808state

Again, right. If you're wrong, then the claims that Christianity makes are not true. If you're wrong, then you aren't actually engaging in Jesus Christ. I think this concept has now been firmly established, or I hope it has. All i'm arguing is that testimony alone doesn't always do the trick. I could bring up the fact that many people from other religions have claimed to have experiences with their own Gods as well if you want a more similar comparison, but my point remains the same. The fact that it's "unverified" doesn't make it true or false. That's my point you seem to keep missing. I'm not arguing that because it's unverified that means it's not true. I mean, early in this discussion you were arguing that because no one could disprove the Bible, that automatically meant it was to be looked at as Truth through the "the prinicple of general trustworthiness" (which isn't used in modern historiography), and is, at-least how you wanted it applied here, an argument from ignorance. All I have been arguing is that there is not enough sufficient evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible. If I were arguing that because there is not enough evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible that means it's not true, then I would be making an argument from ignorance. Well, of course they wanted to be taken seriously, it would defeat the purpose if they didn't. It was common for ancient historians to record history and then attribute a mythological reason behind it. Herodotus, one of the most influential historians of all time, did this.

You make two points in this argument. The first one being that typically those shaping religious stories want to shape them in such a way that would glorify themselves and would make them the leaders of the religion. But this doesn't have to be so. For example, the Qu'ran was written by many people who weren't seeking self-glorification. Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, there were writings about Jesus that were not included in the canonized Bible because they were not considered to be authentic. So, we do have evidence that there were people at the time who were willing to just make up stories about Jesus without glorifying themselves in the process. Your second point is that people who are shaping their own religions wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry for followers to see. This would be a good point if the people we were talking were trying to get people to follow them, but as we already made clear, they weren't. Aristotle and Plato were both incredibly self-deprecating in their writings, but it didn't make their ideas seem less credible to people. And again, this is all assuming a lot. This is assuming that all of the authors attributed to writing the New Testament had actually written the New Testament. This is assuming that the people who wrote the New Testament were not just writing down stories that had been floating around at the time. There seems to be a lot of scholarly dispute in this area. The issue with your argument is that it already assumes that the Bible is true. I know what the Bible says on the matter, but what I am looking at is the potential intention behind it. Later on in this post you say that if you're wrong about your religious beliefs then Christianity doesn't exist. Bingo! All religions make certain claims, if the religion is wrong, then at-least some of those claims are false. I understand this. Again, you're missing my point. You can look at this one of two ways, either the Bible is true, like you believe, and Christians are simply meant to love God and through that will act in a way that is more pleasing to him (relatively speaking). Or God is used as a placebo to motivate Christians into living their lives a certain way. Just my personal experiences. The more I learnt about the Bible, the more it seemed like something humans would create. Firstly, it just doesn't strike me as very advanced in it's thinking. Certainly the people writing it were smart, but it doesn't seem advanced/enlightened enough to have been inspired by God's word. It's overly simplistic in how it views the world and how it works. Which works well with humans because, I think many us wouldn't want things too complicated anyway. I look at nature, and I don't see the Biblical God behind it. It definitely isn't evident to me and I feel it should be if it's true. I was a theist for a large part of my life, and over time I found there was a psychology behind it. The world makes more sense now then it did back when I believed there was a God. And it wasn't because I didn't want to believe in a God, I did, I do. But just through my experiences/research I've done, I don't think there is any real evidence for one, that's not to say that there isn't one, but I don't see it at this point in time. One could use that same argument and apply to different other religions. Just because it had not been thought of before does not mean it has been

I understand your frustration with my arguments against the evidence you have presented for the Bible, but I wouldn't say the criteria I use for measuring the authenticity of historical documents is unrealistic. My primary issue is that when you're dealing with supernatural or any other extraordinary claimants, they don't have a very good track record of telling the truth. You have many many people claim to have had supernatural experiences and powers. You've had many people claim to be to Gods or of some similar divinity. A large portion of these people were found to be either lying or misinterpreting reality to some degree. So, when you're dealing with supernatural claims, keeping an open mind is good but you always have to keep in mind it's track-record. Personal testimonies aren't sufficient enough to be used as compelling evidence in this case. We've had many people over the years claim to have had come into contact with bigfoot, but do you believe bigfoot exists? Many people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, but I think i'd need to see more evidence before I'd take their word for it. Many people have claimed to come into contact with Gods of other religions, but not all of the religions can be right, so who's testimonies do we believe in that regard? At one point in the thread you argued that there was no evidence that "eyewitnesses" of Jesus were simply just making up stories. I asked you a question earlier in the thread that I think it brings up an interesting point: There were some pseudepigraphical works about Jesus that were not included in the canonized Bible, but why would these writers, that I would say most modern-day Christians would agree were lying, make up stories about Jesus? And why would so many believe these stories? If these guys were willing to lie about Jesus for whatever reason, why wouldn't the writers in the canonized Bible? You responded to these questions not by actually answering them but by explaining why these pseudographical works were not authentic to begin with. I understand that. I agree with you. But, again, I think if you were to address my original questions, you would have a better idea of why anyone would want to make up stories about a spiritual figure to begin with, and see why some might see it as plausible. And then there were the arguments for the Bible that were based on assumptions. Why wouldn't the Romans produce a body? But before we could even get to answering that question, you guys would have to demonstrate that the Romans knew about the resurrection within a reasonable timeframe of Jesus's death, and that the followers of Jesus, at the time, posed such a threat that the Jews felt that the Romans would have to produce a body. Ya guys didn't do that. What I said was that Christianity was no different than the other religions in the sense that it expected you to live your life in particular way and obey certain commands. I could have been misunderstanding your and Shiloh's argument, but I thought what you guys were saying was that since the Bible claims that the desire/strength to obey the commands in the Bible comes through God, that it some how made Christianity more authentic than other religions. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm not saying there's something wrong with the sociopath because he's a minority, but because of the resulting anguish that his condition causes both himself and, often times, other's around him. You would of course have to clarify that the anguish is coming from the condition itself and not simply how other people view the condition. I wouldn't argue that simply because something isn't common that it would automatically mean that it's wrong. If the world were suddenly to evolve into a world of sociopaths, it still wouldn't be pleasant life for those sociopaths. They may not feel for others, but they feel for themselves. If their careless actions would cause someone to act out against them in one way or another (which it typically does), then those actions against them would obviously cause them anguish. Logical thinking is the objective standard that I am basing all of this on. You weren't very specific with the circumstances of the people in your original examples. Typically, when someone reaches the pinnacle of their career and then becomes depressed, it's because they were expecting that "pinnacle" to bring them something that they didn't have before. And, usually, the pinnacle usually involves money, fame, approval, etc. Of course, it could be something else making them depressed, but again, you weren't being super specific on the circumstances of these people. And as far as the research goes, I can't say much as I can't find the entire article on the web without having to pay for it, but what I have read seems to suggest that self-centeredness is the primary cause of the depression. It suggests that Church provided a community that was a good support system for people, I wouldn't argue that at all. I think, and I could be wrong, that when he says "greater purpose" he's talking about outside of one's self. Having a greater purpose in life doesn't have to mean for God, it could simply dedicating a part of your life to helping other's in one form or another. It's about stepping outside of yourself, and I wouldn't argue that. Finding what makes you happy is important, but self-indulgence is not a healthy road to go down either. You definitely need a balance. But again, can't find the full article anywhere, so I don't really know what it actually says on the matter. The reason why things should be deemed valuable is because we deem them to be valuable through our human-nature. Is there some objective reality outside of the human mind that applies value to human life? I don't know. But the fact that, in nature, survival (in the different forms that I talked about) seems to be one consistently important thing, I would say as humans it's evident that we're supposed to heed to that. Well, it was nice discussing this with you as well. You're a smart fella yourself. I told Shiloh this, but I think perhaps because you already so firmly believe your religion to be Truth, that maybe it could blind you a bit from seeing how the evidence you present would not necessarily be sufficient enough for someone who doesn't already believe. I can't prove to you that I am keeping an open-mind/heart about all of this, but the Truth has to be evident to me, and it's not in this case. Not right now, anyway.

It's evident in how our bodies work that there are wrong and right ways to live our lives. I already demonstrated why in the previous post. Physically, we're meant to live in the physical sense. Simply staying alive. But then emotionally/mentally we're meant to live in more than just a physical sense, in actually experiencing life and the people in it since we are social beings after-all. Of course, I think keeping your physical self and your emotional self healthy go hand in hand with one another. And as I pointed out before, the specific meaning and purpose is going to differ from person to person. I feel like you just skimmed over what I wrote. I said surviving not just physically, but also mentally/emotionally. If a person is in a coma, their life still deserves respect. They're still a real person that had real experiences, and that should be respected. Many people have shallow ideas of what "success" is. Many people put their self-worth in achieving a certain amount of approval from others, and of course, they find themselves still feeling empty once they get that approval. You have to do something because you love to do it and have that be the primary reason for doing it, not for fame or money or approval. That can be hard for many people to figure out. Again, when I say "surviving" I did clarify it multiple times by pointing out that it's not just survival in a physical sense. Of course if people don't find meaning in their lives, they're going to be depressed. It not easy to live life with it all figured out for you, but it's possible as many people, my self included, can attest. I need to make that I do consider myself to be an Agnostic-Atheist so while, at the moment, I don't see any reason to believe there is more to life than what we have here, that doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a possibility of something more. That said, I don't believe science provides any "Truth" in the world nor does it actually claim to. I'm not sure if we can "Truly" know anything, but that's another discussion. Anyways, what I believe is that we're human-beings and as human-beings we function a certain way. We go through a wide array of feelings and experiences in our lives, and I figure since I was born this way then I was meant to experience this life. Why do we exist? I don't know. I can only go by what I observe on this Earth. It's pretty apparent to me that being healthy both physically and emotionally is something that our bodies want us to do. Ah. But I believe there can be an objective right and wrong with this world view. Again, in comes down to how we as humans react to things, both physically and mentally. Let's taking killing for example, say a country wanted to legalize killing so people could have the freedom to kill whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. Now, as human beings, we are social. We experience empathy, love, sadness, anxiety, etc. All of these emotions are what would keep us from actually keeping free for all killing legal. It would not work in society because of how we function as human beings. Living in constant fear of being killed or of having loved ones killed is no way to live your life. It works the same way as if you were to put your hand on that hot stove, it hurts so you pull your hand away. I would argue that the best moral system would be the moral system that desires human beings to have the maximum amount of freedom possible before that freedom starts infringing on the freedoms of others. We look at potential results of particular actions, and choose the actions that lead to the most beneficial results for the people involved. How do we judge sanity or insanity, I think if a mental "difference" starts causing disruption in the life of the person with that "difference" and/or in the lives of other people then we can infer that whatever that "difference" is, probably isn't ideal. Now, obviously we have to examine why that "difference" isn't ideal before we decide whether or not that "difference" is the problem. But, let's take a sociopath for example, they typically experience a lot of anguish over the fact that they can't connect to people the way they want to. Sometimes this results in very cruel and sometimes violent actions toward others. We can infer that their inability to experience empathy for other humans beings is often times harmful not only to others but to themselves as well, and because of that, it's not an ideal/stable state to be in. I don't agree. If someone was there to mourn, then they would have a lot to mourn for. At the end of the day, we're humans and we're going to feel things regardless of whether or not we want to. That person is going to experience sadness. Why is that? I don't know. It just is.

Okie dokie. Though, I would say that, that type of freedom comes with it's own burdens as well. I think it appeals to human desire. People can very easily get lost at some point in their life, and religion can provide these people with meaning, purpose, and comfort. I don't see Christianity being different than other religions in that regard. There's a problem with this argument, and I'll just repeat what I said to Shiloh: I understand that it teaches that Jesus is where people will find strength and the desire to be good, but it still sets guidelines for how people are supposed to live their lives, and the point is still for Christians to follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. And from my perspective, since I don't believe Jesus to have any supernatural powers or divine significance then I don't really believe that Jesus is anything more than a placebo in all of this so, ultimately, Christianity doesn't differ from other religions in this regard. Your implication that I'm arguing against the resurrection would suggest that you're saying something different than what I am actually saying. I'm not arguing against the resurrection, I'm arguing against the idea that their is a sufficient amount of evidence for the resurrection. I'm not arguing definitively that it did or didn't happen. An un-biased source that has multiple other sources verifying it. I would hope that you would at-least do a google search before you accuse me of lying. http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/dailylifeaspects/qt/RomanGhosts.htm http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/ghoststories.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_ancient_Egyptian_culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mesopotamian_religions Of course, I can't prove these sightings weren't real, but it's not really relevant one way or another to the point I'm trying got make.

No, I think it does, I don't believe because no one has given me reason to believe. Many people have claimed to have come into contact with bigfoot for decades, but I don't necessarily believe that he exists just because a lot of people say he does, there has to be a bit more to it than that. I think perhaps you're letting your belief blind you from the fact that what you have offered as evidence simply is not sufficient enough to people who don't already believe. The issue is that most of the arguments you have given me were still assuming that certain unverified parts of the Bible had actually occurred. So, you were essentially trying to verify unverified information with unverified information. It doesn't work. The Qu'ran provides historical context to supernatural claims. In Greek mythology, the Trojan War provides historical context to a conflict that happened between a few goddesses/gods. In-fact, there were many myths in those times that had historical context. So, this is not uncommon. Could you demonstrate how the writers "went out of their way" to be factual about geographical, genealogical, and historical information? I'll be sure to look into this.

I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it's a very strong one. I don't think it was in the writer's motive to glorify themselves necessarily. If that were the case, then why involve Jesus at all? Why not make themselves the complete center of the story? The entire point was to glorify a particular character, not necessarily themselves. If they came out looking perfect all the time, it would undermine the point they were trying to make. Jesus is what they are trying to "sell" essentially, and they themselves were the examples of what Jesus could do for your everyday average person. The more flawed they are as people, the more great it makes their eventual transformation, and it makes their "product" (Jesus) look more impressive as well. But this is a perfect set up for manipulation for reasons I already mentioned in the previous post. It puts the believer in a place of complete submission, and it makes it very easy for someone to take advantage of that vulnerability. It's pretty formulaic, and you see in played out in life in many different contexts. You get someone to believe that you are superior to them and that they're better off with you rather than without you. It would make sense that someone would apply this to a religion as well. If you want someone to follow a particular religion, you put a deity in the center of that religion so the follower will have something in the religion that they feel a genuine connection to. You make sure it's known that the follower will always be inferior to that deity, and that they are to obey that deity no matter what. Right. I feel like this where our differing perspectives will really start to clash. I understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is where people will find strength and the desire to be good, but it still sets guidelines for how people are supposed to live their lives, and the point is still for Christians to follow those guidelines to the best of their ability. And from my perspective, since I don't believe Jesus to have any supernatural powers or divine significance then I don't really believe that Jesus is anything more than a placebo in all of this so, ultimately, Christianity doesn't differ from other religions in this regard. The reason why you don't see the manipulation is because you already believe it to be Truth. That's where you and I differ. Right, but some of these ideas existed independently prior to the Bible. Certainly someone could have thought to combine them? And really, there are some logical flaws in a being that is omnipotent to begin with so it wouldn't surprise me that a human would apply these characteristics to a God at all. As far as humans not being able to think up a sinless God goes, typically the deity heading a religion doesn't condone the things he is telling people not to do, so naturally the Christian God is going to be "sinless." It's just logical. Maybe the question is, could it be possible that humans could even create the moral code that is presented in the Bible? As far as God being separate from his creation, i'd imagine you would have to exist separately from your own creation in-order to create it. It's logic. It's not so unbelievably advanced that no human could draw that conclusion. Again, the issue with this argument is that it already assumes that Jesus actually has the power to have that effect on his followers. If he does, then you're right. But if he doesn't, then Christianity is no different from other religions in regard to being expected to live your life in a certain manner. You have this backwards. The rules of debate were not born in a courtroom, but they carry over into the courtroom. So, burden of proof is not solely on those making any kind of negative claim against someone, but anyone making the initial claim regardless of whether it's positive or negative. It only works the way it does in a courtroom because you typically don't take people to court for the sake of proving their innocence. You don't say, "hey, i'm taking your butt to court because you didn't kill my dog."

How is he offensive to human nature? And redemption is a major concept in Buddhism. Let's take a look at the Biblical idea that God loves human beings despite their flaws, is essentially willing to save them from themselves, is willing to lead them to a happier life, etc. These are all ideas that certainly benefit human-beings. I think most people come to a point in their lives where they feel like they're worthless, lost, not fulfilled, etc. The Bible essentially tells these people that they are, but that God can save them if they choose it. I've heard many different testimonies from many people of different religions, and they usually come to religion in one of two ways: They were either raised with particular religious beliefs or they came to religion when they were in a particularly vulnerable state. It seems kind of convenient to me. If you want to secure one's devotion and keep them in your control, then you want to make sure that they believe themselves to be inferior to you. Some would call this manipulation. Could you give some examples of attributes of God mentioned in the Bible that no human-being could have thought up? For example? So, Jesus gives followers the desire and strength to live a more Godly life? I'll just reiterate what I said to LuftWaffle: You're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards. Most religions claim to change a person from the inside out, and most followers of these religions would claim that they have been changed inside out by their respective religions. Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

What I'm arguing is that survival encompasses many things, it's not some simple act, but a very complex one. It's made up of many different experiences. Like I said in my pervious post, keeping your physical self healthy is just as important as keeping your emotional/mental self healthy. It's through our instincts, it's through what gives us pleasure and what gives us displeasure, that's what directs us in our path to a meaningful life. If you want to be a bit more spiritual about it, it's about experiencing life. Life can be it's own reward. If I die, and that's it, it doesn't discount any of the experiences I had on this earth. It doesn't mean that they didn't happen and that they didn't effect another's life. That's enough for me. I don't need anything more than that, at one point in my life I thought I did, but I don't. So, what you're arguing is because no one survives in the long run then temporary survival is meaningless? Close, but no cigar. Temporary survival gives us something that simply not existing doesn't give us: Experience. It gives us life. Is that not enough for you? Why? Now, I have to point out that since this guy is a "mad-man", he isn't in an emotionally healthy place. He isn't surviving mentally so he becomes destructive physically. It's why surviving both emotionally and physically is important. Now, if he blows up the entire planet, no one would be alive so how could anyone mourn the loss of it?

Fair enough. Why do you think people don't want to submit to God? All I'm doing at this point is arguing that the resurrection could potentially be a lie. I'm not arguing that it is 100% in-fact a lie. It would depend. If the writings originated from a reliable source, I would be more likely to believe it. I'm not asking you why it's a lie, I'm asking you why someone would lie about it to begin with and why so many others would believe that lie. I don't think it's me pushing that cart uphill. A spectral image was something many people claimed to see at the time, a bodily resurrection wasn't. If this guy was supposed to be pass as the son of God, was he simply going to come back as something that many believed any old ordinary human could come back as or something that was much less common? Information spread through word of mouth. Not tv. Not pictures. Many people during this time were also gullible (hence why so many of them believed in ghosts.) People could twist stories any way they wanted to, and they could get others to believe them. It's not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is. For example? Being at peace with God, being forgiven, eternal life with God, etc. But you're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards. Most religions claim to change a person from the inside out, and most followers of these religions would claim that they have been changed inside out by their respective religions. Muslims believe they will go to heaven through salvation, not through a series of requirements. Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

The problem with this argument is that we're not in a court of law nor am I claiming that the Bible is "guilty" of anything. Presumption of innocence is about keeping the dignity of the individual intact. It has nothing to do with any rules of logic, it's just about respecting one's personal rights. Secondly, in the context of the courtroom, bringing the charge of guilt is the same thing as making the initial claim it just so happens that, because it's in the context of a courtroom, the person making the initial claim is usually going to be accusing someone of guilt as well. They're using a different language to fit the context of the situation (court of law). But what it all comes down to is whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof. I've stated repeatedly that I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong. If I was arguing that, then you would be completely right. But I'm not. You're acting as if there are only two sides to this, either you're claiming it's 100% right or you're claiming it's 100% wrong. I'm doing neither.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. The only reason why I brought it up to begin with was to show that it is possible that not all of the writers were putting their personal faults on display to the world initially. I was not trying to go after the credibility of the New Testament with that one. The elaboration is new. Can we agree on that? Obviously, most Jewish people had a different understanding of the Old Testament than the understanding that Jesus had. So, some of these interpretations were new to most Jews at the time. I'm not going to debate who had the right interpretation, it's irrelevant. My original comment was written in the hypothetical context of if the writers of the New Testament were lying. If the the writers were lying, they would be fighting against sin with their own power regardless of what it says in the Bible. So, regardless of whether it's Jesus giving you the strength/desire to obey God's commands or it's really just you, it's still takes a certain amount of work on the part of the follower. I have yet to meet a Christian who believes that living the life they believe God wants them to live is easy. Again, if Matthew and John's gospels were written anonymously, how does this give it anymore credibility? And regardless, if the Bible wanted to show how one's life can be changed through Jesus then they would want to put on display the faults of those who's lives were being changed for the reasons I already mentioned. I'm not impressed with the fact that the Bible is accurate with about what was actually going on in the world at that time. The issue here is that the information that can't be verified is always the supernatural aspects. It's a bit suspect. Now, if you could verify most of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, then you could assume that the other supernatural events mentioned could have been true as well, but that's not what's going on here. I could write a book right now, and talk about 9/11, the war in iraq, war in afghanistan, different things that are currently going on in the world, etc. and then mix in some supernatural events. It doesn't mean those supernatural events actually occurred. But the Christians came after Jesus's death. So again, what I'm looking for is evidence that: A: The Romans knew that about news of a resurrection within a reasonable timeframe since the execution. B: That the followers of Jesus posed such a threat at the time that the Jews felt the Romans had to produce a body And Jesus died in 30 AD. It doesn't make your claim true either. Now, I have no reason to believe that you would lie about what you had for breakfast yesterday, but that still doesn't mean you wouldn't lie about it. The problem with the Bible's supernatural claims is that many religions claimed the same things pervious to the Bible. And yet, those claims were false. With such a bad track record, we have to look at supernatural claimants with a more discerning eye than we would any other historical document. This is not how historians view history. If something can't be proven, then they ignore it or take with a grain of salt. They don't accept it as fact even if the 90% of what is written in that document is accurate.

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated. As for the other questions, I dunno, there have been other religions that have lasted a pretty long time and that were presumably thanks to one man (For example: Buddhism and Islam). I figure, at the end of the day, in order to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story, one would first have to have faith in the Bible. I don't have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe any of the supernatural aspects of his story. 808state - Read my testimony under "testimonies" with the heading sdktlk testimony.God bless in Jesus' name. Thank you for sharing that with me. It sounds like you had a rough start, but I'm glad you've been doing well for so long. Very cool.

I didn't say that most of the Bible was written anonymously, but that most of the New Testament was written anonymously. It seems to be pretty commonly accepted among both Christian and secular scholars that the much of the New Testament was written anonymously and that it was a little later on that everyone agreed on who the actual authors of these books were. The Case For Christ, Understanding the Bible, and the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels all state this. I understand his teachings were based in the Old Testament, but, as you pointed out, he was also interpreting certain things in the Bible a bit differently then how many Jews were interpreting those passages at the time. While these interpretations may not have been actually "new", they were new to many of the Jews at the time. Actually, it doesn't. I know it teaches in the Bible that Jesus will fight those sins once you accept him into your heart, but again, it is still up to the follower to read the teachings of the Bible (as a way to strengthen that relationship with Jesus) and to make sure that they stay true to Jesus in their everyday lives. Obviously, this can sometimes be a struggle for many Christians. I'm simply pointing out the possibilities. I'm not trying to offer evidence that parts of the Bible actually is fictional, but that because certain things in the Bible can't be verified, I believe we can't currently know one way or another. Could you please give me some more information persecution of the Notzrim? I do know that Ancient Rome had many rules that all religions were meant to adhere to if they were expected to keep the live peacefully under their rule, and that certain religions had trouble with this. But it seems that things didn't really start to get bad between the Jews/followers of Jesus and Rome until a couple of years after Jesus's death. Also, didn't the Bar Kochba happen about 100 years after Jesus died? No, that's not the sole reason as to why I reject the Bible. It doesn't help me believe it anymore, but that's not the primary reason why I personally don't believe in the Bible. The objective fact is that the parts of the Bible can't be verified as to have actually happened. If we can't prove something has actually happened, then there are multiple possibilities as to what actually did happen. This is just basic reasoning. So, far the only arguments I have really gotten from you guys is "I can't imagine why they would have lied about it, so therefore they didn't lie about it." It's a fallacious argument. You're confusing ideas. The reason why in court on law the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence is because he wasn't the one who made the initial claim. Whoever makes the initial claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the Bible made the initial claims, but not all of it's claims can be verified. It's pretty simple. I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, but it does not provide a sufficient amount of evidence by itself for certain events that occur in it.

Right. These teachings may not have been "new", they were new to many Jews at the time who were interpreting certain things in the Old Testament a bit differently than the way Jesus would interpret some of these passages. Also, the very idea that Jesus was the son of God was new. It was obviously prophesied in the Old Testament, but the details were new. Naturally, this would spark a new spiritual movement.