Christianity

Pro has written a really good argument and sourced it very efficiently. "Karl Jaspers described Jesus Christ as one of the four "paradigmatic individuals" (along with Socrates, Confucius, and Buddha), who radically changed civilization. But the teachings of Jesus stand in stark contrast to these other sages. For example, Buddha said, "Therefore, be ye lamps unto yourselves, be a refuge to yourselves. Hold fast to Truth as a lamp; hold fast to the truth as a refuge." (1) Christ makes the much grander claim when he says "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." I don't see as big a difference between the two sayings as Pro does. With the exception that jesus is much more self centered than the Buddha. I think that is the biggest difference between jesus and the others. Jesus claims that he is the only one who can get you into heaven, whereas the Buddha and others claim that it is yourself that is important and the key to happiness. Fact 1: Jesus' Death by Crucifixion Pro has brought up Tacitus as proof that a real person named Christ was crucified. I am not going to entirely disagree with that assumption but I think we should look closer at what Tacitus wrote. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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 Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. http://www.fordham.edu... Prior to this segment Tacitus details the great fire that tore through Rome, and after this passage he goes into detail how the Christians were tortured and killed. At the opening of this paragraph, Tacitus explicitly tells us that Nero blamed a class of people who were "hated for their abominations', in order to shift the focus of the people of Rome's suspicions off of him. Tacitus tells us that this "class" was "called Christians by the populace". So who were the populace? I think it is a fair assumption that Tacitus was not referring to the "hated class" of Christians. Again, I think it is a fair assumption that Tacitus was referring to the general roman populace. So why is that important? I'll explain in a moment just keep it in mind. Tacitus then tells us that someone, named Christus "suffered an extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…". Tacitus then goes on to tell us that this "mischievous superstition…" was then "checked for the moment…" but then broke out again, first in Judea and then spreading to Rome. I would first like to point out that Tacitus made a forgivable, but important mistake. He calls Pilate a "procurator" when in fact He was not. Pilate was a "prefect". There is next to no difference in the title other than they were used at different times. So why is this important? It shows that Tacitus is a human being and is capable of making mistakes when writing about something that happened almost a century before. Tacitus wrote this in roughly 115 to 116 CE while the fire happened in 64 CE and Pilate would have executed Christ during his tenure sometime between 26 CE and 36 CE. Next I want to point nowhere in Tacitus writing does he state that Christ was crucified. He only tells us that someone named Christ "suffered an extreme penalty". Now I am not saying that this proves he wasn't crucified, nor am I arguing that the man Tacitus is talking about wasn't crucified, I am merely pointing out that Tacitus does not specifically say what happened to the man. He is not entirely vague either, it can be assumed that the man was tortured and killed, as that you could include that in the definition of "an extreme penalty". However you could also include the slaying of his family in the above, as well as a myriad of other executions besides crucifixion. Am I saying jesus wasn't crucified? No. I am only saying that the above no more proves he was crucified than it proves he was beheaded. Two more things I want to point out. The first being that the "extreme penalty" suffered by christus was enough to stop the "mischievous superstition" for "a moment". The death of christus, according to Tacitus, stopped the movement, but then it broke out again in Judea and the spread to Rome. Tacitus is saying that there was a lull in the growth of Christianity when jesus died. It was, an unspecified time later, that the church began to grow again. What happened in that time period? The last thing I want to talk about with Tacitus is that he calls Christianity a "mischievous superstition". This infers that even at 115 CE Romans still looked down on Christianity as some sort of cult. Fact 2: Jesus' Honorable Burial and Empty Tomb Pro seems to be saying that the earlier the document the more accurate it is. By earlier I mean closer to the actual events. I agree with this, assuming that is what he means. But now I have to ask this. What "source" for mark is Pro referring to? The Q document? The common saying traditions? Neither of those say anything about the resurrection, they are a collection of sayings of jesus. So again I ask, what markan source is pro referring to? 2. Joseph of aramathea. I am not sure what Pro is attempting to convey here. 3. Women I have to ask, what was jesus's position on women? There are only two possible answers. 1. He regarded them in the same light as the rest of society, eg worthless, or as equal to men. I (and I imagine quite a few Christian women) would argue that it is the second case. In Pliny the younger's Epistulae number 10 he says "…from two female slaves who were styled deaconesses but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition." (Pliny, letters 10.96) also hear is the Wikipedia page on deaconesses. http://en.wikipedia.org... clearly, women played an important role in early Christianity. That being the case, it makes perfect sense for early christians would write that a woman found him, especially if they agreed with jesus that women should be equals. 4. Third Day. Again, I'm not sure what Pro is trying to say here. 5. No body. I agree that this helps prove that the authorities did not possess the body, but it proves little else. Fact 3: The Post-Resurrection Appearances This fact proves nothing. People see dead loved ones frequently, especially shortly after said loved one has passed. It is generally considered part of the grieving process rather than something miraculous. So I ask, what is more likely, that some of jesus' close followers had normal, grief visions of him, or that he rose from the dead. Fact 4: The Origin of the Disciple's Beliefs Fact 5: The Conversion of Skeptics like Paul and James Fact four and five are almost identical, both use someone's belief that something happened as proof that it did. If that were the case, then alien abduction, and every cryptid is real, simply because several, reliable, eye witnesses claim to have seen it. Many skeptics of Scientology are eventually won over; this does not prove that scientology is true.