For most of its history? That would be “Aggressive suppression of dissent at swordpoint”, Bob. For the last couple hundred? Habit.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Such falsehood. At musketpoint. Often supported by cannon fire and gunboats.
Tradition and wishful thinking, same as for all religions.
So, are other religions that have lasted a long time historically accurate just because they have lasted a long time? Your’s is an extremely weak argument.
I was more thinking the first Millennium…
How does this make it any different than atheism?
The countries where people are most likely to be atheist are also countries where nonreligion was (formerly) promoted by government action (China, Estonia, Czech Republic, eastern portions of Germany etc…)
- The book is boring. Most people give up pretty quick into Genesis, and have only ever been given a few random snippets (out of context) from the rest.
- Bob seems like a good guy. Jane seems like a nice enough lady. The preacher seems really nice. Everyone seems happy and sin-free, so far as I can tell. If we all live in a Christian society, then whatever bit of the Bible seems to be describing something other than the morality that I’m experiencing in my modern day life must be “quoted out of context” or part of the stuff that Jesus came to correct, or whatever.
- Overall, there’s better things to do in life than spend time trying to prove or disprove Christianity. At worst it’s harmless. At best, it gives you social activities and makes your family happy.
- We’ve evolved so that most of us will be stupid and pliant. It’s more efficient, as a pack, to have a minority of leaders and a majority of followers. Multiple leaders means that you waste time arguing options and never get anything done. Mass intellect means more food consumption because the brain consumes a large amount of energy when active.
- And it hasn’t lasted as long as most religions that came before it. On the “lasting” scale, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc. religions both outlast Christianity by a bit. It’s entirely plausible that Scientology will outlast Christianity going forward.
There is no independent historical record of Jesus rising from the dead. None.
You think someone somewhere might have noticed and written about it.
Nonsense.
In the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Belgium Christianity is going the way of the dodo, without any promotion from the government.
Poland and Russia would be counter-examples, there it was indeed discouraged but has had a significant rise after the fall of communism.
None of them except maybe Sweden has as high a percentage of irreligious people as the Czech Republic, Estonia or the former East Germany, or for that matter China.
What kind of evidence are you looking for? Because that claim is only true if you discount all the Christian texts (and for the matter all the heretical Christian / gnostic texts as well), as unreliable. That’s fine but it’s also setting an unrealistic standard: if Jesus was in fact the miracle-worker that these texts claim, isn’t it likely that people who saw the miracles would in fact have been followers of Jesus? (Not necessarily orthodox Christians, but certainly followers of some sort of Jesus-centered movement). Asking for texts by people who 1) witnessed Jesus perform miracles, and 2) didn’t consider him to be any sort of special figure, seems like you’re asking for something unrealistic.
There are also, I think, Jewish and Mandaean references to Jesus being a black magician of sorts, but those are dated (at least by some) a couple hundred years after Jesus so you may discount them as well.
Getting back to the topic, what are the top three independent sources when it comes to whether Jesus was resurrected?
What are these sources, and why should someone not discount them?
BTW, which of the contradictory accounts of his resurrection in the Bible should we consider as a primary source, and why?
What contradictions do you think you see? I think most purported contradictions can be easily reconciled, so point to the speicifc contradictions you see and I’ll tell you what I think the resolution might be.
Not really interested in your apologetic guesswork-just looking for the top three sources…and the fact that you are willing to throw unnamed and non-contemporary “Jewish and Mandaean references to Jesus being a black magician of sorts” into this mix makes me want to look to others for actual information.
There are some earlier sources attesting existence of Christians much earlier than “a couple hundred years”. Tacitus’ mention in the Annals (circa 116 CE) and Pliny the Younger’s circa CE 112 letter both mention them, and I don’t know of anyone who disputes these.
Suetonius (who died in 122 CE) mentions them in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars in the section on Nero (although the mention of a 'troublemaker" named “Chrestus” may not be a reference to “CHrist” – it’s disputed)
And Celsus wrote his book against Christians about 177 CE, but that’s getting close to “a couple hundred” years after about 33 CE.
There are accounts of people surviving cruixification though. And those who were thought to be dead, to be not quite so.
What are the Gospels then?
Those that supposedly witnessed are a separate group from those that wrote about the supposed event.
No takers? :o
In other words you’re not open to arguments that what you think are contradictions might not really be so?
John is an independent source from the three synoptic gospels (as well as, in the traditional view, an eyewitness), and Luke claims to have based his gospel on eyewitness testimony, as well as on the writings of Mark. The noncanonical Gospel of Peter also probably relies on a tradition independent from the other four, so you can add that in as well.