any aspect of Roman civilization. It was years later, as the story slowly spread into other parts of the Empire that the religion began to impact Roman history”
    I keep telling exactly the same thing when I am asked why Romans historians wrote so little about Jesus. Because a Jewis religions preacher was not interesting for them. If he had been a leader of an uprising against Rome, it would have been interesting to them.
    They started to be interested in Jesus only when his folowers started to spread in Roman empire.

  36. Robert Kubik 43

    Now you’re getting somewhere. As I said, it was the religion, not JC himself, that impacted the Empire. The effect would have been exactly the same if Jesus had never existed. And the word spread very slowly–as you can imagine, communications and travel at the time were very difficult.

    Try this link. Remember, you’re looking for Chapter 10.

    http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html

  37. JHJEFFERY:

    The effect would have been exactly the same if Jesus had never existed.

    This is worth echoing once more.

    It could only be improved with this amendment:

    The effect would have been exactly the same if Jesus, or God, had never existed.

    Anvil.

  38. If Jesus had never existed there would not have been records about Him in Talmud, Tacitus, Jospehus Flavius etc. But if he had just existed these records would be all we have and very few historians would know about Him.

    The main reason we know Jesus now is that he rose form dead.

    If he had not been risen his followers would not have bear a persecution for Him. You called Paul a liar because he wrote that Jesus had risen.

    People tell a lie to make their life easier. But preaching Jesus did not bring him any profit but persecution, prison and death.

    Why did he tell a lie for which he was behaded?

    Why were disciples willing to die for something that they KNEW was not the truth? If Jesus had not risen they knew that he could not fulfill his promises about giving eternal life to his followers. They were Jews, and for Jews his death meant that he was the false Messiah even cursed by God. Somebody wrote that a lot of people died for a good thing. But good thing of disciples died on a cross.
    So I do not think they were telling a lie.

    You said they did not spread fast. We know from Tacitus that thirty Years afTer crusifiction there were hundreds of Christian in Rome and Nero blamed them for setting a fire and started to kill them. So they did not spread as slowly as you think.

    WOULD YOU DIE FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW IS NOT TRUTH?
    How could they not know whether they saw Jesus alive or not?

  39. No, Robert, Jesus did not rise from the dead. No one saw him do it and no one who later wrote it would have been in contact with anyone who saw it. We’ve plowed this ground before.

    If Jesus had never existed there would not have been records about Him in Talmud, Tacitus, Jospehus Flavius etc. But if he had just existed these records would be all we have and very few historians would know about Him.

    No historians wrote about him at the time. But plenty of historians over the years have written tons of material about people who never existed. He is not in the Talmud to my knowledge but my knowledge of same is limited. Maybe you could surprise me? We know that Josephus wrote a sentence about Jesus, but he wrote it two generations after the supposed event. We also know that Christians doctored the writings of Josephus to make it appear that Josephus claimed Jesus did miracles. Tacitus had very little to say about him and again wrote long after the crucifiction.

    The main reason we know Jesus now is that he rose form dead.

    No the main reason we know about Jesus is that his story, whether true or not, spread very slowly through the Roman Empire along with the stories of other first century magicians such as Mani and Appolonius.

    WOULD YOU DIE FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW IS NOT TRUTH? How could they not know whether they saw Jesus alive or not?

    First, read a history book about the persecutions, or read the paper I sent you–just read SOMETHING! Coming onto this site with arguments that have been completely shredded a thousand times before is certainly not going to convince anyone of anything. So you are saying that the 19 hijackers and Japanese Kamikazee pilots were right all along–that they believed in the real god? Doesn’t that make your god false? Stupid argument. People die every day for false beliefs–it doesn’t imply that they knew the beliefs were false. And the story of Christian persecutions was enormously exaggerated by the early Christian writers for the PR effect. See my paper, or read one of the honest church fathers, Origen.

    You said they did not spread fast. We know from Tacitus that thirty Years afTer crusifiction there were hundreds of Christian in Rome and Nero blamed them for setting a fire and started to kill them. So they did not spread as slowly as you think

    Yes, it did. Please go read something before you come back. You’re making a fool of yourself. I already addressed the Nero thing and getting weary of correcting you on it. Don’t trust me, but don’t come back until you get a real education–somehow, somewhere, but not at “Liberty U.’

  40. In reply to #47 by JHJEFFERY:

    I think it is becoming clear that Robert really, really, really, wants to believe the story he has been told, so as he “KNOWS BY FAITH” it must be true. It follows by “faith-thinking”, that all the experts on the subject must also know it is true so will confirm it in their writing – even if he has not actually read their writings!

    After all :- from the authors and well known “liars for Jesus”, he has been quoting, he has had this message repeated and asserted time and again, with examples of “the Discontinuous Mind”
    http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/1/28/the-tyranny-of-the-discontinuous-mind# held up as role models of YEC thinking.

    All that diversity and complexity of real, tested, and checked, historical research, and scientific understanding of the biological processes of life and death, are so much harder to understand, than the false dichotomy of “the resurrection v denial of the resurrection” with a bucket of wishful thinking and tenth-hand mythology thrown in!
    Faith is believing without evidence – which is why faith has so many, many, many, different contradictory versions of the same stories!

  41. You asked me how many secular books about history of Roman empire I have read.
    I have read three of them, none of them was written by Christians but I do not think they were translated into English. May be books by Vojtech Zamarovsky was translated. When I discussed about ancient history with a university student of history she said I know so much, I would pass en exam immediately.

    But to the topic.
    Tacitus in The Annals passage (15.44), wrote:

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 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 Judæa, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
    

    Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians.

    It is written in Talmud that Jeshu was a wizard, broke the law and was hung on a wood. So Jews who did not accept Jesus as Christ admitted that he made miracles but his supernatural power came from satan, not God.

  42. I agree that if there are people who are willing to die for something it does not mean that the idea they are persecuted for or even dying for is truth.
    There are fanatic muslims who commit suicide while killing others because they believe they will go to heaven etc.
    But it surely means that these people believe that they are dying for truth. Nobody is going to die for something he knows is not a true. It is quite easy for a manipulative leader to persuade a lot of people that something is true. But disciples of Jesus did not die for ideas. They had an experience of resurected Jesus. They died for claiming that they had seen him alive. How can you persuade 12 people that they saw resurected Jesus. Do you understand the difference?

    Paul did not convert because he was told about Jesus but because Jesus revealed himself to him.
    Disciples did not preached about resusrected Jesus because somebody had told them about Jesus. They claimed they SAW Jesus after his resurection, touched him, ate with him, listened to him.

  43. Robert Kubik

    I agree that if there are people who are willing to die for something it does not mean that the idea they are persecuted for or even dying for is truth.

    It is quite easy for a manipulative leader to persuade a lot of people that something is true.

    They died for claiming that they had seen him alive. How can you persuade 12 people that they saw resurected Jesus. Do you understand the difference?

    You are still making it up, and cannot see the connection between the first, second and last quote! -

    How could you possibly “know” this – apart from the imagined “faith thought” I described at 48. There were no contemporary witnesses statements and no accounts of this written within decades!

    So the real question is: ” How can you later persuade lots of people, that some people claimed to see a supernatural resurrection”.

    The answer is in the same psychological delusions and confirmation biases of the suggestible, which claim miracles and spread stories of supernatural events, conspiracy theories etc. today.

  44. Someone has told you a story which you have believed.

    You are now so desperate to persuade others to believe the story that you have been told, regardless of the rationalism and reason others are subjecting your story to, that you no longer hear the reason, no longer perceive the rational.

    See how this works? If you think, ‘Yes… but…’ then you are lost, and nothing anyone here can say will help you.

    The dead do not become alive.

    Gods do not use the vaginas of virgins as Stargates.

    There are no Gods.

    Sorry.

    Anvil.

  45. Paul did not convert because he was told about Jesus but because Jesus revealed himself to him. Disciples did not preached about resusrected Jesus because somebody had told them about Jesus. They claimed they SAW Jesus after his resurection, touched him, ate with him, listened to him.

    No, Robert, wrong again. Your truth structure is delightfully off center. Paul saw Jesus (or so he said–he did not know what Jesus looked like) during a gran mal epileptic seizure. The symptoms he describes are classic. The only other time he “saw Jesus” he admits he was in a trance (petit mal). He also, as I patiently pointed out to you before, tells the story two different ways: in one, his companions heard the voice, in the other, they did not. Does this say anything about the reliability of Paul? What about his claim that 500 hundred people saw dead Jesus? Was he the only person on the planet who knew of it (he does not claim that he was there). Who told him this? How in the world can you trust the word of a known liar, an epileptic who has visions, with no solid evidentiary base for his claims, when the claims are so extraordinary? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus does not even have ordinary evidence. Based on the mixed historical record that we have, the idea that the resurrection actually happened (contrary to Mark) becomes hopelessly unbelievable.

    And where did you get the idea that all of the disciples were martyred. PLEASE READ SOMETHING. MUCH HAS BEEN PUT ON YOUR PLATE. I think it is rude to ignore was has been offered to you and to keep coming back with the same misinformation. Please stop doing this. It is drivel.

    Thank you.

    And no, the disciples did not claim that they saw Jesus after the resurrection. Someone later claimed that they said so–someone without access to the people themselves. Do you understand the fundamental weakness of this position: it is hearsay upon hearsay, eventually recorded, thought the records were lost, rewritten (also lost) and finally codified 300 hundred years later, but then amended and mistranslated and mistranscribed for centuries.

    And no, you could not pass a Roman history test. You should thank the person who said you could for kindness, but not for truth. Besides, as you must know by now, the life of Christ is not a subject of Roman history–it is religious history. I have written this to you before. Are you reading anything that Alan and I take the time to write to you?

  46. I had never heard of the historian you mentioned so I glanced at Wiki to find only one of his books even touched on Rome and that was in the context of Greek history, his real interest:

    In History Written by Rome he has retold the history of the thousand-year old Roman Empire with an accent on its living historical and cultural heritage. In The Greek Miracle he has described Greek history and culture from the pre-historical time of myths to the loss of independence in the wars with Rome. It is a synthesis of knowledge about the origin of the Greeks, the formation of their statehood, the period of the birth, blossoming and decline of the Greek world.

    Didn’t see a word about Christianity.

  47. PS I couldn’t find that Talmud cite. Would you have it available?

    And the Tacitus passage, with which I am familiar, was written two generations after the event, and has no known source. It may or may not be authentic, but either way, is certainly wrong.

  48. And the Tacitus passage is certainly wrong?? Even comunistic historians who were famous liars did not doubt about authenticity and accuracy of Tacitus record.

    Gazing!!!

    If anyone had the access to the Romans archives and could check the events it was Tacitus.

    Using your criteria we must doubt about 99% of ancient history.
    The first biographies of Alexander the Great were written 300 years after his death so are certainly wrong.
    The first biography of Mohamed was written 120 years after his death so is certainly wrong.
    The first stories about Budha were written 500 years after his death so are certainly wrong.

    You studied history???!!
    If we have records about Jesus they are not authentic, but records about different people are authentic.

    I am not going to fool with you any more.

  49. In reply to #53 by JHJEFFERY:

    And no, you could not pass a Roman history test. You should thank the person who said you could for kindness, but not for truth.

    There could be another explanation:- I am reminded of comments on this site, to YEC pseudo-scientists, suggesting they claim their Nobel Prizes for their claimed, “evidence”, “refutations” and “proofs”!

    And where did you get the idea that all of the disciples were martyred.

    YEC “quote miners anonymous” lists, and “text ink-blot style, reader interpretations”, begin to look likely sources! It is amazing what miracle believers can read into any text or observation!

    Rorschach Inkblot Test – http://schatz.sju.edu/intro/1001lowfi/personality/rorschach/history.html

  50. By the way that historian called Zamarovsky wrote in his book called History Written by Rome that Jesus probably never existed. No wonder,he published his book during the socialism, so he had to write it.

    He also wrote why Josephus record was probably not authentic. Do you know why? Because why would Jew who was not a Christian write that he rose from death?

    But he did not doubt about authenticity of Tacitus record and mentioned the fact that Christians appeared in the first century.
    You are the first person who doubts about Tacitus record.
    This debate is really a waste of my time because you proclaime all records about Jesus as not authentic or not accurate.
    Thank you for improving my English and I have finished.

  51. In reply to #56 by Robert Kubik:

    And the Tacitus passage is certainly wrong?? Even comunistic historians who were famous liars did not doubt about authenticity and accuracy of Tacitus record.

    No, the Tacitus passage was probably authentic. What I question is the lack of supporting evidence. So no records of the involvement of Christians in the fire exist, Tacitus probably heard this rumor and wrote it. But, given the lack of supporting documents, the ages of Peter and Paul at the time, the logisitics of them both getting to Rome (that’s a long way to walk), the complete lack of earlier Roman literature recognizing Christianity, and the best estimates of present day scholars that only 1% of the Empire was Christian at the end of the first century (and here we’re talking about an event that probably occured, if at all, before Mark was written, I find it difficult to believe the Nero had even heard of the Christians at the time. So, the Tacitus passage may be as written but still be wrong.

    Gazing!!!

    If anyone had the access to the Romans archives and could check the events it was Tacitus.

    To make this argument you would have to show that the archives ever contained such documents. Something no one has been able to do.

    Using your criteria we must doubt about 99% of ancient history.

    I would say 100%. The default position on any ancient story is that it is mythology. We then look at the evidence to see if there could be truth behind the story. The more extraordinary the story (god, I’m getting tired of repeating myself–could you please read), the more evidence is required.

    The first biographies of Alexander the Great were written 300 years after his death so are certainly wrong.

    I’m sorry, did come back from the dead, or walk on water, or throw Legions demons into pigs.

    The first biography of Mohamed was written 120 years after his death so is certainly wrong.

    Probably so, in most respects. Doubt that bit about flying up to heaven on a golden chariot.

    The first stories about Budha were written 500 years after his death so are certainly wrong.

    Again, how much sense does the story make? The Christian myth makes no sense at all, in any meaning of the word, so we doubt it more readliy.

    You studied history???!!

    If you had read the earlier posts, you would know I have several college degrees in it and related fields.

    If we have records about Jesus they are not authentic, but records about different people are authentic.

    The Bible, the only real record (and I use that term loosely) is notoriously unreliable.

    I am not going to fool with you any more.

    Fine. Sorry you learned nothing from the experience. I really thought you were capable of learning, but I guess Alan hit it right: you really, really, really want to believe, and there is no amount of facts or arguments that are going to see the inside of your head.

  52. In reply to #58 by Robert Kubik:

    By the way that historian called Zamarovsky wrote in his book called History Written by Rome that Jesus probably never existed. No wonder,he published his book during the socialism, so he had to write it.

    He also wrote why Josephus record was probably not authentic. Do you know why? Because why would Jew who was not a Christian write that he rose from death?

    That was an early reason for doubting the passage about Jesus and miracles in Josephus. The passage was also textually inconsistent with Josephus. The doubters were proved correct in the last century when an earlier version of the Josephus manuscript was found which did not contain the passage. Like we said: “Lying for Jesus.”

    But he did not doubt about authenticity of Tacitus record and mentioned the fact that Christians appeared in the first century.

    No one doubts that Christians appeared in the first century. Although several major US historians doubt that Jesus actually lived. One of the reasons for doubt is the similarity of the Jesus story to stories of other cultures of the day, and because the Jews were in the process of fomenting rebeillion agains the Romans and needed a hero that the Romans couldn’t kill.

    You are the first person who doubts about Tacitus record.

    Nope; explained above.

    This debate is really a waste of my time because you proclaime all records about Jesus as not authentic or not accurate.

    Yes, it has been a waste of your time, because you came on this site with very little knowledge of your own religion and refused to learn anything else about it. Maybe some time and contemplation will move you to consider that you just might have been misled by some people who needed power over you.

    Thank you for improving my English and I have finished.

  53. In reply to #61 by Anvil:

    Glad we could improve something.

    We have provided a clear example of the misty view obscuring facts and evidence, when viewed through a religious bias ! ??

    “THE” Bible (as explained @36 and @12) is all troooooo, – according to trooo believers, – so they say evidenced history must be forgotten as being wrong, and re-written so troooooo believers can keep repeating the fiction, while claiming that scholars and historians support them in doing so !!

    It is the main part of their world view, so the concept that it is only a tiny part of human (or Roman) history, is strenuously denied. The concept of the Earth and humans as a tiny part of time and the universe, is also often denied. Small minds just cannot cope with the big picture.

    We have seen it before!

    JHJEFFERY – One of the reasons for doubt is the similarity of the Jesus story to stories of other cultures of the day,

    A bit like Noah and Gilgamesh then!

  54. And a final postscript, proving that our friend Robert is a rather committed wish-thinker.

    By the way that historian called Zamarovsky wrote in his book called History Written by Rome that Jesus probably never existed. No wonder,he published his book during the socialism, so he had to write it.

    Yes, but he did not die until 2006 which gave him about fifteen years after the fall of communism to recant. Wonder why he didn’t?

  55. In reply to #63 by JHJEFFERY:

    And a final postscript, proving that our friend Robert is a rather committed wish-thinker.

    By the way that historian called Zamarovsky wrote in his book called History Written by Rome that Jesus probably never existed. No wonder,he published his book during the socialism, so he had to write it.

    Yes, but he did not die until 2006 which gave him about fifteen years after the fall of communism to recant. Wonder why he didn’t?

    While the communists discouraged religions and the use of bibles (which western military agencies used as code books), they proudly preserved their history of religion and imperialism in museums and museum-cathedrals. – with their painted religious icons etc.

    I had a look at some of them in 1973 when I visited Moscow with a UK group of scientists to look at their space exhibition, which they were showing off to the world.

    It made a cultural change form looking at the technology of Russian space-probes, the Lunakod Moon-Rover back-up, and manned capsules – while playing “we’re pretending we’re not watching you”, with the KGB tail!

  56. I apologize for the wrong information.

    I checked in his book what he wrote and he did not write that Jesus never existed. He just wrote that some people doubt whether he ever existed as all the records about him were written several years after his death. So he was righ and he need not to reacant it.

    And he also wrote that: ” There are no doubts that Christians appeared in Rome before AD 54 during the reign of emperor Claudius.”

    He wrote that both Suetonius as well as Tacitus wrote that Nero killed vast number of Christians in Rome.

    JHJEFFERY

    I know what your problem is. You can not admit that there were Christians in Rome about 30 years after his resurection, because record of Tacitus and Suetonius agree with biblical record in the book of Acts. Book of acts describes how christianity spread and that Paul was sent to Rome to stand trial in front of the emperor. That might be the reason why the emperor finally decided to blame Christians for setting the fire.

    You also asked me where in Talmud is written about Jesus.
    Here: Sanhedrin 43a, t. Sanh. 10:11, y. Sanh. 7:12, Tg. Ester 7,9
    Sanh. 107b; t. Sanh. 11,5 ; b. Sabb. 104b.; b. Sota 47a

    Alan
    You wrote:

    The doubters were proved correct in the last century when an earlier version of the Josephus manuscript was found which did not contain the passage.

    Can you link the source? I have never heard of this earlier manuscript.

  57. Robert Kubik 65

    JHJEFFERY

    I know what your problem is. You can not admit that there were Christians in Rome about 30 years after his resurection

    I don’t have any problems. I don’t know why you keep alleging that I wrote things that I never wrote. I am comfortable with the idea that a few Christians had filtered all the way to Rome by 60 CE or so. It is impossible to believe that had sufficient numbers to actually pose a problem to the government. They were of the lowest economic status and would become generally despised, but this would take a century. I know the stories of Tacitus, but they were written, as I have said before, long after the event and no source material has ever been uncovered. Seems like someone in Rome would have noticed at the time of the event.

    I checked in his book what he wrote and he did not write that Jesus never existed. He just wrote that some people doubt whether he ever existed as all the records about him were written several years after his death.

    I thought you told us you read the book, since you are so well versed in Roman History. And the author was correct, we will probably never know if Jesus actually existed, but it was not Jesus who was responsible for the success of the religion that bears his name, so the question is essentially irrelevant.

    Alan You wrote:

    This was what I wrote, I don’t remember Alan commenting on it.

    The doubters were proved correct in the last century when an earlier version of the Josephus manuscript was found which did not contain the passage.

    Can you link the source? I have never heard of this earlier manuscript

    Hell, I thought everybody knew that. Do your own research. Wikipedia will probably have it.

  58. You also asked me where in Talmud is written about Jesus. Here: Sanhedrin 43a, t. Sanh. 10:11, y. Sanh. 7:12, Tg. Ester 7,9 Sanh. 107b; t. Sanh. 11,5 ; b. Sabb. 104b.; b. Sota 47a

    Well, I couldn’t find any of those passages using your notations. I did find that the Talmud was written after Jesus. Next time you cite a prophecy, try to get it from a book written before the event.

  59. In reply to #65 by Robert Kubik:

    Alan
    You wrote:

    The doubters were proved correct in the last century when an earlier version of the Josephus manuscript was found which did not contain the passage.

    I think this was JHJEFFERY’s comment.

  60. JHJEFFERY,

    Oh dear, you did not know the difference between Talmud and Tora?

    Tora was written before Jesus and it as part of the old testament. But Talmud was written 300 or even 500 years after Jesus. I did not talk about prophecies as it was written after Jesus. Talmud was transmitted oraly by Jews until it was written. It was written by Jews who did not accept Jesus as Mesiah. But they admitted he was crusified and called him magician so they admitted his divine acts.

  61. In reply to #66 by JHJEFFERY:

    I did read that book I just did not remember the exact words so I needed to check it.

    It sometimes happens to you, doesnt it?

    So we can agree on this:

    Just thirty years after crusifiction there were hundreds of people believing in resurection of Jesus in Rome. There must have been thousand of believers in the Roman Empire. So somebody must have preached this message to them. And it was at the time when there were still alive eyewitnesses of Jeus life, servis, crusifiction and perhaps resurection.

    They cant have been converted just by Paul. Paul mentioned that 500 people saw risen Jesus and the other apostles preached the same gospel as him.

    The question is: How is it possible that just a couple of years after the resurection the message that Jesus had risen spread in all the Roman empire. Why did the apostles suffer persecution and martyr death for Jesus if he had not risen?

    How is it posssible that there were people believing in His resurection in Jerusalem as it was proven by archaeological research I have mentioned below?

    It is a unique example when a myth spread immediately after the event and at the same place where the events happened. The most reasonable explanation for me is that Jesus really rose from death.

  62. Robert Kubik 72

    So we can agree on this:

    Just thirty years after crusifiction there were hundreds of people believing in resurection of Jesus in Rome. There must have been thousand of believers in the Roman Empire. So somebody must have preached this message to them. And it was at the time when there were still alive eyewitnesses of Jeus life, servis, crusifiction and perhaps resurection.

    You just keep spinning. You’re going to get dizzy trying so hard. There may have been a hundred or so Christians living in Rome–an enormous city. They would have gone unnoticed. There would have been very few eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life remaining. Life span was only aboult thirty. There is absolutely no evidence of any preaching for several years after Jesus supposedly died. The first to claim to be a preacher was Paul, and even he doesn’t claim he started until several years after Jesus died. Tell me, if Paul really made Jesus up, would the religion have fared any differently?

    They cant have been converted just by Paul. Paul mentioned that 500 people saw risen Jesus and the other apostles preached the same gospel as him.

    We have plowed this ground, as well. Why didn’t the other NT writers mention this 500 claim? Why did neither the Romans nor Jews record it? In fact there were probably not 500 followers of Jesus at the time of his death. Paul was lying–pure and simple.

    The question is: How is it possible that just a couple of years after the resurection the message that Jesus had risen spread in all the Roman empire. Why did the apostles suffer persecution and martyr death for Jesus if he had not risen?

    The answer is simple–it had not spread throughout the Roman Empire. Your claim is one created by the church at a much later date. It is a lie. At the turn of the century (I think I’ve told you this before) the estimate of Christians in the Empire was 1%. This is a generation after the time you want it to be. The apostles did not suffer persecution. We’ve already covered the second half of that sentence and you have agreed you were wrong–in order to die for a cause, the cause does not have to be true, only believed. Once again, the martyrdom of Christians was vastly overstated to gain sympathy from the populace, and of course because the entire religion is based on a death cult of martyrdom.

    proven by archaeological research I have mentioned below

    You have to be kidding.

    Robert, I taught this subject to a master’s level class last night. You really need to do some extracurricula reading. Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the subject matter is appalling, as is your ability to keep coming up with the same tired arguments, even after admitting they were wrong.

  63. JHJEFFERZ,

    If I were you I would not boast that you teach this subject. You did not know such a cardinal thing as what Talmud and Tora is and what is the difference between them. I was shocked because you claimed to be educated in history.

  64. Robert,

    I did not say that. You seem to have the rather annoying habit of misapprehending or misstating people’s posts. I am not a Jewish scholar, but of course I know the difference between the Torah and the Talmud. My response earlier was to your rather obscure post in which I thought you were refering to prophecy. You were, instead, refering to a passage in the Talmud which mentions Yeshua, which is clearly, obviously and unarguably NOT referring to your Jesus Christ.

    You should come to class sometime. You’ll have fun. And I think I already sent you one of my papers on Lactantius, which should have proved to you beyond any doubt that I am a religious historian. Oh, wait, you haven’t read it, have you?

    In reply to #74 by Robert Kubik:

    JHJEFFERZ,

    If I were you I would not boast that you teach this subject. You did not know such a cardinal thing as what Talmud and Tora is and what is the difference between them. I was shocked because you claimed to be educated in history.

  65. JHJEFFERY.

    I have read it but unfortunatelly it was not about the topic of our conversation – we did not talk about persecution during the reign of Diocletian or conversion of Constantinus but about events that happened in the 1st century. And there was not much about it and no things that denied what I wrote.
    You seem to have the rather annoying habit of misapprehending or misstating people’s posts :) I never wrote that the percentage of Christians was high. I just wrote there were thousands of them just thirty years after resurection. And you were right that the possibilities to travel and spread messages was limited. Who spread this message so quickly?

    In that paper you wrote that there were about 2 per cent, but most likely from 5 to 15 percent Christians in the 3rd century. The population of Roman Empire was 60 million. How much is 2 to 15 per cent?

    Thank you for invitaton to your class, I would like to take part but it is impossible as they do not take place in the central Europe.

  66. Robert Kubik0 76

    Who spread this message so quickly?

    Once again, no one. The Christian message spread very slowly. Remember, only 1% at the close of the first century. You may think this is a large number, but there is no way 1% of a population could gather the attention of authorities. The Christains, being the only proselytizing religion at the time, grew to 5-15% at the end of the third century. In no way did the Christians constitute a force to be reckoned with in 64 CE. As matter of fact, Pliny the Younger, when confronted with Christians for the first time in the middle east aroung 100CE, had apparently never heard of them and wrote to the emperor for instructions on how to deal with them. I believe this was in the paper you said you read.

    Remember the point here, you keep trying to argue that the Christian religion spread like wildfire (presumptively because of the strength of its message) after JC, but, as I have continuously pointed out to you, the facts speak otherwise.

    I do applaud you for giving up on the argument that what Christians believed was true because they died for it, a non-sequitur, even though I saw you later use the same argument on another thread. (for shame)

Leave a Reply