Quote:

It's very easy to convince people that they should have rights and properties and wealth when they do not have them



When did Jesus say that he would get them health, and wealth, and rights?

Quote:

Beggars, tramps, whores, low-lifes and mostly poor people were the initial targets so to speak Jesus was trying to convince.



He hit everyone, though usually only got responses from their version of the middle-class and below. Some rich people responded, but as Jesus said it was more difficult for them. That's just what's recorded, obviously the gospels can't detail everything. So there certainly would have been more people believing on him than we know about.

Quote:

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.



If his personal goal was power or influence, then it appears he didn't even try to attain these things. As you've stated, not only did he hang around the Unimportant and the Low-lifes, but he didn't "address the roman senate" or write "Greek philosophical treatises" or any number of things that he could have done.

He also wouldn't have risked dying a "criminal's death" on the cross. One of the most shameful deaths possible.

Quote:

That is, if he even existed.




We have more evidence that Jesus existed than many other undisputed historical figures. Including secular references to his existence. So there really is no need to play the "Jesus myth" game. His existence wouldn't be questioned by anyone today if it weren't for a few no-names trying to cause a stir by promulgating their amateur theories.

Quote:

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.




Here's where we have a problem. Your basic premise seems to be the following: Even if Christianity has some evidence, some of its claims have no evidence and therefore require blind faith.

If I remember correctly, you make this point again so I'll respond to it at that time.

Quote:

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.



That Jesus was the Son of God and was divine was already well established. There were a few people who dissented on the nature of Jesus' divinity, ie whether He existed eternally or was created.

A few points:

-Jesus described himself, along with other new testament writers, in reference to the Wisdom of God. Which itself was a pre-NT divine figure, thought of as an attribute of God personified.
-Jesus called himself the "Son of Man" which was a phrase associated with a divine figure in Daniel chapter 7.
-Some NT verses about Jesus' divinity: John 1:1 "the Word was God." John 5:18 "calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God", John 20:28 "[you are] my Lord and my God", Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ", Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever", Collosians 2:9 "within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form".

The early church was almost universally in agreement on all major doctrine, but as some people attempted to promulgate their heterodox views on Jesus and so forth, standards had to be established.

Apparently, one of the things that really helps one understand Jesus' relation to the Father, is Semitic Wisdom theology.

Quote:

What about the other writings that are not part of the bible?



What about them. They were rejected by a church that in general was united on major doctrinal points. I think the burden of proof is on you to show why any book should have been included in the canon. But, to name a few reasons why gospels and such were rejected:

-No evidence leading to the authorship of an actual Apostle. Many of these gospels weren't very well established, and were accepted by a minority, and had no evidence that they were even written in the proper time.
-The gospel itself contains heretical doctrine? If so, then why would the church accept it?
-Does the gospel contain information that doesn't conform with what a historical Jesus would have done? For instance, if we have a gospel claiming that Jesus smote his enemies with an AK-47, then we have a problem. Believe it or not, gospels that attempted to "rewrite history" actually were written, and it should be plain to see why they were thrown out (though none of them had extreme examples like the one above).

Quote:

The church simpy decided so, all to ensure their power probably.



A very nice blanket statement, but it might only cast doubt on a Christian who has no idea how the canon was decided in the first place. That wouldn't include me, and so I won't be throwing out my bible any time soon.

Quote:

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.



You act as if the Christian church was confused and huddle in a corner, with no idea what it believed until finally Constantine came along and saved them from their lack of ideology. Fact of the matter is, the ideology was already settled, it just had yet to be completely standardized. And in light of those who wanted to subvert the establishment, it only made sense that they finally did standardize their ideology (though its not like the heretics had THAT much influence anyway).

Quote:

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,




See above. This was already established as a standard belief. Dissenters lost because they were the ones asking people to believe things with no 'proof', if you will.

Quote:

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,



Ok, here's where you seem to bring up the "blind faith" point again. The problem, for you, is that you aren't exempt from this yourself.

Before I get started, I would like to say that I prefer the more polite term, "indirect faith", rather than blind faith to refer to things like this. "Blind faith" has negative associations that go along with it, so I like to avoid it.

There is evidence for my faith. There are tangible things that lead me to believe that I have faith in something true. Now...that doesn't mean I can prove everything. I had someone ask me, "How do you prove that heaven exists?" So I told them that you can't! Its impossible. I believe it indirectly because I have reason to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and He said, "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you." Jesus Himself recognizes that we have no tangible proof of heaven. We believe it, because we believe Him. Its indirect faith, if you will. If I had a reason to doubt Him, then I would have a reason to doubt heaven. Now...

You seem to frown upon this sort of faith, but then I feel the need to remind you that you're still missing millions (at minimum) of transitional fossils. And yet you believe these organisms still existed at some point. This is indirect "faith", its not based on any direct evidence (a fossil) its based indirectly on other evidence that you think verifies evolution as a whole, and so for you, even though there is no direct evidence that these creatures existed, they still must have existed because you believe evolution.

So, if you want to prove that our "blind faith", or indirect faith as I like to call it, is irrational, all you have to do is come up with millions of transitional fossils.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 02/20/07 19:05.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."