Quote:

However, you have a problem here. The generally accepted truth was that Jesus was a false teacher. If He was asking people to believe blindly, with no evidence, then why "disrespect" the established opinion, unless one were to believe they had good reason to do so? If you're right, that you shouldn't question things, then that puts Jesus in an awkward position. Not only is He the one questioning things, but He's also asking people to believe His "disrespect" for no good reason. If it were that easy, then their culture probably would have been in trouble many times.



It's very easy to convince people that they should have rights and properties and wealth when they do not have them, in a way Jesus simply 'promises' them better. Beggars, tramps, whores, low-lifes and mostly poor people were the initial targets so to speak Jesus was trying to convince.

In that society it was very obvious that having the largest part of the population believe in you would have a huge advantage and would be the only way to spread any ideas whatever they were and have power or influence or whatever Jesus' personal goal was. That is, if he even existed.

Hence it's not about who asked what, it's moreso about how people responded to Jesus' answers. Jesus said God loved everyone, promised everyone can go to heaven, beggars, whores and criminals too and so on and so forth. There's no evidence in favor of any of those messages, not now and not then, thus they still must have had blind faith. That's what religion is based upon.

Quote:

Fact of the matter is, the Hebrews apparently didn't believe in blind faith. They told the early church to give a reason for their faith, and at every possible opportunity they used evidence to give a case for their faith.



There's off course no historical evidence for this, infact when it comes to the early church there are enough things that make it more than legit to question the church's entire integrity right from the start. Like for example the voting on wether or not Jesus should be called 'son of God' and more very basic things like that. What about the other writings that are not part of the bible? The church simpy decided so, all to ensure their power probably.

In the end there's no reason to assume followers did not have blind faith in what was told, considering things like that slipped through without questions. If a church suddenly starts stating Jesus was the son of god then people must have had blind faith, otherwise they would have demanded proof,

Quote:

That still doesn't address the fact that Jesus was speaking in light of a person who had EVERY reason to believe, even if he hadn't seen Jesus. He had more evidence than everyone in the early church would have, and he still doubted.

In fact, what gets me is the huge amount of evidence he had to believe...Amongst which are the miracles, the empty tomb, etc. These things all were the evidence used by the early church to prove their faith, and they didn't have Jesus' presence. It would make sense that this would be addressed. Blessed are they who believe with the available evidence, and don't ask for the impossible (the presence of Jesus).



Especially the last sentence is a perfect example of why I know the bible and church's teachings are full of psychological and philosophical traps. It's way too easy to say 'hush, we are right and you shouldn't be asking for the impossible', when all that was done was ask a legit question or demand for real evidence. An empty tomb doesn't prove anything, especially not the story that Jesus ascended to heaven. It's like saying 'on that table over there once lay an apple that has fallen down and now lies on a stone' when all we can see is that table, no apple, no stone and we were not witnisses of the claimed event. Therefor even his demand for (you call it 'more') evidence was definately legit,

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software