Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!

Jjohnjil. Well we hear from Tacitus that the 'mischievious superstition' was 'checked'. Tacitus was a Roman official and may have understood the word 'checked' as official government terms. He also comments that the belief, whatever it was escaped it's checking and that that was somehow a problem for the Roman Authorities.

We seem to have come away from the Romans having no knowledge of the resurrection.

The question remains why was the resurrection not exposed successfully as a hoax by the Roman or indeed Jewish authorities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!

Wow.....where did Sarah Palin come from?

[jjohnjil]

Vlad

The Romans may well have heard rumours of fantastic happenings but why would they take them seriously - you wouldn't believe it if Sarah Palin was to put a similar story around today!

Wow.....where did Sarah Palin come from?

Vlad

Why is it you do everything except argue the point in hand!  Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours? 

Thinking about it though, you probably would!

[Nearly Sane]

Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated

Who are you talking to?

[wigginhall]

The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings.   There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine.  It does not refer to the resurrection. 

[Hope]

Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours? 

Thinking about it though, you probably would!

jjohn, this and similar questions have been posed several times on this forum over the years.  The answer from all the Christians here has been the same: If there had never been any claim by Jo (more politically correct  ) Bloggs that s/he was divine, of course we wouldn't.  Even if s/he had thus claimed, we would feel it appropriate to investigate the claim before making a decision one way or the other - especially as such an event has already been recorded in history and not only was the existing claim of divinity already there, the person who claimed divinity back then stated that this was a once for all event.

[Hope]

Read the passage, 'Checked' means stopped not validated

Does it?  Surely if had been 'checked' in the sense you mean, Christianity would not have existed 300-odd years later to be taken on board as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and the likes of Jim, Alien and I - not to mention ~TW~ and Sass - wouldn't be posting here in the way we do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings.   There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine.  It does not refer to the resurrection.

However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.

[wigginhall]

The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings.   There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine.  It does not refer to the resurrection.

However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.

Christianity. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Tacitus passage is commonly used as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, but not for miraculous happenings.   There have been many discussions as to possible Christian interpolations, but as far as I can see, scholars accept the passage as genuine.  It does not refer to the resurrection.

However one must ask what Tacitus is describing as the ''mischievious superstition'' which was checked/halted but then broke out again.

Christianity.

Yuuuuuuusss.......But why is it the ''mischievious superstition''?

[wigginhall]

Vlad, stop JAQing off.  If you want to make a point, FFS make it.

[Hope]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense? 

[Shaker]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?

Alas, no

Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.

[jjohnjil]

Would you believe a report in the newspaper tomorrow that Joe Bloggs was brought back to life in London yesterday after being dead for ten hours? 

Thinking about it though, you probably would!

jjohn, this and similar questions have been posed several times on this forum over the years.  The answer from all the Christians here has been the same: If there had never been any claim by Jo (more politically correct  ) Bloggs that s/he was divine, of course we wouldn't.  Even if s/he had thus claimed, we would feel it appropriate to investigate the claim before making a decision one way or the other - especially as such an event has already been recorded in history and not only was the existing claim of divinity already there, the person who claimed divinity back then stated that this was a once for all event.

Are you really saying that had Jo claimed he/she was divine, you would investigate that claim?  Really?  And how would you convince yourself that he/she wasn't a very good magician or a hoaxer or a con man?  And more to the point, how have you investigated this 2000+ year old claim? 
I'm pretty sure that all Jo/Joe's claims would be immediately dismissed by your good self, Hope, without ever looking any further!  At least, I hope you're not that gullible!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?

Alas, no

Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.

Argumentum ad particular populum.

[Leonard James]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?

Alas, no

Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.

Argumentum ad particular populum.

Nope, fact!

[Shaker]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?

Alas, no

Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.

Argumentum ad particular populum.

No. It would have been the argumentum ad populum if I'd tried to make a case that Christianity is untrue because adherence to it is dying out in the developed world - it's the because bit that makes the fallacy. That would have been a fallacious argument; Hope has already accused me of emplying the logical fallacy of negative proof/argument from-appeal to ignorance and I've asked him for evidence of where and when I have done this. So far, no dice.

(Alan Burns provided an absolutely gob-smackingly classic example of this specific fallacy not long ago*, but of course we're not going to expect Hope to raise this with him).

As it is, all I stated was simply a matter of demonstrable fact (and my opinion about that fact).

ETA: As Lenny has just also pointed out. Hola, Len!

* http://goo.gl/b3si1l

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianity.

But you've just pointed out that Christianity was 'checked', so how come it is still around?  In fact, was it ever checked, in the 'halted' sense?

Alas, no

Although in recent human history it's dying out in the developed world, thank goodness.

Argumentum ad particular populum.

No. It would have been the argumentum ad populum if I'd tried to make a case that Christianity is untrue because adherence to it is dying out in the developed world - it's the because bit that makes the fallacy. That would have been a fallacious argument; Hope has already accused me of emplying the logical fallacy of negative proof/argument from-appeal to ignorance and I've asked him for evidence of where and when I have done this. So far, no dice.

(Alan Burns provided an absolutely gob-smackingly classic example of this specific fallacy not long ago*, but of course we're not going to expect Hope to raise this with him).

As it is, all I stated was simply a matter of demonstrable fact (and my opinion about that fact).

ETA: As Lenny has just also pointed out. Hola, Len!

* http://goo.gl/b3si1l

In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.

[Shaker]

In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.

Probably it does Vlad, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no religion can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression or atheism or what you (for some reason) call anti-theism, but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy

Britain isn't a nation of atheists save in the purely practical sense; they're a nation of apatheists and ignostics. The USA is going the same way, better late than never.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the olden days i.e. up to the Early fifties many vague believers still attended church for the society just like they attended pubs. Both have been declining. vague believers morphed into vague agnostics and there are now lots of toys to play with.....The swivel eyed hard arse antitheist count remains low.

Probably it does Vlad, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no religion can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression or atheism or what you (for some reason) call anti-theism, but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy

Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy

[Shaker]

Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy

Since the apathy about anti-theism also extends to apathy about religion, I'm delighted to see it prevail

[SqueakyVoice]

Vlad, stop JAQing off.  If you want to make a point, FFS make it.

Well, thus far chunsty has put 11,000+ posts on here plus a no longer determinable amount from the auntie days and he hasn't made a point yet...

...you're just just one  of life's optimists aren't you wiggie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probably it does Shakes, probably it does; but as I've always said, the one thing against which no antitheism can ever hope to prevail is not persecution or oppression , but good, old-fashioned, couldn't-give-a-monkey's, shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy

Since the apathy about anti-theism also extends to apathy about religion, I'm delighted to see it prevail

Alas and alack the number of hits for Richard Dawkins Websites is a pale shadow of what it was.

[Outrider]

Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.  However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.  In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question.  Why?  Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions.  As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories.  Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?

On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'? We know how hurricanes form, we could in theory with a large enough computer explain how particular people emerge unscathed whilst other people ten feet away are killed in an instant - there's nothing, though, to suggest that there's a 'why' to that incident.

Nature doesn't appear to have any intentions, any guiding intelligence, any prerequisite goals. It simply is.

O.