Very well, in agreeing with those three items we set a 400 year period in which something happened that caused this fringe group to form and become the official religion of the Roman Empire. This apparently began very soon after the time of the crucifixion. Once again, extra biblical sources are extant that show mention of Jesus and his teachings as early as 30 years after his death. Flavius Josephus and Thallus both mention him and Thallus even attempts to explain away the darkness that occurred immediately after Christ's crucifixion. Here the Biblical account of a miracle is in agreement with extra-biblical accounts saying "Yes it happened, but it wasn't a miracle". Whether or not it was a miracle is of less importance than the agreement that it actually occurred. This lends credence to the rest of the story. Certainly an author can begin relating a story factually and then go off on a fictional tangent, but at least to this point we have corroboration that things happened the way that the Gospels describe them. Whether this was the work of God or not is a matter of faith.

Now let's look at possible reasons we could have this corroboration:

A) The author is trying to refute a real event. That is Thallus has heard the accounts of Jesus being crucified and puts forth another interpretation of the facts.

B) The author is responding to a fictional account of the crucifixion. Why explain it away at all? If it didn't occur, find somebody who was alive at the time and ask him. A solar eclipse, coupled with an earthquake and accounts of the dead rising is not something that the populace is likely to forget. 50 A.D. is becoming a stretch, but even in those days living to sixty or seventy wasn't unheard of. There should have been somebody around to refute the occurrence. In my forties, right now, I can relate the story of a solar eclipse that happened on my 16th birthday. I'm fairly confident that I can also relate that I’ve witnessed no total eclipses in this locale during my lifetime. I see no reason why this would not be the case for 1st century man.

If A is correct, then we need answer no further questions. An eclipse happened at precisely the time that a historical text said it did. Great, the text seems to be accurate.

If B is correct then we have a few questions to answer:

Why refute it at all? (certainly, the reason would be that a lot of people were running around saying it happened, good enough reason to refute it)

If it didn't happen, why didn't Thallus produce some evidence that it didn't happen in the form of witnesses to that effect. There could certainly have been some people around who could answer whether the darkness and earthquake occurred. We are left only with Thallus agreeing that there was darkness and an earthquake, and no evidence to refute that agreement. Therefore it is likely that the earthquake and darkness actually occurred around the crucifixion, at least there is no sound basis for questioning the biblical and extra-biblical accounts as they agree.

A source website that mentions the extra-biblical accounts of the crucifixion.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

"there is no sound basis for questioning the biblical and extra-biblical accounts as they agree. "
HAHAHA that's funny, once again, motives are key

nope all three of your items are obviously acceptable from a historical standpoint

however, i love the jump you make from 2 to 3 which pretty much helps to verify my point, which is that the people who propogated myths about this revolutionary had a motive for it, I don't see what's so confusing, and people with passions who believed them were the fuel for their lies. i may be assuming causality from conclusions but it seems logical

If you were to use the word prespective instead of lies then i think we'd reach consensus much faster.

If the believed it then it was their way of looking at things (some of them facts distorted by their point of view, the fact that we think we should have an unbiased media but don't is demonstration enough that all facts reported/recorded are distroted by personal bias, or prespective of the reported)

The fact you specifically mentioned that there are those who believed with passions indicates that will accept the point about it not being lies (to some people, depending on their prespective) - if you had evidence for your ascertion that some members of the early church were intentionally peddling lies i'm sure you would have produced it by now.

Unconscious lying. Is that better?

First, assuming causality from conclusions (if by that you mean it happened like this so it must have been because of this) is never logical. Ironically it's exactly the same type of reasoning that you would accuse religions of propagating. That is you're looking at how things were and concocting a story to explain it. It's the fallacy of faulty causation. The thing that I find really interesting is that you feel comfortable attacking a well documented historical series of events without bringing forth any evidence to support your position. Simply put when you have two contrary positions it does not matter which seems more likely. The one with evidence to support it has the greater chance of being the truth.

I agree that motive is key, and we will get to that shortly. Yet it seems a bit far fetched to insinuate that a non-Christian author was really attempting to support the Christian claims by giving a contrary perspective. I can see no other interpretation for your amusement. The two positions are clearly contrary.

Your assertion is a bit like someone reading this exchange between us and deciding that you were really trying to support my argument. While possible, without any evidence to support it, it doesn't seem likely.

Now I really have no problem with the assertion that the apostles were lying. I don't agree, and will explain why it's unlikely; but it's pretty much exactly what I expect your position to be. If you believed what the apostles said, then we probably wouldn't be having this particular exchange.

The one with the greater amount of evidence is not the one necessarily more likely to be true, especially if the evidence is a facade supporting a falsehood. Why did early Christians try to propogate their beliefs? Why did they spread the word of Jesus? If you think it is purely because they had internalized this new belief and thought they were doing good, then I believe you are fooling yourself. The spread of Christianity, and the acceptance of myths surrounding Jesus, is similar to the trend of witch crazes in Puritan America and Europe later. Same trends in that they are based on single witness accusations with very little evidence and a lot of motive. As a said before the victors control the history or the evidence, and therefore it becomes less powerful. You have no evidence from the pagan perspective as I see it. The causality I assume is logical in that the trend of Christianity after Constantine took power verifies my claim (special privelages to state religion both support the idea of a system based for power).

@ otto

"however, i love the jump you make from 2 to 3 which pretty much helps to verify my point, which is that the people who propogated myths about this revolutionary had a motive for it"

This is simply not the case. Did they have motives? I would assume so, I had a motive for eating a sausage biscuit instead of a chili dog for breakfast this morning. People tend to have motives for lots of things, but that does not mean that their motive is what you suggest, nor have you given any reason why their motives must have been what you imagine.

Now let me propose an item that does help your argument.

Item #4

People just don't come back after being dead for three days.

I'm pretty sure it's implied that, because I don't believe in things that aren't proven such as God, that resurrection is impossible from my perspective. That is a central part of my argument. Therefore the apostles were either a)insane, b)drunk or c) they stated this case for some other reason, which I have already explained (they had aspirations for power). Now seeing as you so kindly suggested this #4 for me as if I didn't already accept it as a fact, I will assume you have prepared a counter argument for it already. Let's see it.

And eating breakfast has very little to do with ground-shaking beliefs that challenge a current system, that is a horrible example against my intent of explaining motives, sorry to be harsh.

Sure we can give the "Pagan" perspective that is the perspective of the accused, and you may believe as I do that they were guilty of nothing. That pretty much flies in the face of the idea that the victor decides history. The people executed for witchcraft were certainly not the victors, but we have a record of their heartwrenching attempts to demonsrate their innocence. Your argument suggests that the voices of these people would be consigned to oblivion to cover up the crimes committed against them. That is not the case.

As requested the "Pagan" perspective

Rebecca Nurse
"Oh Lord, help me! It is false. I am clear. For my life now lies in your hands...."

Elizabeth Howe
"If it was the last moment I was to live, God knows I am innocent..."

Susannah Martin
"I have no hand in witchcraft."

Martha Carrier
"...I am wronged. It is a shameful thing that you should mind these folks that are out of their wits."

George Jacobs
"Because I am falsely accused. I never did it."

Mary Bradbury
"I do plead not guilty. I am wholly innocent of such wickedness."

Mary Easty
"...if it be possible no more innocent blood be shed...
...I am clear of this sin."

William Hobbs
"I can deny it to my dying day."

Dorcas Hoar
"I will speak the truth as long as I live."


and


What evil spirit have you familiarity with?
None.
Have you made no contract with the devil?
No.
Why do you hurt these children?
I do not hurt them. I scorn it.
Who do you imploy then to do it?
I imploy no body.
What creature do you imploy then?
No creature. I am falsely accused.


Dialogue based on the examination of Sarah Good by Judges Hathorne and Corwin,
from The Salem Witchcraft Papers, Book II, p.355

This was in answer to your comparison that the Salem Witch Trials were analogous to the first few centuries of the Christian church (sorry if I didn't make that clear). All of the quotes are from the following website.

http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/chronology.shtml

I make no guarantee as to their veracity, they were simply the first ones I came to after three seconds of internet research.

So now we are getting somewhere:

There are four possibilities

A) The apostles were insane.

B) The apostles were under the influence of alcohol.

C) The apostles were acting upon some desire (and you suggest that they were power hungry) other than the sincere desire to spread the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

D) The apostles were acting on the sincere desire to spread the news of actual events that they believed would change the world.


I think that we are in agreement here. It had to be one of these four. Even if you believe sincerely that it wasn't the fourth, that's what we are left with if it wasn't one or more of the first three.


I'll simply state that I disagree with you on your assertion that the position with the most factual evidence to support it is the not the one that is most likely to be true. Your attempt to support this by citing the Salem Witch trials is self defeating. There is ample evidence to support an opposing position. The people who walked away from that incident with all of the power (the magistrates and officials) can be clearly shown to have been wrong. That would be impossible if it were true that the victor decides history in all cases.

I'll also add as evidence the existing copies of many Gnostic Gospels. If the Church truly had the desire or power you suggest then wouldn't all of these books have been destroyed?

It must follow that either they couldn't or didn't want to get rid of these volumes. If they couldn't or wouldn't get rid of contrary claims as to the divinity of Jesus Christ, then how could they have erased all evidence of their own conspiracy to take over the Roman Empire? Surely this cannot go both ways merely because it's convenient for your argument. In light of their inability to completely dispose of the Gnostic Gospels, I'd say it's likely that they did not entirely cover their own tracks (so evidence should be there on some level), or they had nothing to cover up. I think that they had nothing to cover up, and my evidence for this is the record of their actions as revealed in the Acts of the Apostles; the letters of Paul, James, and Peter; and the synoptic Gospels.

@ otto & orathaic

Since we’re most likely the only three still reading this thread, lets take otto’s pet theory: (The apostles were into it for their own gain)

It is completely unlikely that the apostles began (and certainly that they followed through with) preaching the Gospel to gain worldly power or even wealth. All of them lived in relative poverty and died in the persecutions. They went to violent and painful deaths when renouncing their claims would have saved them in most cases. The Romans were remarkably tolerant in most cases, we have letters in which emperors (Hadrian in particular) told their governors to spare anyone who renounced their Christianity. In spite of this every apostle went to his death without recanting one word of his witness to the Resurrection.

Furthermore, for them to get together and decide to lie about the resurrection would be for them to know that they were leading people away from God; they’d have been blasphemers. That adds to their woes. They would suffer poverty and ostracism in their lifetimes, but they couldn’t even expect to be well received on the Day of Resurrection.


Here is a chronology of the rise of Christianity in Rome:

Christianity becomes Rome’s official religion 380 A.D. (2009)

Constantine’s Edict of Toleration 313 A.D. (1942)


Apostles preach throughout Roman Empire 30 AD -90 A.D. (1659-1720)
(St. Andrew was said to have been 80 when he was crucified.
If we go with his being 20 at the crucifixion of Christ, this gives this estimate.)

Persecutions become widespread under Nero 64 A.D. (1693)

Jesus is crucified 29 A.D. (1658)
(33 when he died, and generally thought to have been born around 4 BC)


It seems highly unlikely that the Christian Church becoming the official religion of Rome, in 380, is a sound basis for the apostles’ supposed aspirations for material gains in 30 A.D. To put it in more familiar terms I’ve added the current dates for comparison. Basically you’re saying that the apostles (in the late 1600’s) must have had aspirations for material gain, because the Christian Church became the official religion of Rome in 2009, in spite of the Roman Empire’s effort to stomp them out from 1693 to 1942. This group, that was supposedly out for power and wealth, had to endure a quarter millennia of poverty and ostracism. It’s far more likely that the people who joined in droves after the Edict of Toleration had aspirations for power. They were joining the emperor’s pet project, after all. It was 64 years after the Edict of Toleration that Christianity became the official religion. That’s plenty of time for people looking to gain the emperor’s favor to have effected this change.

sorry, lost track there for a moment.

"There are four possibilities" - fine, question: Is which possibility is true going to affect how I live my daily life or am I going to take the message in the gospels and figure out for myself what value they have?

if i'm going to be indoctorinated then it matter what i am indoctorinated into; otherwise...

still @Crazy, i do see your arguement as being a lot more realistic regarding the motivations of the apostles. I don't think they were merely power-hungry.

I think it is much more likely (assuming i don't believe in the resurection) that they wanted the death of their spiritual mentor not to be forgotten, and they wanted his dream to be realised - which really makes you ask what message did he preach, and how did they interpret it? (assuming there are differences, that would be interesting)

@ orathaic

Answer to question #1, Yes and No. The question is so fundamental to Christian Theology, I'd think that it is of definite importance whether Christ really rose from the dead, or a group of people erroneously or deceptively claimed it was so. Is it truly going to be life altering in that I'd be likely to immediately through all of my morals out the window? I'd say that would be unlikely. Would it significantly weaken my faith? I'd say probably so.

@ orathaic

With that being said, I'd like to continue the discussion (sorry for my absence last week) about the resurrection. Your answer to the assertion that it's unlikely that the apostles were out for material or tangible gain is a good one to a certain extent. Yes it's true that neither of us can know what the apostles' motives were 2000 years or so after they lived. So one supposition is as good as another. To an extent...

I admit that I would really understand otto's power hungry apostles better than the ones you put forth.

Here's the list of reasons I find this problematic:

A) They would have known that they were lying and been willing to give their lives to perpetrate a lie with no chance of reward in any shape. Certainly there were other ways to make sure that people did not forget Jesus' teachings? What was the need for going to such terrible deaths (and worse yet leading others to them with the full knowledge that there was no resurrection)?

B) The Romans' had a history of religious toleration. If they really had no other motive than to keep alive the memory of their religious teacher, why the need for such secrecy that ultimately brought the full weight of Roman Imperial authority down upon their heads. Surely there were safer means of doing this. Why not just become one of the many fully sanctioned religions in the Roman world?

C) If it were all just a hoax, why would people be writing refutations explaining away the darkness and earthquake at the time of his death. Thallus wrote in AD 50's and Christ's crucifixion was in AD 29 at the earliest. That puts the refutation to within 30 years of the actual event; that's well within living memory for people in Judea. It would not be necessary as people could have said "of course there was no earthquake or darkeness around that time; I was living here and I'd remember if it did" Are we saying that two miraculous events happened but the third didn't?

eclipses and earthquakes are not usually considered miaculous by christians (unless i'm missing something) now both at the same time is highly imporbable, but bound to happen during our history somewhere.

Not that i'm saying this proves they weren't miraculous, but you're jumping to a conclusion if you ask me.

You're right, to a point. The events, in and of themselves, are not miraculous, and even having both happen at the same time would not be so. They are considered miraculous because they are said to have happened at the time of Christ's death. It's the timing of the event that makes them seem miraculous (highly improbable at any time, but especially so when coupled with such a singular event). Can we say that Christ's death caused them? No, and I hope that I did not imply that. It does give credence to the resurrection account that we have though, as there is some corroboration of the events from an opposing source. At the very least it leaves us with evidence supporting parts of the account.