WI there is no God?

Actually, in this historical era, Judaism had many converts, who are termed Judaizers by some modern historians (see The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand). These Judaizers were not necessarily Jews in the sense that they were exclusively Jewish, many may have been people who worshiped Jehovah alongside their traditional pagan gods. They went to synagogue on Saturdays, followed the Jewish dietary laws, etc. Some historians think that these Judaizers could have comprised about 10% of the pre-Christian Roman population. In fact, many of these gentile converts to Judaism may have been the churches mentioned in the Book of Acts which Paul visited to try to convert them to Christianity. When the Christians came to power in Rome they actually passed laws that prohibited Jews from proselytizing (among other things), in part because they were competing with Christian proselytization efforts. Without Christian persecution and the suppression of the Jews, Judaism would probably look very different than it does today. It would probably be a more universalistic religion and may have incorporated many pagan traditions, such as syncretism. And I say this because Judaism at this point in time was probably henotheistic rather than strictly monotheistic.

Here I have to disagree; the post-exilic Jews changed their ways from henotheism to monotheism, even in your Wikipedia link is date the henotheism from 10th to 7th century BC. Furthermore, this is really just two different ways to look at the same think; while some see the pagans psuedoconverting to Judaism by worshiping Yahweh along with their other pagan Gods, I see the pagans doing exactly what the pagans always did, accepting ALL the new Gods they encounter into their dogma. Herod's temple in Jerusalem had a very large gentile area, where the gentiles living in Jerusalem could worship Yahweh. Further into the temple, there was a place for Jewish women to do it, then further in Jewish men. They gave an area to the gentiles because the pagans ALWAYS worshiped the local God--and since the local God happened to be Yahweh, they worshiped him.
 

counterpoint

When debating over historical accuracy of Jesus, I'm surprised the first thing you guys didn't do was Google the question. I hope the fact it's from a Christian site doesn't discount the information!:rolleyes:

That said, do I feel that debating the morality of the Christian religion is putting this thread down a road to a flame war. You guys have been perfectly civil, but perhaps we could get back on track, ok?
 
But the Gospels, and the other Christian writings of the times, don't have to offer evidence, they are evidence. Evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. Unless that is you can demonstrate that all these different writers were in fact engaged in a collusive conspiracy to convince people that such a person existed when he never did. Surely an unlikely proposition, and it seems much more sensible to take it that there was such a person, they believed the most important who ever lived, and to themselves they were chronicling and recording, not inventing.

Evidence is what is used to prove the truth of an assertion. A assertion is true when it is proven by evidence. The Gospel writers assert that Jesus was born of a virgin, preached, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. This assertion must be proven using evidence. What evidence is provided to prove their assertion? To argue that Jesus must have existed because Christians believe he exists is not evidence.

You seem to give Gospel truth the exact opposite to the customary meaning; if it's in the Gospels, it can't be true. I'm afraid that if you want to discredit a large body of near-contemporary writings by many different hands as deliberate invention and no evidence of anything whatsoever, you have to make more of a case for that than just calling it all propaganda. And actually apart from John, universally agreed to be the last-written of the canonical four and which has the clear intent of persuading Christians to a particular philosophical view of Christianity, the Gospels don't have the feel of propaganda. They just seem like narrative. Sometimes confused and disordered narrative too, unlike John's smooth flow, the roughness again adding to the authenticity.

No. My position is that if it's in the Gospels it must be proven using evidence. That one person or a hundred wrote the Gospels is evidence of nothing. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

As for corroboration, Matthew, Mark and Luke aren't Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedlethree even if we discount John, which despite what I've said I don't entirely. And then there are the various epistolary authors, the non-canonical material and the writings of the earliest Church Fathers. I'm not sure how much corroboration you think would be enough. Yes they are all Christians, but clearly they are independent and separate people. The demand for non-Christians of the time to have left accounts of what was no doubt assumed to be yet another of the myriad cults and would soon enough be vanished and gone is not altogether sensible. I don't suppose many people who weren't or did not become Christians would have been in the least interested.

None of the Gospels, with the possible exception of Mark, were written by eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Luke states this explicitly: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." The Gospels were written based on oral traditions, not by the actual eyewitnesses to these events. In any event, mere testimony without independent corroboration is not evidence.

I don't think we know too much about the Roman Empire that is not from Roman sources. Did that not exist, then? Remember, I am not asking you to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead. I don't believe that myself. All I am challenging is your original assertion that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the man Jesus. There is plenty, unless you arbitrarily dismiss it all as invention. Which, as I have tried to show, is not a reasonable approach to the question.

I'm repeating myself here. Christian sources are liable to the same burden of proof as any other source. You're not asking me to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Gospels certainly are, and that's the problem with accepting their assertions as evidence of anything without proof. What evidence do you have to prove the Gospels' assertion that Jesus was a historical person?

To your last point, was Julius Caesar a Christian? By his own account his actions in Gaul were akin to what we would consider genocide. By most reckonings, the greatest mass murderer in history was not Hitler, Stalin or Mao but Genghis Khan, who I doubt ever heard of Christianity before his campaign of slaughter began. I could adduce countless other examples. Wickedness and intolerance are not uniquely Christian faults, and if people hadn't been killing others in the name of Christianity it would have been in the name of something else. The artistic, cultural, moral and spiritual legacy of Christianity may be stained by by the things done in the name of Christ, but is not altogether devalued.

When did I ever assert that Christians had a monopoly on genocide or wickedness or cruelty? This is a straw man.
 
My point is and only ever has been that a large body of near-contemporary writings by a number of different authors about a person is in and of itself evidence that the person existed. The fact that our own beliefs say that the things he is reported to have done are impossible does not alter the reasonable supposition that there was a historical person who was the basis for these accounts. The sweeping assertion that there is no evidence for him is contradicted by the existence of this extensive written evidence.

As for the strawman, I deny the charge. Your own charge was that Christianity was responsible for all the ills done in its name; my response, with examples, was that it was human nature that was responsible, and if those things had not been done in the name of Christianity things like them would have been done in the name of something else.

That said, I am happy to honour the request of the thread author and leave this track of the discussion. If you want the last word you are welcome to it.
 
Are there any surviving statistics about the numbers of people who worshiped Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in the Roman Empire?

Unfortunately, not that I'm aware of. I do know that the cult of Mithras spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire by the third century CE, based on the archeological evidence, but virtually disappeared by the fourth century.

I've heard of other possible successors to Christianity, but I am skeptical that any religion that is not made the official Roman religion AND doesn't tolerate other belief systems could just 'replace' Christianity in spreading over so many people. People have also mentioned other such cults that could be possible replacements for Christianity, but just because they were another monotheistic religion doesn't mean they could just mimic the rapid spread of chritisinaity.

But a similarly monotheistic faith replacing Christianity is, in my opinion, more probable. But that's just my opinion.

Where did you get the statistic about the 5% of Romans being Christians, by the way? Interesting info.

Unfortunately, my library and I are separated by about ten thousand kilometers at the moment, and I'm working from memory here. So until we're reunited or until I remember I can't give you the exact source of where I got that statistic because I don't remember it exactly. If I had to guess, I would probably say it was Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But don't quote me on that.

Here I have to disagree; the post-exilic Jews changed their ways from henotheism to monotheism, even in your Wikipedia link is date the henotheism from 10th to 7th century BC. Furthermore, this is really just two different ways to look at the same think; while some see the pagans psuedoconverting to Judaism by worshiping Yahweh along with their other pagan Gods, I see the pagans doing exactly what the pagans always did, accepting ALL the new Gods they encounter into their dogma. Herod's temple in Jerusalem had a very large gentile area, where the gentiles living in Jerusalem could worship Yahweh. Further into the temple, there was a place for Jewish women to do it, then further in Jewish men. They gave an area to the gentiles because the pagans ALWAYS worshiped the local God--and since the local God happened to be Yahweh, they worshiped him.

The source for my claim was based on Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People, which is itself a controversial book. I don't always agree with Wikipedia. I provided the link so that people could see the conventional opinion of most historians for themselves. But I happen to think that Sand provides a compelling argument that classical Judaism continued to proselytize until at least the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. His assertion, which I agree with, is that Christianity was a part of this Jewish proselytizing movement, and that many of the early converts to the Christian Church were gentile Judaizers. Sand believes that many Jews (and Christians!) are reluctant to acknowledge this aspect of their history because it runs against the modern view of Judaism as a "closed" religion.

That said, do I feel that debating the morality of the Christian religion is putting this thread down a road to a flame war. You guys have been perfectly civil, but perhaps we could get back on track, ok?

Yeah, I agree with you here. I think we're talking past each other at this point.
 
My point is and only ever has been that a large body of near-contemporary writings by a number of different authors about a person is in and of itself evidence that the person existed. The fact that our own beliefs say that the things he is reported to have done are impossible does not alter the reasonable supposition that there was a historical person who was the basis for these accounts. The sweeping assertion that there is no evidence for him is contradicted by the existence of this extensive written evidence.

As for the strawman, I deny the charge. Your own charge was that Christianity was responsible for all the ills done in its name; my response, with examples, was that it was human nature that was responsible, and if those things had not been done in the name of Christianity things like them would have been done in the name of something else.

That said, I am happy to honour the request of the thread author and leave this track of the discussion. If you want the last word you are welcome to it.

I've said all I needed to say at this point. I enjoyed our debate. And thank you for keeping it civil. Cheers.
 
The source for my claim was based on Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People, which is itself a controversial book. I don't always agree with Wikipedia. I provided the link so that people could see the conventional opinion of most historians for themselves. But I happen to think that Sand provides a compelling argument that classical Judaism continued to proselytize until at least the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. His assertion, which I agree with, is that Christianity was a part of this Jewish proselytizing movement, and that many of the early converts to the Christian Church were gentile Judaizers. Sand believes that many Jews (and Christians!) are reluctant to acknowledge this aspect of their history because it runs against the modern view of Judaism as a "closed" religion.

I must say, besides the henotheism part, I myself have learned about people who did become Jews(not ethnically, but religiously) like the Idumeans. That said, the Idumeans only became Jewish since they started living on the Holy Land during the exile, then adopted the religion. Still, the Jewish diaspora throughout the Roman Empire does raise the possibility that, if the Jews adopted a more proselytizing view, Judaism could become the talked about monotheistic replacement to Christianity. Still, parts of Judaism were looked at as odd in the Roman world (circumcision, one temple, not eating healthy foods), so I wonder how successful it would be compared to the other monotheistic religions mentioned. Although I still think Roman paganism surviving is a distinct possibility.
 
Top