Micky C, on 01 August 2011 - 05:12 AM, said:
As my yr 8 science teacher once put it: "the further back you go, and the dumber they are (in terms of scientific knowledge), the more likely they are to believe in a God." Back then, theology explained everything, all the important questions like how life started, and there was nothing to prove it wrong. It's exactly how we view things now, we have a system of understanding, say, the atom, to do with protons and electrons. We didn't always have that system, but it's the one we're currently using, and we're going to keep using it until we're proven wrong or there's something better.
What started the big bang? What was before the big bang? Philosophy has always sought answers to life's questions and has often come up with better answers than science. "You are a collection of molecules linked together forming a single animal whose primary instinctual motive is reproduction and survival" is rather incomplete (and ignored by even science since we love killing ourselves and preventing reproduction at all costs).
Life expectancy was not just 30 years. Caesar lived to over 50 and he was assassinated. Archeology has already showed that physical health was not disproportional among the upper and lower class in Ancient Rome. This whole low life expectancy is based on the Middle Ages and other periods when technology was shitty. Rome had fucking indoor plumbing!!! INDOOR PLUMBING!!! Sure, the provinces got the shit end of the deal but people lived well over 30 if they made it past 3, which most didn't, but if you made it past 3 you would live a while so long as you didn't piss off the Romans.
Also, memory was significantly better 2000 years ago than it is today. Because people didn't write (but could spell - graffiti is evidence of that) they had to memorize things and recite them. The long epic poems were memorized and recited in verse - Homer was recited before being written but Virgil wrote the Aeneid and it was recited from memory) speeches were memorized and written down at a different time. Oral tradition is much more real than people are willing to give it credit because we live in a written civilization that no longer needs to memorize things, especially now with Wikipedia and Google. Some kid wrote in the school paper here that we don't need to go to class because of Google; that is a load of bull shit and I wanted to write a very mean reply but I cooled off before I had time.
To this rubbish of it being 2nd generation: Paul may have actually seen Jesus at some point in his life (both before and after the Crucifixion, if you want) depending on how you place Paul as a Jewish man and the dating of Jesus' death. He mentions how he met with the Apostles and other first followers of Jesus early in his conversion.
Grant it, the oldest manuscripts are from the 3rd century but there is a point where embellishing stories is no longer acceptable (but extracting names or adding names is acceptable at a later point).