The Religion thread

[Mulu]

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.).

Both of these references are Christian. Christians have every reason to lie about alleged documents of the myth of crucifixion and resurrection. Had they actually possessed and produced the report they refer to, that would be different. Otherwise, it's just a story. It sounds very much like the modern "I have seen reports from the Air Force documenting actual UFO's and aliens," stuff you can read in any number of places.

Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.

Smart man.

For 10 pieces of silver you can get a lot accomplished in the Ancient world. Like having a guard look the other way, and then snicker over all the stories being told afterwards.

A scenario not rationally fitting for a Roman guard at the tomb of Jesus.

Like a Roman guard would care about the corpse of some mystic. It's far more rational than believing in the superstition of resurrection, kiddo. But in all honesty, I don't see sufficient evidence that the body went missing at all, nor do I think it was interred. I think that at least part of this story is totally fictional, as it doesn't get recorded until long after the event. Notably, nothing of substance really gets recorded until after the near destruction of Jerusalem around 70 CE, by which time most witnesses would be dead from either natural causes or the massacre by the Romans. The fact that the bible mentions some people who did exist doesn't mean that everyone mentioned in the bible existed, or that the events described actually took place.

Let me give you an example of just how easy it is to fool people who want to believe. When I was in high school, there was a fossilized streambed discovered in Texas. It has dinosaur tracks in it and was dated to some time during the Mesozoic. Originally, the landscape was sloped, so when this dinosaur walked down the soft muddy hill, it walked on its heel pads only and took short steps. Later, where the ground leveled out, it left full footprints in a long stride, showing the classic three-toed splayed foot of a bipedal dinosaur. It was an interesting find, but nothing dramatic. I read about it in Discover Magazine, if I recall correctly.

About a year later, the latter half of the streambed was destroyed, and the heel pad prints left by the dinosaur had mysteriously sprung human shaped toes. Christian scientists from all over the country flocked to the site, using the already dated streambed as “evidence” that man had existed at the same time as dinosaurs, as Christian beliefs require.

Today, you can find many accounts of the discovery of human footprints dated to the Mesozoic in Christian literature. Many ignorant Christians read the material, which is of course a total fraud, and believe it to be true. They even believe it after you point out the fact that the streambed used to be bigger and show the dinosaur's toes. Religious people lie to others and themselves. In fact, it is this profusion and requirement of deciet in religion that makes religious beliefs totally invalid. If religious writers would just stick to the unknowable, and admit it's speculation, they wouldn't be such lying hypocrits, and I'd have a lot less material to refute them.

So, this whole underlying thesis of "people wouldn't lie about this" and "the Romans would only have acted *this* way," is, well, false. People do all sorts of unpredictable things, but one thing you can predict with a high degree of validity is that religious people will lie to support their beliefs. They lie, and then lie about lying, and then claim that lying would be impossible. I don't believe even the non-supernatural aspects of the myth of resurrection, because I don't trust the source. Any event related by religious people not verified by other sources, truly verified and not just casually referred to a hundred years later as a reference to the myth, is strongly suspect of being a fiction.

If the resurrection was a lie, the Jewish authorities would have produced the corpse and put a swift end to the movement

Assuming they could. Remember, Jerusalem underwent a revolt and was sacked about 18 years later. The myth of resurrection doesn't start popping up in a recorded format until after that.

So who would, and could, have stolen it? ...and why?

Again, assuming any of this happened, any Christian could have stolen it with a bribe. Romans loved money, were notoriously corrupt, and guards stationed far from home have lots of material needs. As for why, well the why is obvious. To support the prophecy of resurrection, as their beliefs required. The same reason a fossilized streambed in Texas now bears dinosaur prints with human-shaped toes. All religion is a fraud.

[Mulu]

Another point, based on my recollection of what little history I've learned regarding this time period. Jesus was not unique. At this period of time in Jerusalem, you could find a self-proclaimed messiah on every street corner. The Roman occupation weighed heavily on the Hebrews. GF can correct me on any particulars I misstate. Of course he was correct about the Roman tolerance of other religious beliefs. The way Romanizing worked was that Romans allowed many traditional practices and faiths to continue, and indeed the Romans themselves stationed in new territories would pray to the local gods, but in return they expected the locals to reciprocate. The Romans would blend their own traditions and beliefs with the local populace, and over time that populace would drift towards Roman society largely due to the status afforded the more Romanized individuals.

The Hebrew didn't play this game. They refused to worship Roman gods, refused to Romanize. The Romans were insulted by this, and were horribly oppressive towards them as a result. I seem to recall reading about 50,000 jews being crucified in what would have been the childhood of Jesus, assuming he existed. He would have grown up in a Roman controlled Jewish state where the Jews were in utter despair. The Jews knew they couldn't militarily overthrow the Romans, they refused to Romanize, and the Romans punished them for it. As a result, the Jews turned to mysticism, proclaiming that Yahweh would rid Jerusalem of the Romans. Messiahs started popping up like weeds proclaiming the wrath of Yahweh was imminent. Jesus was one of many such individuals, again assuming he existed at all. It's highly likely that Jesus is actually an amalgam of several such charismatic cultists from that time.

Ultimately of course there was a Jewish uprising roughly 18 years after the alleged resurrection, with very short term success. The Romans slaughtered the Jews responsible, and many others, and destroyed the Temple that Jews and Christians alike at the time believed to be the house of god, where his physical presence resided. After this, animal sacrifice was replaced by prayer, yada yada yada. And after *that* we start seeing recordings of the growing cult of Christianity, relating the myth of resurrection. This cult grew not so much among the Jews as among the Romans, who would be largely ignorant of the particulars of historical incidents in Jerusalem. Simply put, the crucifixion of yet another self-proclaimed messiah would not have been important enough to make "the news" of the times, especially outside of Jerusalem.

So, what really happened? Who knows. Based on the evidence and it's variable reliability, the existence and crucifixion of Jesus falls under the category of "possible," the internment of his body in a tomb and subsequent disappearance seems "possible but unlikely," and of course his supernatural resurrection is simply, "fraud," or "myth" if you prefer. It also constitutes "plagiarism," as it was a common theme in religions that predate Christianity.

[Mulu]

Okay, last point. Can't believe I didn't think of this earlier.

The Christian argument for resurrection is essentially: The Jews would have paraded his body to prove he was still dead. But, if his body was missing from his tomb, wouldn't that empty tomb become the single most important artifact of Christian faith?

Think about it. The empty tomb of Jesus. Why didn't it become a pilgrimage site? Why didn't the early Christians know it's location? Why didn't *anyone* know it's location? Oh sure, it's claimed to have since been found, but how could the devout followers of Christ have lost it to begin with? It's inconceivable that they would forget about and ignore the empty tomb of Jesus. Which leads me to conclude that he was never buried, and in fact most likely never existed.

[Grand Fromage]

Correct in the broad strokes. But, again, the Romans didn't particularly care about people's religions, or try to convert them--they considered the Jews to be backward, but they considered all non-Romans (except Greeks and Egyptians, to an extent) to be backward. There was a small Jewish community in Rome itself, and at least a couple synagogues. The Romans stamped down hard on Judea because the Jews refused to submit to the Roman state, not the Roman religion. The Romans were very tolerant--except regarding threats (real or perceived) to the state, which they dealt with without mercy. The state was the most important thing in Roman life, no threats to it could be permitted to exist.

And Vaelahr, thank you for the quotes supporting my points. I accept your apology.

[Vaelahr]

Think about it. The empty tomb of Jesus. Why didn't it become a pilgrimage site? Why didn't the early Christians know it's location? Why didn't *anyone* know it's location? Oh sure, it's claimed to have since been found, but how could the devout followers of Christ have lost it to begin with?

The location probably wasn't lost and was most likely put to use. It wasn't a particularly cheap tomb.

Like a Roman guard would care about the corpse of some mystic.

They would. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep or accepted a bribe with that kind of threat over their heads. The fear of such punishment produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.

...any Christian could have stolen [the body of Jesus] with a bribe.

Extremely unlikely given what we know of Roman military discipline.

As for why, well the why is obvious. To support the prophecy of resurrection, as their beliefs required.

But their beliefs didn't require it. With the exception of Joseph of Arimathea, the followers of Jesus did not believe that he would die and then be resurrected. Since childhood, their Jewish culture had taught them that the Messiah would live forever. They expected him to get an army together, conquer their Roman oppressors, oust the Pharisees and Sadducees, and rule the world. When Jesus died on the cross, they did not know what to do, and many were scattered. His arrest and execution were profoundly disappointing and discouraging and the idea of a bodily resurrection would have been offensive, to them sounding like the fantasy mysticism of the Romans' Dionysus and Mithras cults. The early Christians were Jews who took seriously their Jewish privileges and obligations. It's unthinkable that they would have been party to making up some new religion. And even if it was just some story, it wouldn't have included the testimony of women. Women had virtually no credibility in the first-century Jewish culture, and their testimony in a court of law was considered worthless. If the account of Jesus’ resurrection were a fable added later in an attempt to authenticate Christianity, why would the record have women be the first to see him and testify to the empty tomb, unless it had really happened that way? Women bringing testimony of his resurrection that is then denied by the male disciples makes the latter look bad, and these men were the first leaders of early Christianity. A fabricated story added later by the Church would certainly have painted their first leaders in a more favorable light.

The idea of the body being stolen is unreasonable.

Blaise Pascal wrote, "The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out."

The kicker is that no one ever confessed (freely, or under pressure from bribe or torture) that the resurrection was a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when citizens broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians. Thousands of people do not die for what they know to be a lie.

Furthermore, there was no motive for such a lie. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage. What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their "lie" ? They were scorned, imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, exiled, crucified, boiled alive, burned alive, beheaded, disemboweled, and/or fed to lions in the Colosseum.....hardly a list of perks.

If there had been a conspiracy, it would have been revealed by the faith's many enemies who had both the interest and the power to expose any fraud.

The disciples had nothing to gain by fabricating a story and starting a new religion. His followers faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs' deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. Religion had its rewards for them, but those rewards came from a sincere belief that what they were living for was true. The first-century believers preached and acted with conviction about the truth of his resurrection, many of them even dying because of their belief. If his friends had stolen the body to make it look like he had been resurrected, they would have known that they were believing a lie, and men do not become martyrs for what they know to be false.

[Joos]

Shit Vaelahr, you preach as if you were actually there!

All you religous nutcases just haven't realised there is only one true church anyway.

[Grand Fromage]

Extremely unlikely given what we know of Roman military discipline.

Ahahahahaha. You mean that same military that repeatedly murdered their own emperors for bribe money? Clearly, looking away from the door of a tomb for a few minutes is a taller order than overthrowing the government. You keep on livin' the dream there, hoss, I'm done beating my head against this particular brick wall.

[Mulu]

Think about it. The empty tomb of Jesus. Why didn't it become a pilgrimage site? Why didn't the early Christians know it's location? Why didn't *anyone* know it's location? Oh sure, it's claimed to have since been found, but how could the devout followers of Christ have lost it to begin with?

The location probably wasn't lost and was most likely put to use. It wasn't a particularly cheap tomb.

That doesn't even come close to answering the question, and you know it. The Empty Tomb of Jesus would be more important than the Holy Grail. It was the location of his bodily ascendance into Heaven, a place that angels manifested. It would be the holiest of holy sites for Christians on the planet. It would be more important to them than the House of God. It is absolutely inconceivable that they would ignore it. They would prostrate themselves before it and pray to Jesus on a regular basis, if it existed. Since they didn't, it must not exist.

But their beliefs didn't require it. With the exception of Joseph of Arimathea, the followers of Jesus did not believe that he would die and then be resurrected. Since childhood, their Jewish culture had taught them that the Messiah would live forever.

I was under the distinct impression that in the Jewish version, the coming of the Messiah meant the end of the world. In fact, I've heard Jews point out that Christ could not have been the Messiah, since the world didn't end. The followers of Jesus belonged to a cult that rejected or revised a fair amount of Hebrew mythology. I was also under the impression that Jesus said he would be resurrected, thus creating a prophecy, though I'll admit I'm not up on the particulars of this myth. There are so many religious myths out there it's hard to remember the details of all of them.

the idea of a bodily resurrection would have been offensive, to them sounding like the fantasy mysticism of the Romans' Dionysus and Mithras cults.

A *lot* of Christianity sounds like the fantasy mysticism of the Dionysus and Mithras cults, as well as Zoroastrianism. In fact, Mithras had a last supper with his disciples, all twelve of them. I strongly suspect that many of the early Christians were not Jews.

The early Christians were Jews who took seriously their Jewish privileges and obligations. It's unthinkable that they would have been party to making up some new religion.

They *did* make up some new religion. And they weren't alone. Jewish mystical cults were perfuse during this time period. I was just watching a special on TV the other day that showed an archeological dig of a ancient radical Jewish cult location in the desert, one that was much bigger than Christianity at the time. However, it was an all male cult that practiced strict abstinence, so they didn't fare well over time.

And even if it was just some story, it wouldn't have included the testimony of women.

They weren't just women, they were "holy women." Also, women in Roman culture had a great deal of credibility and authority. Remember, this story was told to Romans to convert them, not to Jews. It catered to the Roman audience very well.

I should also point out the obvious. Those witnesses didn't just see an empty tomb, they saw angels. Had a Roman guard seen angels in the empty tomb of some executed Jew, don't you think that would have merited a report? Wouldn't an actual living example of the supernatural have a monumental effect on the Romans and Jews there? The story of the witnesses is the least credible aspect of the myth.

The idea of the body being stolen is unreasonable.

The idea of angels sitting in the empty tomb is unreasonable. The whole story is unreasonable. It's grossly superstitious myth. Avoiding the obvious supernatural aspects and just looking at the "facts," a missing body is easily explained as being removed by people. After all, if Jesus rose from the dead and rolled back the stone covering his tomb, wouldn't the Roman guard have noticed?

The disciples had nothing to gain by fabricating a story and starting a new religion.

Apparently they did, since they did start a new religion. They were members of a cult. Cultists are absolutely willing to fabricate stories to create a religion. In fact, that's the whole point of being in a cult. It's essentially the definition of a cult. It's an attempt to create a new religion, and new religions need new mythical stories. Even if they are heavily plagiarized.

His followers faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs' deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie.

So, suicide bombers are following the truth? Religious people are weird. They will lie to others and themselves, but claim they are telling the truth even in the face of death. They are willing to die for their lies. I don't pretend to understand it, and I strongly suspect that religious people, especially fanatics, have different brain chemistry, but the devotion of fanatics is well documented in all religions. In otherwords, according to your posted logic, if a religion has fanatical followers, then it must be true. Therefore, all religions are true, since all religions have fanatical followers.

I, of course, come to the opposite conclusion based on the same evidence: All religions are false, and their followers are delusional.

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

[Joos]

I, of course, come to the opposite conclusion based on the same evidence: All religions are false, and their followers are delusional.

Touché!

[Zakharra]

I, of course, come to the opposite conclusion based on the same evidence: All religions/ideals/causes are false, and their followers are delusional.

Agreed. It doesn't have to be a religion though.

[mxlm]

It's essentially the definition of a cult. It's an attempt to create a new religion, and new religions need new mythical stories. Even if they are heavily plagiarized.

Well, no, a cult is simply a religion the speaker wishes to denigrate.

Of course, for some reason religious folks don't like hearing that.

[Vaelahr]

Extremely unlikely given what we know of Roman military discipline.

Ahahahahaha. You mean that same military that repeatedly murdered their own emperors for bribe money? Clearly, looking away from the door of a tomb for a few minutes is a taller order than overthrowing the government.

Completely different scenarios having different consequences. Most importantly, the idea of the body being stolen is unreasonable.

Which brings me back to the quote from Blaise Pascal; "The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out."

The kicker is that no one ever confessed (freely, or under pressure from bribe or torture) that the resurrection was a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when citizens broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians. Thousands of people do not die for what they know to be a lie.

Furthermore, there was no motive for such a lie. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage. What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their "lie" ? They were scorned, imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, exiled, crucified, boiled alive, burned alive, beheaded, disemboweled, and/or fed to lions in the Colosseum.....hardly a list of perks.

If there had been a conspiracy, it would have been revealed by the faith's many enemies who had both the interest and the power to expose any fraud.

The disciples had nothing to gain by fabricating a story and starting a new religion. His followers faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs' deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. Religion had its rewards for them, but those rewards came from a sincere belief that what they were living for was true. The first-century believers preached and acted with conviction about the truth of his resurrection, many of them even dying because of their belief. If his friends had stolen the body to make it look like he had been resurrected, they would have known that they were believing a lie, and men do not become martyrs for what they know to be false.

Had a Roman guard seen angels in the empty tomb of some executed Jew, don't you think that would have merited a report? After all, if Jesus rose from the dead and rolled back the stone covering his tomb, wouldn't the Roman guard have noticed?

They did. And I'm sure it did merit a report; one that would've resulted in their deaths. Which explains why they fled as the Gospel records reveal. What ever became of them, we do not know. Probably exile, if they weren't captured and punished.

A *lot* of Christianity sounds like the fantasy mysticism of the Dionysus and Mithras cults, as well as Zoroastrianism. In fact, Mithras had a last supper with his disciples, all twelve of them.

The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funeral societies. As for a suggestion of "12 disciples", the Iranian Mithras had a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helper/companions, tiny torch-bearing likenesses of himself, called Cautes and Cautopatres, that were perhaps meant to represent the sunrise and sunset (or spring and autumn), whereas Mithras represented noon. Mithra also had a number of animal companions: a snake, a dog, a lion, a scorpion -- but not 12 of them.

Think about it. The empty tomb of Jesus. Why didn't it become a pilgrimage site? Why didn't the early Christians know it's location? Why didn't *anyone* know it's location? Oh sure, it's claimed to have since been found, but how could the devout followers of Christ have lost it to begin with?

The location probably wasn't lost and was most likely put to use. It wasn't a particularly cheap tomb.

That doesn't even come close to answering the question, and you know it. The Empty Tomb of Jesus would be more important than the Holy Grail. It was the location of his bodily ascendance into Heaven

No it wasn't.

It would be the holiest of holy sites for Christians on the planet. It would be more important to them than the House of God. It is absolutely inconceivable that they would ignore it. They would prostrate themselves before it and pray to Jesus on a regular basis, if it existed.

I don't think those are credible assertions at all. After the ascension, the early Christians looked to the return of their Teacher and Messiah, not to the empty tomb. Also, tomb veneration was considered taboo to many Jews. What's plausible is that the tomb was filled with other dead or was destroyed at some point.

And even if it was just some story, it wouldn't have included the testimony of women.

They weren't just women, they were "holy women."

Mary, Jesus's mother, wasn't considered "holy" until many, many years later by Catholocism. The Gospel of Mark negatively portrays her, Matthew's Gospel barely mentions her, and John's doesn't even mention her name. The others were women healed of illnesses or were former prostitutes.

Remember, this story was told to Romans to convert them, not to Jews.

The gospel of Christ was told to all by various means. The epistles (letters) in the New Testament had their specific audiences. The canonized Gospels; Matthew - with its intrinsically Jewish flavor, was written with the purpose of evangelizing Jews. Mark - the sense of action and movement in its style shows intent to attract a Roman audience. Luke - contains a highly-refined Greek style of writing, no doubt appealling to a non-Jewish audience. John - probably written for the general population of Asia Minor.

[mxlm]

Are you a Mormon? Because following Pascal's logic, you should be.

Since, y'know, the religion continued to grow after Joey Smith got pwned. And it was totally persecuted a lot, too. So clearly it must be, in fact, the One True Faith.

Right?

[Nekulor]

ALFA religion thread: Taking potshots at religion since early June 2007. Now in 3 crowd pleasing flavors:
-atheist
-agnostic
-Christian

More to come later as more users enter the fray.

Seriously, I stopped posting my feelings on the matter for the reason that we are essentially arguing belief. No one gets anywhere arguing belief. That's like arguing my belief that Anne Coulter is a brilliant political writer. Not many people would support that, and many would rush to throw me off a cliff for saying that. I don't always agree with her personal attacks, but that doesn't matter due to the basic premise that I like her style.

Slightly OT, anyone else watch her lamb baste Chris Matthews on Hardball?

[mxlm]

Er, did you? Without the partisan goggles on, it's sorta hard to claim Coulter came out ahead there.

I mean, honestly; 'could you stop making personal attacks?' 'Oh, I should stop writing books? And columns?' '...if you can't write books/columns without personal attacks, yes'

That's winning? Good lord. Wait, don't tell me, let me guess; we won the War of 1812, too.

Then again, without the partisan goggles on it's sorta hard to find anything good to say about Coulter.