Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

If I check the advancement of something, it does not mean it is stopped forever.  It is the only sense of checked that makes any sense in context. That said, I'll dig out my Tacitus at some stage and have a look at the Latin.

ETA: while I look at it note that it continues 'broke out again later'

ETA2: the latin is 'repressa' so it is the sense of check that is clear, as I pointed out,  in the English translation

[Spud]

It seems to read as though the initial 'checking' happened when Christ was executed under Pilate, so perhaps the mischievous superstition was Jesus' claim to be the Son of God?

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to read as though the initial 'checking' happened when Christ was executed under Pilate, so perhaps the mischievous superstition was Jesus' claim to be the Son of God?

I think it is simpler to read it as a general description of the set of beliefs rather than anything specific. The reading you suggest makes very little sense in the Rome of the time.

[Nearly Sane]

There also seems to me to be a lot of rather 'modern' thinking from people who would assume that Roman authorities or, indeed, Jewish ones would think in the methood of trying to 'disprove' religious claims by pursuing something physical such as producing a body. (That is leaving aside that we have no non biblical representations that they were aware of the claim of resurrection).

[Outrider]

The Romans of the time were polytheists - the Roman pantheon had space for who knows how many gods, and the idea of a regional 'hero' being brought back from the dead would not have been out of keeping with their own competing deities sponsoring their own personal heros.

Time and Christian domination of culture has led to Jesus being depicted as more significant to modern society than, say, Orpheus or Osiris, but there's no reason to think the Roman authorities would categorise the stories differently.

The adherents of the stories, perhaps, but not the stories themselves.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It should be noted that Judaism was also a 'superstition' to the Romans in that it was a bleief that couldn't easily be assimilated into their existing practices. This would be true also about the worship of Isis originally which was prevalent amongst the lowest classes, like Christianity, but eventually was recognised by Caligula. In its earlier stages, it was subject to a fair amount of persecution, though this was in all likelihood mainly political.

[Hope]

The Romans of the time were polytheists - the Roman pantheon had space for who knows how many gods, and the idea of a regional 'hero' being brought back from the dead would not have been out of keeping with their own competing deities sponsoring their own personal heros.

Do you have any actual examples of this, O?  Or is it a modern take on Roman religious thinking?

Time and Christian domination of culture has led to Jesus being depicted as more significant to modern society than, say, Orpheus or Osiris, but there's no reason to think the Roman authorities would categorise the stories differently.

Perhaps you can explain why the Roman authorities decided to plump for Christianity over these other belief systems.  It wouldn't seem that the 'Christian domination of culture' would have influenced them, since that likely didn't begin to occur until the second half of the 1st millennium.

[Hope]

On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?

Well, one reason is linguistics.  As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.

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

Do you have any evidence to show this?

[Nearly Sane]

On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?

Well, one reason is linguistics.  As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.

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

Do you have any evidence to show this?

Quite extraordinary, an appeal to nature, combined with an appeal to authority (in this case your own - a fascinating habit) and a misunderstanding of linguistics which you are appealing to. Dense dense fail.

[Shaker]

Indeed, NS. He's very long on demanding evidence from others, yet simultaneously short - putting it mildly - on answering questions put to him.

[jeremyp]

On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?

Well, one reason is linguistics.  As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.

How does your religion answer any of these so called why questions then?  And how can we test the answers to make sure they are right?

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

Do you have any evidence to show this?

Of course he does.  The Theory of Evolution id about as solid as a scientific theory can be and its mechanism admits of no intelligence.

Come on, tell us how your religion answers the "why" questions.

[Shaker]

On what basis do you presume there is a 'why'?

Well, one reason is linguistics.  As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.

Where is your evidence for this?

Oh, sorry, I forgot.

[Spud]

There also seems to me to be a lot of rather 'modern' thinking from people who would assume that Roman authorities or, indeed, Jewish ones would think in the methood of trying to 'disprove' religious claims by pursuing something physical such as producing a body. (That is leaving aside that we have no non biblical representations that they were aware of the claim of resurrection).

Fair point, all I can find is this:

In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:

    "I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)

- See more at: http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm#sthash.1GjaoLnE.dpuf

No indication that he knew of the resurrection claims. But there is still the question of why the early Christians rounded up by Nero were executed. Presumably they could have denied being Christians and avoided death (in the same way described above). That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

[Hope]

Where is your evidence for this?

Oh, sorry, I forgot.

Let's take a couple of fairly well-known concepts. 

1) a person's sexuality:  The first known use of homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. (David Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Routledge, 1990, page 15).  I think that we would all acknowledge that the concept of homosexuality had been around for decades, if not centuries, before this first use of it in English, which was about 25 years later than it's use in German. 

2) the microscope:  The name "Microscope" which some claim was invented by Giovanni Faber was only in common use from the 1650s. (http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/museyeum/online_exhibitions/microscopy/early.cfm).  However, simple mechanisms that performed the role of microscopes had been around since the first century AD, and the first items that were recognisably 'microscopes' appeared in the 1590s.

If you and I have a conversation, and you use a word that I don't recognise/know, I can only learn what that word means if I already have the concept that it describes within my experience.

I could take up huge swathes of board bandwidth giving other examples, but I won't since this is a widely acknowledged phenomenon.

[Gordon]

That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

No it doesn't.

[Outrider]

Well, one reason is linguistics.  As I've pointed out previously, language follows the development of thought patterns, so the 'why' thought pattern must have been there, for the concept to have been vocalised.

My thought patterns suggest that when I see something from the corner of my eye I flinch away and cover my face in case it's an attack. That doesn't meant that, after that initial reaction, I still have to presume that it was valid to think there was an attack.

My wife's thought patterns are such that she is afraid of spiders - she knows, rationally, that the spiders are not a threat, but nevertheless she is afraid.

Our thought patterns are only partially rational and under our control - that we have a trained speech pattern to use the word 'why' and to presume conscious intention in actions doesn't mean that, on reflection, that presumption is valid.

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

Do you have any evidence to show this?

How would I produce evidence for something that I'm saying isn't there? The lack of evidence for a guiding intelligence is the reason I reject the proposition of a guiding intelligence. The lack of any evidence for prerequisite goals is the reason I reject the proposition.

O.

[Leonard James]

No indication that he knew of the resurrection claims. But there is still the question of why the early Christians rounded up by Nero were executed. Presumably they could have denied being Christians and avoided death (in the same way described above). That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

No it doesn't! It simply proves that many people believed them to be true. That's all they died for ... their belief.

[Shaker]

That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

No it doesn't.

*headdesk*

It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken; and (c) Alien completely ignores the point and utterly fails to take it on board.

[Gordon]

That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

No it doesn't.

*headdesk*

It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken; and (c) Alien completely ignores the point and utterly fails to take it on board.

Yep - I've gone down the same road but it appears that they all have a mental block when it comes to reconising the possibility that their revered early Christians were just as likely to be fallible as anyone else (before or since).

I suppose it is the fear that the already wobbly tower of Jenga blocks that is Christianity will collapse if the merest scintilla of doubt is allowed to creep in - although I think myself it collapsed long ago, and now lies haphazardly strewn upon the coffee table of reality.

[Shaker]

LOL yes! 

[Spud]

That so many died suggests they believed Jesus had risen. So this refutes the idea that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection were fabricated.

No it doesn't.

*headdesk*

It's usually at around this time that (a) somebody like Alien pops up and asks why people would willingly die for what they know to be a lie; (b) somebody like me points out that they usually don't given that a lie is a conscious and deliberate untruth, but people do die for what they believe and sincere beliefs can be untrue/mistaken;

And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die. So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him. A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.

[Shaker]

And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die.

Can we? How does that work, then?

So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.

What's 'obvious' about it? You believe the suicide bomber is wrong; he believed he was right.

I would have to assume that you are an absolute pacifist, since killing people in time of war entails killing people who have done nothing to you personally.

A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.

I have no idea what the relevance of this is to anything.

[Gordon]

And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die.

By what method can we do this?

So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.

And is still prepared to die for their cause, which you presumably think less worthy compared with Christians doing the same thing.

A prisoner of war being tortured for information is not mistaken in refusing to speak.

So?

All you've really demonstrated here is that being prepared to die for a cause is known human behaviour that isn't exclusive to early Christians - and we knew that anyway.. 

[Outrider]

And we can usually identify whether they are untrue or mistaken by the way they die. So a suicide bomber is obviously mistaken because he is trying to kill people who haven't done anything to him.

To his eyes (presumably) they have wronged a god in some way, and therefore he's right. He's only 'obviously mistaken' if you believe that your unevidenced claim about what any gods might want is luckily closer to the truth than his.

In what way is Islamic Jihadism 'obviously wrong'? God says to them, in their holy book, that they must kill the infidels where they find them (not intended as a direct translation, by the way!)?

I question the validity of holy books at all, but if you stand truck by them why is his wrong and yours right? Why is his interpretation wrong but your interpretation - which differs from others - right?

O.

[Gordon]

This reminds me of someone I knew, a Christian, who was pretty good at fighting. He told me he had hit a guy at the bar who had been making trouble for him while he was chatting up a girl. Nothing particuarly amazing about that. When he came across a drug dealer beating up lads in Hackney, though, he would intervene and beat up the dealer. But after I had known him a few months he said to me that when something like that happened again he had decided to simply stand between the dealer and the lad and say, I'm a Christian.

So what is he saying when he says 'I'm a Christian'? 'You should not be beating up this kid, you can beat me up instead'. That is more likely to have an impact on the dealer than simply beating him up.

When we were talking about what careers we had chosen, I suggested that he would have been suited to the army. Now given his ability to defend other people using fairly lethal self defense techniques, I really thought I was right. He took me by surprise when he said, 'what, and kill people?'

This is the difference between 'love your neighbour, hate your enemy' and 'love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you'.

Does this help anyone see what is the difference between a jihadist and a Christian martyr?

Nope - that some people have insight regarding situations they should ideally avoid on a personal basis given their temperament, so as to avoid problems, is a human attribute and is no great surprise: neither is it any great surprise that others in a similar situtaion may be less insightful.

It's just people being people Spud: applied biology.