Religion or Science - How do they compare?

If you take the view that someone called Jesus was indeed crucified it's not ridiculous at all to report it. He'd have to report it because those around at the time would know.But having reported that the messia was dead, he then had to make it all ok again by inventing the whole cock-and-bull story about a subsequent resurrection. THAT's the ridiculous part. So what? He believed his own story. There are people blowing themselves for their mistaken beliefs every day. It's a common place.

Whether or not they believed it was true is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant.If they didn't believe it and they knew it to be fiction then there is no reason to pay any attention to it. If they believe it then we can come to our own conclusions about whether it is true or not.

There is no reason to pay attention to it because we know its fiction. Again, whether or not they believed it was true is irrelevant. Our own conclusions should be based only on facts. It could be true even if they thought it was fiction - or it could be false even if they thought it was true.

There were numerous messianic movements over roughly a 200 year period. In virtually all, if not all, cases the messianic leaders were put to death and that was the end of the movement. In many of the cases the messianic figures actually had varying degrees of success in that they actually held some degree of power.One example is the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 AD. They even has three where they minted coinswith the years 1,2 and3 on them. A very prominent Rabbi at the time Rabbi Akiva claimed that Bar Kokhba was the messiah. After they were put to deat, as was usual, the movement ended and as usual Bar Kokhba was simply considered another failed messiah.Here was a messianic figure who achieved nothing of what was expected of a messiah and was put to death in the most shameful way possible, with his followers all bailing out and yet they come back and dedicate their lives to following him. Something happened to cause this turn around and they have given an account of what that something was. Sure, but there was something that caused him to leave his life persecuting the early Christians to being one their foremost leaders. We draw our own conclusions.

You have concluded it is fiction. I disagree. My point though is that even if it is fiction they believed it to to historically accurate. Of course it is relevamt. If they are knowlingly writing fiction then we have no conclusion to draw. From the texts it is clear that they believed what they were writing so we can accept them as wrong or accurate to whatever degree we like.

It isn't a matter of opinion. There isn't enough evidence to conclude that it is historical fact. Fiction is the default conclusion. On the contrary, we always have a conclusion to draw, independent of the claims and/or beliefs of the authors.

You're making my point for me. If you can kill a messiah, he's not the messiah. It's the ressurection that 'proves' the messiah. Inventing a resurrection was absolutely necessary for the thing to work.The problem, of course, is that he was supposed to come back again quite quickly in all his glory but they couldn't pull that trick off could they? He disappeared forever. Almost as though he'd died just like every other failed messiah.

Absolutely. The thing is though that the messiah was not expected to be in any way divine. A messiah was expected to be a human figure that would lead them against their enemies, defeat them and rebuild the temple. Also, if they were going to make up a resurrection story they wouldn't have had Him barbecuing fish or doing the other human like things that He did.There is also no clear motivation of why they would do this. They never really understood His message until after the resurrection. Even after that, in the 1st chapter of Acts they are still asking about when He is going to restore Israel as a regional power.They had already assumed He was a failed messaih after the crucifixion. Why would they want to start it up again? It put them at odds with most of their friends and family. Do you really think they would do this for a lie? If I get a chance I'll answer this in the current thread on the subject.

There is for me.

History is not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinion on whether an event really happened or not but don't pretend that your opinion "makes sense" and that the default conclusion is "nonsense".

Right, and not perform strings of miracles then? Why on earth not? It's all part of the story. So they created the ressurection myth to fix the problem. It doesn't have to be a lie, it could be something they believed to be true. Or just something they wanted to believe was true. Or it could just be a lie that they used to carry on with their beliefs. There's any number of ways to spin it. The very least likely being that it actually happened.

And yet none of these people gain any credibility beyond their most immediate community--even in an age of mass communication. Paul went on to write several books about it and the belief caught on. Scholars have dissected the story in numerous ways and wrote entire books themselves on it. You may argue that the reason is that the product is easily and successfully marketed, but my point is that you don't see any modern martyrs anywhere approaching the level of notoriety.There is no conclusive evidence that the resurrection never happened either. There is support both for and against...and note that these book writers are also marketing ideas. *we* have arrived at no such consensus. you simply jumped on a convenient bandwagon...but it's hardly the only one. Ask yourself what facts you have. Where did you get them? What reasons do you have for accepting them?I will admit that I accept an appeal to popularity, but I have had personal experiences also.You've never had a need for religion, whereas I have. You have always liked being independent of authority and free willed. I have needed a friendly supportive authority figure.Perhaps it is why we are on opposite sides of the fence in this ongoing debate.And perhaps the legend still exists because many people need what I need. Far fewer need what you need.

Yes we have. Resurrections don't happen. You're the one on the religious bandwagon - and you're right that there's a whole parade of them. We all have the same facts. The difference is that you choose to ignore the facts that don't fit your beliefs and to augment the facts with fiction. That's exactly it. People need - or think they need - a crutch, so the legend continues. The perceived need does not make the legend true. And the lack of need by some of us calls into question whether the need you perceive is real. Maybe it's time for you to rise, take up thy bed and walk.

There is a problem with the word "generation" in that in Jesus' day it was not always used in the same sense we use it. It is often used to refer to a whole tribe of people, those descended from an identifiable forbear, such as the Jews (or even a class within the Jews perhaps who share an ideology, such as the believers in Christ or the Pharisees who are called a "generation of vipers" and so on). This use occurs in many places but one that comes to mind is Noah's being described as "perfect in his generations," which suggests his progeny extended into the future. (I see from the reference I give below that it can also refer to his practice of righteousness, but then I wonder why the plural).Some also interpret this passage to be Jesus' referring to the generation alive at the time of the events He's prophesying. I don't think this works very well for a number of reasons but the idea is that He's been talking exclusively about future events and the phrase occurs in that context, but also He can't mean the present generation because He's referring to so many events they couldn't all occur within one generation in the sense we use it. Wars and rumors of wars, famines and pestilences. There COULD be a lot of those in one short generation but it doesn't seem like the likely context.This online Bible Dictionary interprets "generation" in Jesus' discourse to refer to those present at the time, but it also gives other ways the term is often used: [qs] Generation [S]
Genesis 2:4 , "These are the generations," means the "history." 5:1 , "The book of the generations," means a family register, or history of Adam 37:2 , "The generations of Jacob" = the history of Jacob and his descendants 7:1 , "In this generation" = in this age. Psalms 49:19 , "The generation of his fathers" = the dwelling of his fathers, i.e., the grave. Psalms 73:15 , "The generation of thy children" = the contemporary race. Isaiah 53:8 , "Who shall declare his generation?" = His manner of life who shall declare? or rather = His race, posterity, shall be so numerous that no one shall be able to declare it.In Matthew 1:17 , the word means a succession or series of persons from the same stock. Matthew 3:7 , "Generation of vipers" = brood of vipers 24:34 , "This generation" = the persons then living contemporary with Christ. 1 Peter 2:9 , "A chosen generation" = a chosen people.The Hebrews seem to have reckoned time by the generation. In the time of Abraham a generation was an hundred years, thus: Genesis 15:16 , "In the fourth generation" = in four hundred years (Compare verse 13 and Exodus 12:40 ). In Deuteronomy 1:35 and 2:14 a generation is a period of thirty-eight years. [/qs] Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.