How to live a good life!
Are you serious? Would YOU die to teach someone else how to live a good life?
Yes, I'm serious (don't forget 'the rewards' I mentioned for living a good life). No, I wouldn't willingly die to teach someone else how to live a good life - and I don't think that dying for a cause teaches much about the cause other than how strongly you felt about it.
In the years 220 or thereabouts, the patron saint of my hometown here in Italy was BBQ's to death. He got roasted first on one side and then they turned him over to the other side. THIS is what was going on back then, both to those that preached and to those that accepted. This because they wouldn't deny their belief in God.
I'd say there was something more going on than some people trying to teach how to live a better life.
And no, that was not the claim.
OK. I was taught that a good life for a Christian was to accept Jesus as saviour, love your neighbour, follow the 10 commandments, etc., etc. If you did this and repented of your sins, you'd be rewarded with eternal bliss, etc.
People of many religions have sacrificed their lives thinking they were doing what was right, but then again people have always sacrificed their lives for what they thought was important, like family, tribe, territory, country, religion, honour, etc. How important those things 'really' are depends on context and opinion.
OK. I asked you if you knew about Christian ideas because I see you're atheist,,,,but besides being Christian, I'm also a secularly knowledgeable person, so you don't need to ask if I've ever heard of secular things.... I've heard of everything secular that YOU'VE heard about. (you, otoh, may not have studied Christianity). I meant no disrespect of your knowledge.
Growing up in a Christian environment, I've studied Christianity at least as much as the average Christian, perhaps more.
When you said early Christianity wasn't a movement, I was wondering what you thought it was - particularly as you say you're familiar with the idea of religious movements. So what would you call those Christian beginnings?
I go by the story in the New Testament. This story, or account of events, was told by the Apostles, the men chosen by Jesus to be disciples of His, who lived through the experience.
As I understand it, it wasn't the apostles who wrote the stories - they were written well after the events, as hearsay.
Here's why I believe them:
When Jesus was crucified, all the apostles left Jerusalem and went to hide somewhere...probably to Mary and Martha's house in Bethany...about a 30 minute walk from Jerusalem. Only the Apostle John remained in Jerusalem and was, in fact, at the foot of the cross when Jesus died.
They were afraid that they might be next. The Sanhedrin was powerful and Rome was powerful and they could have had them all killed.
A few days later, not more than about a week later, they all came out of hiding and had no more fear in them. They began to proclaim that they'd seen Jesus and that He was the awaited Messiah.
What could have caused this extreme change? I believe it could only have been caused by seeing a dead man come back to life and eat with them and spend time with them.
The events seem to be factual, not only to me, but to many much more intelligent than I'll ever be. If you're really interested, you should read a book by Frank Morison...Who Moved the Stone.
I recommend a book by Dan Barker (one-time evangelical preacher) '
Godless'. He suggests using the Gospels to try and produce a simple chronological account of the events of that important period: "
in each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in Corinthians 15:308." This account should include all the details in the accounts - the order of events, who said what to whom, where and when.
The reasoning is the above.
So basically, you believe the story because you think it seems plausible, and other clever people believe it? Have you compared the various accounts (as above)? Which do you think is most accurate?
For trivial examples, when the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did that happen after they arrived? what was the reason for their visit? how many angels were there?
... the info that is being found in DNA is too spectacular for me to think that it happened by chance.
It didn't happen by chance, it happened by the process of evolution.
I Agree. There's some woman in Croatia that claims to see Mary every day. I really don't accept this.
Why not? - after all, you accept an ancient story about a dead man coming back to life.
I do want to say this: They say Mary was seen in Lourdes, in the south of France, near Spain. It's claimed that thousands of miracles, of a healing nature, have happened there. The Catholic church had a commission study these miracles because they kept being asked if they were true. At the end of the study, which took years, they confirmed that 67 of the occurrences were real miracles. You could take it or leave it...I don't base anything on this, but it is interesting.
Yes, it's interesting - I had a rummage through the Lourdes claims ages ago - the criteria used for miracles were quite restrictive, but for the early ones (starting in 1858) misdiagnosis was a clear possibility, so it's uncertain. The others, in general, were extremely rare, but not unheard of, recoveries (cancer, nerve damage, infection, etc); there were no miracles such as restoration of missing limbs or organs. The placebo effect probably played a role in the numbers who felt rapid relief. Statistically, given the number of visits (6 million/year in 2006), it would be a miracle if there were not a fair number of inexplicable recoveries -
in 2006 they decided to change the criteria, because modern medicine was showing that many such cases were not inexplicable after all. But, of course, lack of an explanation does not imply supernatural intervention.
Oh yeah! There's no way they went through their entire life and died the way they did (all martyred except for John) for something they knew was a lie.
If that is so....it's the most complicated conspiracy ever deviced...and the longest lasting. It's just impossible that a conspiracy of this type and length of time and many persons involved, could have held together.
OK, my comment was a little facetious - apologies for that - I certainly don't think the story involves explicit lies or conspiracies.
If we accept the main thrust of the story, these were people clearly besotted with the charisma of their leader, and committed to his ideas - they'd put their lives on hold to follow him - so it wouldn't be surprising if they dreamed about him, thought they saw him in the crowd, etc.; and it wouldn't be a big step for one or two of them to come to believe they'd really seen him, and for the others to accept it and come to believe they were there; this would be reported later as happening overnight, when it probably would have taken several days or more. This scenario is not so far-fetched, it's a known effect, especially where strong emotions are involved; it's why law enforcement agencies now are careful not lead interviews with suggestions, and make every effort to stop witnesses of crime talking to each other - they are likely to adopt each other's details into their own memories without realising it (see
Seven Sins of Memory).
But I don't accept the main thrust of the story - because there isn't a single consistent story to accept. Matthew says the first appearance was on a mountain in Galilee (Jesus had said this at the Last Supper - Matthew 26:32, and the angel at the tomb repeated it), in Matthew 28:16-17 they went there and saw him, maybe (some, understandably, doubted). Mark has the same angel message but a different first meeting story (not in the earliest version), and Luke & John have quite different stories of the first meeting (Luke says it happened in Jerusalem, Matthew in Galilee, over 60 miles away). The earliest account, Paul's, uses the language of spiritual awakening rather than physical resurrection.
Considering this is supposed to be the most important part of the whole NT, you'd expect some consistency, but they can't seem to agree on where or when or to whom Jesus first appeared, or many other details.
Could we make up stories about John Kennedy?
He died about 50 years ago....
If you mean JFK, it's already been done and exposed - as with so many famous men, the popular accounts of him (as a vigorous & healthy family man) were far from reality.
