Paul's 500 witnesses.

[Pat Mustard]

The Romans frowned on hot sex.

No they didn't.




Frescoes from Pompeii.  1st century AD....before those xristard prude fucks messed everything up.

The Romans frowned on hot sex. If the woman acted other than like a board during intercourse then she was worse than a prostitute.

I can tell you Empress Veleria Messalina didn't act like a board when she won a fuck off against a noted courtesan by fucking 25 men in one night.

I was talking more about Republican Rome. By the time the Principate came about togas had gotten much looser.

[Minimalist]

Even in late Republican times the nobility indulged their pleasures while the commons were reduced to abject poverty.

You know, what republicunts call their "plan for the future."

[John V]

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

You're not correctly identifying the extraordinary claim and evidence. The extraordinary claim was that Jesus was the messiah. The extraordinary evidence was the resurrection. The means of perceiving the evidence is necessarily ordinary. Consider if you witnessed it yourself - there's nothing extraordinary about eyesight. In the end, perception of any claim is ordinary.

2)  Paul was lying. 

Maybe, but he dind't have motivation (this also goes to your first point). He was a rising star in the major religion of his area. He had no need to invent another religion and lie for it.

3)  Paul heard a story. 

Of course he heard the story. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received..." He received it from others. He wasn't a Christian at the time of the resurrection appearances. He heard about them later from others. He says so himself.

4)  The story is an interpolation. 

Where's the evidence? You need older manuscripts that don't include the passage to make this case.

5)  The story is historical but completely natural. 

This is related to extraordinary evidence above. Yes, even if you saw it yourself, there's a chance it wasn't what you thought it was. With multiple witnesses, that chance diminishes, but it's still there. It is called a faith you know.

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.

Yes, God leaves things for us to ponder and discuss. See Prov. 25:2.

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

OK, go ahead and reject it if you like. No one's stopping you.

[Brian37]

Even in late Republican times the nobility indulged their pleasures while the commons were reduced to abject poverty.

You know, what republicunts call their "plan for the future."

The fall of polytheistic Rome giving way to Christian Rome didn't create modern concepts of government. It is a complete fallacy that people stupidly think of ancient Rome and Greece as the origins of modern government. The were still back then ruled by a ruling family and that family could not be removed and the power was handed down through the family and or by assassination by a family rival or political rival. When Constantine adapted Christianity as the official religion even he was part of a ruling family. 

Christianity did not create our modern western pluralism and checks on power, back then all it did was replace one abuser with a new abuser. When Christianity took over you were still talking about a three class system, the ruling class, the military class and the common layperson. Unless you were part of the aristocracy or military class you really simply towed the national mindset, and were tolerated at best.

Christianity did not win because of a non existent magic man, it simply got successfully marketed, and it's rise had more to do with the rejection of the prior polytheism's wasteful spending and military over reach which bankrupted polytheistic Rome.

[KUSA]

Yup were smarter . better informed .ETC

I'm not sure if humans are actually smarter than our ancestors 2000 years ago. We certainly are much better informed. No doubt about that.

[GrandizerII]

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

You're not correctly identifying the extraordinary claim and evidence. The extraordinary claim was that Jesus was the messiah. The extraordinary evidence was the resurrection. The means of perceiving the evidence is necessarily ordinary. Consider if you witnessed it yourself - there's nothing extraordinary about eyesight. In the end, perception of any claim is ordinary.

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim that requires sufficient evidence to be demonstrably and conclusively true. Testimonies of others, especially as reported by a third party, never make for good evidence when it comes to such grand claims.

[Jehanne]

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

You're not correctly identifying the extraordinary claim and evidence. The extraordinary claim was that Jesus was the messiah. The extraordinary evidence was the resurrection. The means of perceiving the evidence is necessarily ordinary. Consider if you witnessed it yourself - there's nothing extraordinary about eyesight. In the end, perception of any claim is ordinary.

I deny your premise; in fact, modern Biblical scholarship has very conclusively demonstrated that the very early Church (including, Paul) did not view Jesus was being "the Messiah," let alone the "Son of God".  It is almost certainly the case that Paul thought that Jesus was a normal human man whom God made "a son of God" as opposed to "the Son of God".

2)  Paul was lying. 

Maybe, but he dind't have motivation (this also goes to your first point). He was a rising star in the major religion of his area. He had no need to invent another religion and lie for it.

He had motivation, otherwise, why would he be sending out letters?

3)  Paul heard a story. 

Of course he heard the story. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received..." He received it from others. He wasn't a Christian at the time of the resurrection appearances. He heard about them later from others. He says so himself.

Scholars are not really sure who those "others" were, or for that matter, where they got their information.

4)  The story is an interpolation. 

Where's the evidence? You need older manuscripts that don't include the passage to make this case.

It happened elsewhere for which scholars have irrefutable manuscript evidence.  I am just saying that such is a possibility.

5)  The story is historical but completely natural. 

This is related to extraordinary evidence above. Yes, even if you saw it yourself, there's a chance it wasn't what you thought it was. With multiple witnesses, that chance diminishes, but it's still there. It is called a faith you know.

Fact is I didn't see it, and I haven't seen it.  Ditto for UFOs, elves, fairies, etc., etc.

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.

Yes, God leaves things for us to ponder and discuss. See Prov. 25:2.

If faith is a necessary condition for a relationship with God, then it is a condition that I will lack at least until the physical death of my brain and body.  I would submit that there are an infinite number of things, propositions, ideas, etc., that one may "believe" or have "faith" in.

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

OK, go ahead and reject it if you like. No one's stopping you.

I reject it just like I reject revisionist historical theories, say, the ones which claimed that "Joan of Arc" ("Jehanne la Pucelle") was not burned alive at the stake on May 30, 1431, in the public square in Rouen, France but instead escaped execution, got married, had kids, family, etc.

[Minimalist]

When Constantine adapted Christianity as the official religion even he was part of a ruling family.

Except that Constantine I did not do that.  It was Theodosius in 380 who finally made the ultimate mistake of accepting that jesus shit as the state religion.  The asshole.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...UIxTBOQ_6g

[vorlon13]

But did absorbing the Romans leave Christianity unscathed?

And note any resulting changes in the tenets of Christianity following that would have been post-Jesus (and post-Paul tool), and therefore in furtherance of apostasy.


As an atheist, Christers willingly self falsifying their own faith gladdens my heart !!!

[Brian37]

Yup were smarter . better informed .ETC

I'm not sure if humans are actually smarter than our ancestors 2000 years ago. We certainly are much better informed. No doubt about that.

Yea, ok on what subject? Because you have your own delusions. Tell us all about how wrong blind worship is rightfully while acting like a snack patriot. 

You and I agree religion= "That was then this is now" AWESOME, and I agree.

You, "I still want to use musket laws in the age of AR-15s"  

Me, "Yea, that is like insisting on using rotary phone laws to regulate cell phones".

'Informed"? Yea, and? Nothing stopping you from living in the past too.

Saudi Arabia has nukes and cell phones too. So by your logic their use makes blind loyalty a good thing?

Same blind worship, different subject.