On your Jesus-myth Article, Mr. Holding

[diana]

Mr. Holding,

I just read your Shattering the Christ-myth (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html). I'm sure you're tickled that I'm reading your work. I was looking for your arguments for Tacitus, but found this first. I'll get back to Tacitus in a minute.

You make many arguments and assumptions in the referenced article that I'd like to comment on.


Trypho is accusing the Christians, therefore, of identifying one as Christ who is not Christ -- he is not accusing them of making up a man of history!

Your argument here is that Trypho assumed Jesus was real, so we're crazy to question. Since when did assumption of information qualify as evidence of its truth?

I also I note with amusement that you didn't offer your readers the date of the Trypho/Justin debate (circa AD 150). I'd think this would be pertinent, in the interest of full disclosure.

So Trypho the Jew assumed there was a real person behind the Jesus story for the purposes of debate? I've seen Christians argue from the idea that Mithra was crucified (and shared many other similarities with their own savior), having assumed there is sufficient archaelogical evidence that it's true.

This does not mean the evidence for Mithras' crucifixion exists, either (I haven't seen it). It merely means they have assumed it so. For whatever reason, it has not occurred to them to question it.

How, exactly, does Trypho's assumption of Jesus historicity, ~120 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified, in any way verify that the tale was true?


If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history.

Of course, anyone can write historical fiction. You'd think, though, that writers who knew the history wouldn't have made the error of having Jesus be born while under the rule of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, and during the census of Quirinius in AD6. Yes, indeed. (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html#4bc)


Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed.

As we've already established, your definition of "evidence" and mine differ. I accept only that evidence that I'd be comfortable having produced against me, were I at trial. You, however, have no problem admitting hearsay--and not even contemporary hearsay, either. You apparently wouldn't mind having someone pop in and say that you murdered someone five years ago, and the jury taking his word for it because he apparently believes it's true.

What's more, he needn't even claim to have personally witnessed this murder. The charge that it's "common knowledge and accepted as true" should be sufficient.

In the case of worshipping a god, well...you appear to be utterly convinced the Jesus story is factual. Does this mean I should take your word as evidence that it is?

For "evidence of Jesus," you appear to be arguing quantity, not quality. You also admit as evidence information that you admit merely reports the beliefs and assumptions of people who weren't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place.

Such desperate tactics are only necessary when you lack anything better.

I also somehow doubt you include "lending more weight to a source than is warranted" as "unfair" treament of evidence, as giving a little extra weight to your sources only appears to strengthen your case.


Harvey's response to Wells: The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible.

Why would it be necessary to assume the "within thirty years" time constraints? This appears to be based upon the presupposition that Jesus was historical. If you take this supposition out of the equasion--which would only be fair, since that's what you're trying to conclude (see Begging the Question)--there's no reason that I am aware of to posit a thirty year limit on the development of the story and eventual assumption that it was factual.

Random intermittent question: have you quoted, in your own support, any historians or scholars who are not Christians in some form? The question springs to mind because you comment that Morton Smith (who condemns Wells' arguments for the Christ-myth) is a "historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity," as though this makes him a more reliable and fair source in an argument concerning the base existence of a man named Jesus upon whom the religion of Christianity rests (?).

As he point out, arguments for Jesus as myth are mainly from silence. However, arguments for Jesus as real are entirely from hearsay, every word of it penned years, decades and centuries after the supposed crucifixion.

My question is this: how is it that you argue that a Jesus myth, if such it was, would have to have sprung up in thirty years, if not from silence?

It would appear you yourself have selected which silences to listen to and which to ignore.

I'll add that the historical silence of a heretofore insignificant religion, as Jesus mythicists posit, is to be expected. The historical silence of a god-man who worked countless miracles witnessed by multitudes and publicly condemned to die for his pretentions to diety and rising from the dead et cetera ad nauseum is not. There comes a point in public exposure and extraordinary deeds where we may reasonably expect a written record, but in the case of Jesus, we are met with a deafening silence.

He may never have physically left the immediate area, but word of his miracles, the bible tells us, spread far and wide.


From the "Marginal Jew" notes: To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.

Wait. I thought you said he was special and that's why it's almost certain the Romans recorded his execution (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=43720#post43720), ref: "the need to cover one's butt."

Now he's "no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified"?

It would appear that the facts you decide upon are contingent upon what point you're trying to make at the moment.


Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well....

A "poor, rural person" who consistently demonstrated his supernatural prowess before multitudes, including healing the sick, curing lepers and making the blind to see. And oh yes, raising the dead. He also made vats of "the best wine" from water for a wedding feast, fed a multitude from a lunchbox, baffled the Pharisees with parables, and had a public trial which necessitated hauling the Sanhedran out in their nighties (so to speak).

And you're explaining this little reporting oversight with "class discrimination"?


[Among the first C. relics we find:] An inscription that mentions Pilate.

You mean, the one that says he was a prefect? ;)

Considering Christianity's history of destroying material that is heretical in any way, do you find it surprising that we have so few sources available from 6 BC - AD 33? What do you think they'd do as soon as they found a source that discussed pagan gods but didn't mention their god? Or even a history--such as the oddly missing one from Tacitus' Annals--that didn't mention the god they were certain lived and breathed on earth as a man and worked many great wonders? Perhaps it was better for their beliefs is such documents somehow were "lost"....


To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be."

True. But we do have reasonable means of weighing the evidence we have to draw reasonable conclusions. So far as I've seen, it's just as reasonable to assume Jesus was a myth as it is to assume he was a man (but only a man) from whom a great religion sprang. It's not reasonable to look at the historical evidence and conclude that there had to have been a man named Jesus who was God Almighty and worked many wonders before many.


Quote from Harris concerning the believability of the NT writers: Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty?

Straw man. The four aren't rejected because there aren't forty. I think you know this.

They are rejected because they are anonymous, because their stories differ, because no one knows when the gospels were written (but no one, not even conservative Christian historians, argues that they were written while Jesus was alive), and because they are, of course, all written from a religious bias (not unlike your own).

If you accept them despite this, it would be even more reasonable for you to accept the Koran as true. At least we know who wrote it and when it was written. It makes no claims more fantastic than the ones about Jesus in the Bible, and his obvious religious bias does not affect the veracity of his claims. Right?

I see you list as your only two "Highly reliable sources" Tacitus and Josephus. If these are the best you have to offer, then I'd say statements such as "The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis" themselves constitute baseless speculation.


If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone.

You imply they speak from sheer ignorance, but the only Jesus mythicists I've stumbled into are actually well-versed in your scripture.


It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more.

And thus, you poison the well and try to protect innocent believers from being exposed to things that may lead them to question what they've been taught is fact.

If the supporting facts are anywhere near as dependable and irrefutable as you suggest, it wouldn't be necessary to try to disparage your detractors. I'd also think that, if the historical evidence were really that good--or even convincing to anyone who hasn't already decided Jesus was God--I would think you would applaud any such interest in the origins of your faith. Your flippant dismissal of skeptics does little to bolster your credibility as a scholar.

You know what I think, Mr. Holding? I think you'd like very much if I'd forget, for the time being, that we're presumably discussing a god. I've long wondered why Christians would bother taking the middle ground in their proofs of Jesus' historicity. Clearly they believe that he was a real person in 1 C. Palestine and that he was a god. Why, I keep thinking, would they waste their time arguing for the existence of Jesus the man?

Let's say you convince me a man named Jesus existed. What have you accomplished? It's still historically insignificant...unless you go on to argue that he was all the bible says he was.

But I suspect--probably because I have read the historical sources and the pro and con arguments pertaining to them--that if the historical sources supported your hypothesis, you wouldn't waste your time arguing for Jesus the man. If you could take the direct route, I have no doubt you most certainly would.

Your yourself have used the phrase (or something similar): "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." The claim that Jesus was a real person who was God in the flesh is, if anything, an extraordinary claim.

Where is your extraordinary evidence?

I hereby leave you to toss more epithets my way. You needn't attack my credentials, as I've never claimed to have any, other than common sense and a knack for internal consistency. You may now commence finding more "Di-" words to call me. Just please avoid anything like "Di-slowly" or "Di-screaming," as I think they're beneath even your dignity. ;)

Tea and crumpets,

d

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Diana: As a side note, I know that JP has an open challenge this month on this very subject for structured debates, unless I am terribly mistaken. Would you care to formerly do a Gym challenge?

[jpholding]

Dee Dee,

I find Diana is more of an inquirer than a debater on this issue, so I'd prefer to keep it here. Ms. Di-Cast, I will return no later than Monday on this as I take much time off weekends for family. :smile:

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
A link to this thread has been placed in the "Historicity" section of my web page.

[AVmetro]

And here I was thinking the idea of Christ being a "mythical figure" was an outdated idea :shifty: .

[wienerdog]

Scholars rejected it about 100 years ago.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay JP and Di, sorry to butt in like that. And thank you Joe!!

[GakuseiDon]

I've argued the "historical Jesus" case before, so I might step in here if that's okay.


Your argument here is that Trypho assumed Jesus was real, so we're crazy to question. Since when did assumption of information qualify as evidence of its truth?I don't want to speak for JP Holding, but I think you are mistaking his point. It wasn't that Trypho believing in a historical Jesus is proof for the existence of same, but that some Christ-mythers mistakenly use Trypho's words to try to show that there was an early tradition of an awareness of a non-historical Jesus.


How, exactly, does Trypho's assumption of Jesus historicity, ~120 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified, in any way verify that the tale was true?While it doesn't provide conclusive evidence, it provides at least circumstantial evidence for a historical Jesus, to be weighed against evidence of a mythic Jesus, if it exists.


As he point out, arguments for Jesus as myth are mainly from silence. However, arguments for Jesus as real are entirely from hearsay, every word of it penned years, decades and centuries after the supposed crucifixion. All things being equal, which constitutes the superior position, in your opinion?


My question is this: how is it that you argue that a Jesus myth, if such it was, would have to have sprung up in thirty years, if not from silence? I don't think this is a question you can really address to JP Holding. What do the Christ-mythers themselves claim? One of the frustrating things with arguing with Christ-mythers is their lack of building any kind of argument for a mythical Jesus. When did the Christ-myth start? Who started it, and why? Freke and Gandy, for example, has it started by St Paul, around 50 CE, with the literalist movement taking it up around 80 CE with the writing of the gospels. But if you look at one of Alward's link (http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/Rants/doc/lfif-51.html), you'll see half a dozen competing theories of a "mythical Christ", starting in various times and by various groups. Can they all be right? Interestingly, a few of them even have a historical Jesus as a core. So, which one do we argue against? It's like fighting shadows. All that can be done is argue against the evidence presented (e.g. nonsense like a crucified Krishna).


Why, I keep thinking, would they waste their time arguing for the existence of Jesus the man? As JP himself said, it's because people keep arguing against the existence of Jesus the man.

The rest of the questions seem directed to JP personally, so I'll leave them for him.

Diane, is there any evidence for the Christ-myth? Who created it it? When did it start? Can you present a case that is stronger than the circumstantial evidence for a historical Christ?

Until there is evidence that there was no historical Jesus, then, based on the circumstantial evidence that we do have for a historical Jesus, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the existence of a historical Jesus best fits the available data.

(I'll bow out of any debate you have with JP once he comes back, as he can do a better job than I ever can!)

[diana]

DeeDee,

I know JP himself already touched on this. I thought I'd explain here why I'm not keen on the idea of "debate," per se.

It seems to preclude either participant from really learning anything. I've found it's more fruitful for me if I ask questions to determine how strong someone's theory is and how they support it than for me to assert that they're wrong and try to win a "debate."

Keeping the atmosphere as clear as possible of the need to prove I'm right helps me stay in the right frame of mind to seriously consider any evidence and arguments presented. It's been my experience that debate influences the participants to look for flaws to pounce on instead of helping them relax and consider the bigger picture of what someone is trying to say.

At least, this is the effect it has had on me personally. Hence my desire for a less formal and more conversational venue. But I appreciate the invitation, nonetheless.

Mr. Holding,

As always, I appreciate your acknowledgement of my thoughts and promise to return. I understand the desire/need to take a break and enjoy real life.

weinerdog,

Upon what basis did scholars reject the idea that Jesus was a myth 100 years ago? What information did they review?

What was their bias, if any? If you wish to assert that they were without bias, I ask you to please prove that negative. (Fair is fair.)

To simply say that scholars already rejected the idea and expect that to be convincing is to Argue from Authority.

GakuseiDon,

I've never heard that "some Christ-mythers mistakenly use Trypho's words to try to show that there was an early tradition of an awareness of a non-historical Jesus." If that is indeed the argument Mr. Holding was rebutting, I don't recall seeing him quote any passages from the work in question that might possibly be twisted into such a stance in the first place, nor do I recall reading any direct rebuttals of same.

I think I'll wait for him to address my point, because I think I did understand his argument.

You stated that Trypho's assumption of the historicity of Jesus 120 years after the fact (so to speak :wink: ) is "at least circumstantial evidence for a historical Jesus, to be weighed against evidence of a mythic Jesus, if it exists."

I agree that it's circumstantial evidence for a historical Jesus in the same way that the Greeks' discussions about the doings of any of their pantheon as though they were fact is circumstantial evidence for historical Greek gods.

Obviously, I lean toward the idea that Jesus was a myth. I think this position, although it admittedly rests upon silence, is superior to the claim that the biblical Jesus existed on earth, a claim which is based upon hearsay years, decades and centuries after it supposedly happened.

What makes the silence so remarkable in this case is that it necessarily applies to extraordinary claims. These claims are intimately connected with this character that Mr. Holding wishes to assert is a historical figure. However, he has readily acknowledged that there are no extant contemporary sources that confirm even the existence of this character, let alone that he did any--let alone all--of the wonders that are attributed to him.

Add to this the fact that these wonders are not found anywhere else in history outside the realms of myth.

So if we put these two historical problems together, we are met with a very strange silence indeed--one that, IMO, is best explained with "myth," instead of "Jesus was a nobody who wasn't well known, went unnoticed by any literate people or contemporary historians, or if his works were recorded, Christian-haters managed to destroy them all but still, we have no reason to believe that he didn't actually raise people and himself from the dead although we've never seen any other claim like this in history."

I did ask the right person why he claims the Christ-myth would have to have sprung up from nothing in the span of 30 years, because Mr. Holding asserted/assumed this in his rebuttal. (You have read his article, haven't you?)

I've encountered other Christians who make the same argument. I think it's fallacious, for the reasons I outlined in my OP. If I was unclear, please tell me what you don't understand, and I'll try a different angle to explain.

Considering your comments on how frustrating it is to argue with Christ-mythers because of their apparent shiftiness is establishing any argument for a mythical Jesus, I wonder how much you know about when the Greek myths started. Who started them, and why? How many competing theories are there concerning where any myth came from?

Does their lack of agreement tempt you to accept any of them as historical fact?

I think we all--at least, present company--accept all of these myths as, well, myths. I don't have to know whence the story of Zeus arose, who created it, when and why to relegate the story to myth. Neither do you, I'll warrant.

Why do you levy different standards on the discussion of Jesus as myth?

I have accepted the possibility that Jesus the man was a historical figure, from whom the myths blossomed. Such things have happened before. The speed with which the stories claim the imagination and spread have much to do with external factors (politics, say), such as the spread of the Roman empire. And within a couple of centuries, we had plenty of sword-point conversions, which also tends to bolster the ranks of the conquering religion.

I don't find it ridiculous at all to either posit that no such person existed and the story, like countless others, sprang from someone's active imagination, was passed around as a story for a while and evolved into being taken seriously at some point. And oral traditions have a way of adding details as they go, incorporating ideas from other stories, probably because people tend to confuse what happened to whom.

I find it equally plausible that Jesus was a real person who made a good impression on those around him and gave them hope in a time people needed hope, so they continued to spread stories about him after his death, stories that "evolved" him into a god.

What I don't find plausible, for reasons already stated, is that the biblical Jesus existed. I've yet to be presented with an argument that convinces me that the bible stories are to be taken with any more seriousness than The Illiad.

To argue that it's necessary to argue the existence of Jesus the man "because people keep arguing against the existence of Jesus the man" is to miss my point.

Let me ask you this: If you convince me that Jesus the man actually existed--which, I'll reiterate, I have already agreed could have been the case--what have you accomplished? What possible good does it do either of us--unless you then go on to argue that the biblical Jesus existed?

And if you're going to argue that eventually, why don't you argue it now? Cut to the chase. Throw down.

I posit that this "all or nothing" approach is not taken by anyone who wishes to argue historical evidence for Jesus because they already know the historical evidence will, only with tenuous arguments indeed, support the possibility--not even the probability--of a historical man named Jesus upon whom the gospel accounts are based.

They already know the "all or nothing" approach will get them soundly, historically, trounced.

If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, I invite you to do so by using historically acceptable sources to prove the biblical Jesus existed.

Mr. Holding does not do this, I think, because he has done his homework and he knows better than to try it.

The "evidence" I have for the Christ-myth consists of the obvious mythological claims of the Jesus story and the utter, glaring lack of historical evidence that a word of it is true, up to and including the very existence of Jesus himself.


Until there is evidence that there was no historical Jesus, then, based on the circumstantial evidence that we do have for a historical Jesus, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the existence of a historical Jesus best fits the available data.

By this reasoning, you must, perforce, believe in the historicity of all the myths man has ever dreamed up--until that time you can prove them false.

I reject them as myths as they are unproved. This is the same criteria by which I reject the claims of Christians regarding Jesus.

Your effort to force me to prove a negative do not move me.

Tea and crumpets,

d

[jpholding]

Dear Ms. Di-orama,

I am back. Thank you for your patience. Gdon has rightly answered on Trypho (it has been used that way by several mythers, notably Wells and Drews); I would only add that I have never heard of any Christians arguing for such a thing regarding Mithra – which would be foolish anyway. I studied Mithraism rather in-depth lately and there is nothing anywhere to suggest Mithra died, much less that he was crucified. But that is another topic.

Of course, anyone can write historical fiction. You'd think, though, that writers who knew the history wouldn't have made the error of having Jesus be born while under the rule of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, and during the census of Quirinius in AD6.

And of course, anyone can just arbitrarily say that something is fiction. As far as that census goes, I defer to a friend of mine who dealt with that issue at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html -- and if this is an error by Luke, it would be just one among several hundreds points that are absolutely correct. A scholar named Colin Hemer has documented Luke’s meticulous accuracy in Luke and Acts.

As we've already established, your definition of "evidence" and mine differ. I accept only that evidence that I'd be comfortable having produced against me, were I at trial. You, however, have no problem admitting hearsay--and not even contemporary hearsay, either. You apparently wouldn't mind having someone pop in and say that you murdered someone five years ago, and the jury taking his word for it because he apparently believes it's true.

As yet, however, you have not explained to me why hearsay is unreliable. The man who pops in and says this – how do we know he is right? The same way we know if he pops in and says he saw it personally. There is no difference at all in terms of how we decide whether he is right or not.

In the case of worshipping a god, well...you appear to be utterly convinced the Jesus story is factual. Does this mean I should take your word as evidence that it is?

You should probably consider the depth of my study in this area, actually. :smile:

For "evidence of Jesus," you appear to be arguing quantity, not quality.

I argue for both.

You also admit as evidence information that you admit merely reports the beliefs and assumptions of people who weren't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place.

I am still waiting for you to explain why this is a problem. In so doing you also throw out 70-90% of what else these people write – that much which also happened before they were born. We are back to where we were before.

Why would it be necessary to assume the "within thirty years" time constraints?

Paul’s letters, dated 40-60 AD.

Random intermittent question: have you quoted, in your own support, any historians or scholars who are not Christians in some form?

I am not privy to all that they all believe. However, aside from Smith, Michael Grant is said to be a Skeptic, as is Robin Lane Fox, and all three regard the myth hypothesis as worthy of a sneer.

The question springs to mind because you comment that Morton Smith (who condemns Wells' arguments for the Christ-myth) is a "historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity," as though this makes him a more reliable and fair source in an argument concerning the base existence of a man named Jesus upon whom the religion of Christianity rests (?).

No, it merely defeats the inevitable complaint from persons much less critical than you, who say, “Oh, so and so is a Christian, he’s in on the conspiracy.” If you have not dealt with some of the oddballs I have (like Acharya S) this may be hard to understand.

I'll add that the historical silence of a heretofore insignificant religion, as Jesus mythicists posit, is to be expected.

I have already briefly addressed this in the other thread. I rather think you assume that things ought to have been said when there is no reason to think so. You may bring that here or we may continue there.

Wait. I thought you said he was special and that's why it's almost certain the Romans recorded his execution, ref: "the need to cover one's butt."

That was not because Jesus himself was special, but because Pilate was – the man was between a rock and a hard place at this time and in a tough position. He had already offended the Jews twice (details, if you wish) and was practically on report and in a situation where they were looking for something to get him on. Plus his sponsor Sejanus may have been dead at this time, leaving him without any protection. Butt cover? You bet. I would.

It would appear that the facts you decide upon are contingent upon what point you're trying to make at the moment.

It would appear rather that you have not learned of some of the contextual realities behind the figures in question. :smile:

A "poor, rural person" who consistently demonstrated his supernatural prowess before multitudes, including healing the sick, curing lepers and making the blind to see. And oh yes, raising the dead.

I have already addressed this, again, in the other thread.

And you're explaining this little reporting oversight with "class discrimination"?

It was rather a much more serious issue in those days. People thought and acted in accord with what we would call stereotypes.

You mean, the one that says he was a prefect?

I address that issue in the Tacitus sub-article.

Considering Christianity's history of destroying material that is heretical in any way, do you find it surprising that we have so few sources available from 6 BC - AD 33?

No more surprising than that we have only about 8 Roman army pay slips left from the millions that were issued. As an aside destruction of contrary lit was done by the Romans long before Jesus was born. It was a normal thing to do back then.

What do you think they'd do as soon as they found a source that discussed pagan gods but didn't mention their god?

Nothing. Why?

Or even a history--such as the oddly missing one from Tacitus' Annals--that didn't mention the god they were certain lived and breathed on earth as a man and worked many great wonders?

What “oddly missing one” do you refer to here?

Straw man. The four aren't rejected because there aren't forty. I think you know this.

I do. You do. Nuts like Acharya S don’t. :smile:

They are rejected because they are anonymous

Their authorship is as well attested, if not better attested, than for any secular document of the period. I debated this already with someone in another thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1695&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

because their stories differ

No more than would be expected from any accounts reporting the same events. Have you ever compared biographies of persons written by different people? I did:
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_HICA_01.html

because no one knows when the gospels were written

As above, their dating is as secure as it can be for any document.

and because they are, of course, all written from a religious bias (not unlike your own).

So? There is not a single history written without bias of some sort. Indeed your own rejection on this ground is a type of bias.

If you accept them despite this, it would be even more reasonable for you to accept the Koran as true.

I rather doubt you have done any sort of comparison between the two. The Koran at any rate doesn’t report much that would be difficult to accept historically even for a Skeptic.

It makes no claims more fantastic than the ones about Jesus in the Bible, and his obvious religious bias does not affect the veracity of his claims. Right?

Not really.

I see you list as your only two "Highly reliable sources" Tacitus and Josephus. If these are the best you have to offer, then I'd say statements such as "The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis" themselves constitute baseless speculation.

If you so degrade Josephus and Tacitus, then I’d say your knowledge of how they are regarded is fairly dismal. :smile:

You imply they speak from sheer ignorance, but the only Jesus mythicists I've stumbled into are actually well-versed in your scripture.

And who would they be, please?

And thus, you poison the well and try to protect innocent believers from being exposed to things that may lead them to question what they've been taught is fact.

I find the conclusion warranted by the evidence. If you think not, let’s get into those details.

If the supporting facts are anywhere near as dependable and irrefutable as you suggest, it wouldn't be necessary to try to disparage your detractors

Ah. Please, madam, do spare me the psychological spin-doctoring. :smile: I may as well say, “If your case was as good as you suggest, you would not be constantly raising charges as bias.” I rather thought better of you than that.

Your flippant dismissal of skeptics does little to bolster your credibility as a scholar.

Most would say the opposite.

You know what I think, Mr. Holding? I think you'd like very much if I'd forget, for the time being, that we're presumably discussing a god.

If I wanted to forget it, why would I discuss it in the other thread? What of other articles I have written? I think you are looking through a narrow window and mistaking systematic treatment of the subject for avoidance. Touche.


Why, I keep thinking, would they waste their time arguing for the existence of Jesus the man?

Presumably because there are mythicists who waste time arguing for non-existence.

Let's say you convince me a man named Jesus existed. What have you accomplished? It's still historically insignificant...unless you go on to argue that he was all the bible says he was.

Step 2. When we are done with Step 1 we will proceed.

[roger_pearse]

I also I note with amusement that you didn't offer your readers the date of the Trypho/Justin debate (circa AD 150). I'd think this would be pertinent, in the interest of full disclosure.

I think everyone knows the date of the Dialogue.


So Trypho the Jew assumed there was a real person behind the Jesus story for the purposes of debate?

This seems somewhat tendentious to me. Trypho doesn't discuss that issue. It's like saying that you and I assume there is such a person as L.Ron Hubbard, for the purposes of debate. Well, who's questioning it? Likewise with Jesus.


Of course, anyone can write historical fiction. You'd think, though, that writers who knew the history wouldn't have made the error of having Jesus be born while under the rule of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, and during the census of Quirinius in AD6.

What is the standard of comparison? What sort of accuracy do secular histories of the period have on this sort of minutiae?


As he point out, arguments for Jesus as myth are mainly from silence. However, arguments for Jesus as real are entirely from hearsay, every word of it penned years, decades and centuries after the supposed crucifixion.

Should we prefer evidence, or lack of it?


I'll add that the historical silence of a heretofore insignificant religion, as Jesus mythicists posit, is to be expected. The historical silence of a god-man who worked countless miracles witnessed by multitudes and publicly condemned to die for his pretentions to diety and rising from the dead et cetera ad nauseum is not.

A bold assertion. I'm not at all sure how this opinion (with which anyone might disagree) might be demonstrated to have any factual component.


There comes a point in public exposure and extraordinary deeds where we may reasonably expect a written record, but in the case of Jesus, we are met with a deafening silence.

This argument from *expectation* is rather unfortunate. How does one demonstrate that this expectation is reasonable and not anachronistic, rather than assert it?


Considering Christianity's history of destroying material that is heretical in any way, do you find it surprising that we have so few sources available from 6 BC - AD 33?

This seems to be a libel, actually, and one much used to justify demonising Christians.

This idea that Christians alone are not entitled to destroy pernicious libels is interesting, but, in the age of anti-racism, somewhat unfortunate. However, if you assert that specific documents do not exist because of specific actions, perhaps we might ask for some evidence? And why, if it is all down to the wicked Christians, does so much Christian literature not exist either?


True. But we do have reasonable means of weighing the evidence we have to draw reasonable conclusions. So far as I've seen, it's just as reasonable to assume Jesus was a myth as it is to assume he was a man (but only a man) from whom a great religion sprang.

There is no evidence for this view, however.


It's not reasonable to look at the historical evidence and conclude that there had to have been a man named Jesus who was God Almighty and worked many wonders before many.

This is an opinion, but one without any evidence offered for it.


And thus, you poison the well and try to protect innocent believers from being exposed to things that may lead them to question what they've been taught is fact.

How does he do this? By taking over the world media, and censoring them? I had no idea he was so powerful...

In this world, anti-Christian stuff is pumped out 24 hrs a day into the ears of everyman. Only the unbeliever can rest quiet in the knowledge that his views will never come under examination, for the unbeliever simply adopts the colour of the times.


Let's say you convince me a man named Jesus existed. What have you accomplished? It's still historically insignificant...

Of course. No normal sensible person doubts this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[diana]

Quick reply to Mr. Pearce,

Thank you very much for your comments.

I can always count on at least one person to pop by, read one post to the exclusion of all others, quote me out of context, miss my points, then waste a great deal of time slaughtering straw men on my behalf.

You're it.

I appreciate your help.

Tea and crumpets,

d

[wienerdog]

Upon what basis did scholars reject the idea that Jesus was a myth 100 years ago? What information did they review?

What was their bias, if any? If you wish to assert that they were without bias, I ask you to please prove that negative. (Fair is fair.)

To simply say that scholars already rejected the idea and expect that to be convincing is to Argue from Authority.

Well, I wasn't really arguing, I was just confirming the point to AVMetro.

At any rate, some of the reason that most scholars gave and give for rejecting the myth hypothesis are:

a) The supposed mythological parallels are contrived. It's an attempt to force Christian categories (such as resurrection) into areas in which they just do not fit.
b) The vast majority, if not all, of the supposed mythological parallels to Jesus post-date Christianity (although, sometimes this involved pre-Christian myths developing the supposed parallels in post-Christian times).
c) None of the supposed mythological parallels to Jesus were present in 1st century Palestine/Israel. There is no historical connection.
d) 1st century Judaism and Christianity were not "myth-friendly" belief systems. Moreover, Judaism was especially hostile to this particular "myth": the divinity and resurrection of a man. This was blasphemous. Yet early Christianity originates from within Judaism.
e) Belief in Jesus' resurrection originated immediately after his death, and the earliest source dates to within five or six years of his death (the 1 Cor 15 creed). Myths take generations to arise.
f) The gospels and Acts are not in the literary genre of mythology or folk story or allegory. Matthew, Mark, and John are bioi (ancient biographies), and Luke and Acts are in the genre of historical reportage. C. S. Lewis wrote that the gospels are replete with insignificant little details which one doesn't find in mythology, where everything has to "mean" something.


The Gospels are quite different than the kind of literature that arises from the "creative imaginations" of people. A wealth of graphic details about such things as people’s emotions, Jesus’ unusual gestures, geographic locations, and particular times and places of various events, fill the Gospel narratives. (Boyd, Jesus Under Siege)
g) On the heels of this, the style of representing a fictional series of events or personage as if they were historical is a product of the modern age. It did not exist in the ancient world. Of course, this doesn't mean that the authors weren't mistaken or lying, but to completely invent a person or storyline and write it like history is "realistic fiction", a common example being novels. To read the gospels like this is simply trying to force our modern categories of thought onto ancient writings, which is unjustified.


I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths, all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage.....or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned to read. (C. S. Lewis, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism")
h) On the other hand, if you're just saying that they're "myth" in the popular sense of "urban legend," this is equally problematic. Urban legends arise from either lies (like Darwin's "deathbed conversion"), or mistakes/misimpressions (people seeing someone in a crowd who they think is Elvis), or a combination thereof (the whole Bigfoot fiasco). To apply it to Jesus' resurrection would entail that his disciples lied and/or were mistaken. No scholar accepts the former. The latter is made untenable in the light of the nature of hallucinatory experiences, and the fact that the people who associated with him after his death, according to 1 Cor 15 creed, were people who knew him very well (close friends and relatives).

And, since you ask, the majority of these scholars did not believe in Jesus' resurrection or divinity. That was their bias.

[diana]

Good afternoon, Mr. Holding.

I'm curious, now. Which references in the Justin/Trypho dialogue are used to "show that there was an early tradition of an awareness of a non-historical Jesus"? You present a counter-argument to this objection, but you didn't give it fair time. Quick rundown, please?

Is it historical fiction, or am I simply making a random accusation of fiction? How would we know?

My basic assumption of "fiction" rests upon the incredible nature of the claims in the book. In any other story that makes similar claims, I consider it untrue based upon the fact that those claims--particularly when they are as outrageous as the ones in the gospels--are unverified. They run contrary to anything we have experienced or expect to experience, and there is no evidence in existence that such things are now or ever have been possible. This is how I assign the label "fiction."

I consider the bible "historical fiction," however, because it does places its drama among some historically verifiable figures and events.

I consider it "myth" for the same reasons, I expect, that I consider tales of the Greek gods "myth." It records the drama of gods and men and records incredible deeds and tries to explain why things are as they are.

Concerning that troublesome problem of hearsay, which you continue to insist is reliable, let's consider the admissible evidence at your murder trial. Would you have me believe an accuser who (1) admits he's never even met you, (2) doesn't claim to have even witnessed the crime, but (3) "knows" you committed the murder based on "common knowledge"?

You don't understand how I can toss out a one-line reference to a "Christus" in Tacitus that offers several reasons to look askance at, and an obviously interpolated paragraph in Josephus that mentions a "Jesus," both of which presumably refer to a 1st C. miracle worker for which no other secular evidence exists, but that I can accept as fact 70-90% of "what else these people write." Hrm. If their other stories are (1) otherwise unsubstantiated, (2) sound like repeated hearsay, (3) refer to people who are said to have performed feats only recorded heretofore in myths, and (4) get facts wrong, I'll doubt them, as well. Fair?

History is quite the fascinating subject. I've found that even today, when we like to think we have impartial scholars telling us what happened when, the "history" we learn is still rife with twisted and spun information, complete with our own fair share of perpetuated myths.

Paul's letters, even if you date them from AD 40-60, are only half of the "thirty year" equasion. That would be when the oral tradition was in any way put in writing (or possibly the gospels, depending on where you date them).

What would you figure to be the beginning of this thirty-year myth-growth time limit that Christians give me, and why?

You act as though it's not really important what the religious beliefs are of the scholars you've studied and give credence to. I asked about the religious bias of your sources because of...well, bias. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, exactly. That's pretty harsh.

The opinions of skeptics regarding Jesus' historicity range from "He existed and the myth grew from there" to "He never existed at all." Christian scholars, I've found, are for some reason far more likely to discover that Jesus was in fact a historical person (and he was the biblical Jesus). I'll even go out on a limb and say that 100% of Christian scholars will find the historicity of Jesus above question. Why do you suppose there's such a disparity in "findings" from the available data, Mr. Holding?

It's intriguing how we've managed to branch into a discussion of what Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion may have been available for Tacitus and why, in the event he wanted to check into the "common knowledge" he recorded concerning this Christus character he speaks of that we assume is Jesus. Now this speculation has taken us into the realm of supposing Pilate would have written a letter to cover his butt-ocks concerning the unwarranted crucifixion of Jesus. This is fresh. It's the first time I've dealt with speculation that begs the question.

The "oddly missing work" from Tacitus Annals I referenced that you didn't recognize is the one you mentioned in your piece on Tacitus (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html), Mr. Holding. To wit:


Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it.

Anyhow, it's irrelevant. Any theories about what sources existed for what and what happened to them why is all wild speculation and pointless to the discussion. For some reason, we're both stumbling down that path when I'm sure we both know better. What we might have had if has no bearing on what we do have. (Besides, as Mr. Pearce pointed out, it appears that I'm denigrating Christians when I speculate about what records they may have had reason to destroy and why. Selecting one group as "the culprits" to the exclusion of all others wasn't my point at all, but my point would have rested on speculation, anyhow. Which makes it not a conclusion so much as simply another speculation.)

You say the authorship of the gospels are as well attested, if not better, than any secular document of the period? What secular documents are you comparing them to? When was it the Church decided who was the author of the gospels and what did they base their conclusions on?

When I make the charge that the stories differ, I'm afraid I include the idea that the gospels are presumably inspired (I expect higher standards from God-breathed information than I do from the reports of different people who saw the same thing). My bad. I realize their inspiration and infallibility is not the issue here.

Looking again at the gospel stories, this time assuming they are uninspired and the reports of common people who witnessed the same things, I can then assume a certain amount of apparent (or even outright) contradiction and error. Our eyes deceive us sometimes--maybe I saw a red car but you swear it was green, but we both know we saw a car. Every witness heard different last words of Jesus, but they agreed he cried out with a loud voice--as any asphixiating man would--just before giving up the ghost. It's immaterial, really, what he said, because we sometimes can listen to the same thing and hear completely different things.

You keep claiming the dating of the gospels is "as secure as can be for any document," but I wonder just how secure the dating is of these "any documents" you compare them to. It was my understanding that scholars have not reached a concensus as to when the gospels were written. You say they have?

I agree that all history is biased (as I noted earlier). However, reporting the facts in such a way as to impart your race's superiority (as most of our history does) is not the same as a bias that provokes you to simply accept something as true when you have no proof, and to report it as truth. This is why I keep pointing out the inadmissibility of documents written from a religious bias.

It seems from my reading of the Koran, that you rather flippantly dismissed, that its claims are generally far less fantastic than the ones about Jesus in the Bible. Obviously, though, you don't believe a word of it. Do you reject the truth of the book on the basis of Mohammed's obvious religious bias, or because of your own (or both)?

My knowledge of "how Tacitus and Josephus' passages [regarding Christus and Jesus] are regarded" isn't quite as dismal as you suppose. It's just that I consider, as honestly as I can, the arguments put forth by people who are Christians and others who are not Christians. The passages are highly debateable, and with reason. Highly debateable passages do not equate to "highly reliable sources."

I invite you to register at the Secular Web, go into the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum, and issue a challenge to the Jesus-mythers to debate scripture. Those who hold that position generally are not so because they are ignorant of the issues or the bible. To say the least. As you yourself (and others) have said to me here, "most" scholars (or "every reputable scholar," or somesuch), accept the historicity of Jesus. To take a position against the norm and defend it requires far more study than to simply accept the "general consensus."

Psychological spin-doctoring aside, you haven't explained why poison the well and stoop to ad hominems. I submit to you (still) that the evidence, if as strong as you claim, would stand on its own. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to frighten the sheep away from it.

Please explain why it is necessary for you to complete "step 1" (proving the existence of Jesus the man) before proceeding to step 2 (proving the existence of Jesus the god). Aren't they inseparable?

Or let me put it another way: why would it be necessary to approach the problem this way?

Tea and crumpets,

d

(wienerdog, I see you've responded. I'll try to get to your post tomorrow. It's time for dinner.)

[jpholding]

Dear Ms. Di-vestiture,

Which references in the Justin/Trypho dialogue are used to "show that there was an early tradition of an awareness of a non-historical Jesus"?

Eh? Where is that quote from? It isn't in my article...

Is it historical fiction, or am I simply making a random accusation of fiction? How would we know?

The same way we would know for any work of history. But:

My basic assumption of "fiction" rests upon the incredible nature of the claims in the book.

That of course is a personal and philosophical preference; I find such assumptions unwarranted and do not consider my personal experience the be all and end all of historical determination. There are other threads proceeding elsewhere on this subject, so I will do no more here than answer some direct questions you make later on re: other materials.

Concerning that troublesome problem of hearsay, which you continue to insist is reliable

No, I merely insist that it cannot be dismissed as unreliable merely because it is hearsay. It can be as reliable or unreliable as any first-hand account. Please, Ms. Di, do not overstate my position. If I want it overstated, I will do it myself. :smile:

Would you have me believe an accuser who (1) admits he's never even met you, (2) doesn't claim to have even witnessed the crime, but (3) "knows" you committed the murder based on "common knowledge"?

That sounds like a non-possible situation, but if this were a real situation, then we would consider 1) if it is so common, who else is saying it? 2) is there any contrary data? 3) does this person have a known reputation to check things out? These are related to questions I asked about historians like Tacitus. But:

You don't understand how I can toss out a one-line reference to a "Christus" in Tacitus that offers several reasons to look askance at

I answered such reasons as you gave.

and an obviously interpolated paragraph in Josephus that mentions a "Jesus,"

Do not forget there is a second reference. Also, Josephan scholars have not voted for a full interpolation of the paragraph based on the evidence.

If their other stories are (1) otherwise unsubstantiated, (2) sound like repeated hearsay, (3) refer to people who are said to have performed feats only recorded heretofore in myths, and (4) get facts wrong, I'll doubt them, as well. Fair?

You will definitely be able to reject them on 1, 2, and 3, and even Tacitus, who is regarded as the best of his field, has been nabbed on 4 now and then. So does this mean you will now throw out their reports entirely? Desperate -- but at least you would be consistent.

What would you figure to be the beginning of this thirty-year myth-growth time limit that Christians give me, and why?

Between 0-30 AD, since there is no evidence of a Christian movement before then, and indeed, based on Josephus and Tacitus, that is indeed when it began.

You act as though it's not really important what the religious beliefs are of the scholars you've studied and give credence to. I asked about the religious bias of your sources because of...well, bias. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, exactly. That's pretty harsh.

But accurate nevertheless. It is not in the least important; it is an insult to them and I doubt if you would tolerate the same being done to you. If you cannot address them on arguments, do not address them at all. I have never dismissed any critic on the grounds, "Oh, they are atheists/Mormons/Unitarians, what do you expect?" That is a childish game. I think better of you than that.

Why do you suppose there's such a disparity in "findings" from the available data, Mr. Holding?

There is no disparity in terms of the existence question, and the question is, as noted, meaningless anyway, a diversion.

It's intriguing how we've managed to branch into a discussion of what Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion may have been available for Tacitus and why, in the event he wanted to check into the "common knowledge" he recorded concerning this Christus character he speaks of that we assume is Jesus.

This is based on scholarly opinion of Tacitus' reliability and investigative tendencies. Note carefully what I say: I do think the existence of Jesus was so axiomatic and well-known that there was nothing to investigate. However, in the process of checking on what happened, Tacitus would have found gaps in the record that would lead to a suspicion, which in turn would have led him to evidence that this Christus person was of questionable historicity.

Now this speculation has taken us into the realm of supposing Pilate would have written a letter to cover his butt-ocks concerning the unwarranted crucifixion of Jesus. This is fresh. It's the first time I've dealt with speculation that begs the question.

It begs nothing of the sort. I gave you data on Pilate's background that provided a direct correlation showing that he would indeed document controversial events. You have not mentioned it or dealt with it.

The "oddly missing work" from Tacitus Annals I referenced that you didn't recognize is the one you mentioned

Your words were not specific enough; you should have said, "oddly missing portion of a work" and specified the Annals. That said, there are portions missing from both his Annals and his Histories that are not concerned with that time, so there is nothing odd here at all. It is simply the normal loss of work that many ancient historians have suffered.

Anyhow, it's irrelevant. Any theories about what sources existed for what and what happened to them why is all wild speculation and pointless to the discussion.

What you spin out as "wild speculation" is actually normal historical detective work. One could just as easily (to use my favorite example) call Ulansey's theory of Mithraic origins "wild speculation" and think that sufficient, if they did not approve of his conclusions.

You say the authorship of the gospels are as well attested, if not better, than any secular document of the period? What secular documents are you comparing them to?

You may wish to check this other thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1695&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

where I discussed it with "Vorkosigan" and made a comparison of Matthew to Tacitus' works. I will soon be looking to pick up a book Mr. Pearse has recommended called Texts and Transmission that contains such data for other secular works. I have just found that it is in two libraries close by.

When was it the Church decided who was the author of the gospels and what did they base their conclusions on?

I have more detail in a series I have written, but we have attestation as early as 125-180 AD depending on the Gospel, and it is based variably on church tradition. Though again, compared to secular works, still far better than what we have. You will have to give the Gospels "special treatment" to dismiss their authorship.

When I make the charge that the stories differ, I'm afraid I include the idea that the gospels are presumably inspired (I expect higher standards from God-breathed information than I do from the reports of different people who saw the same thing).

Such a mechanistic view of inspiration is held only by a few oddities (Church of Christ, for example). But yes, inspiration is a side issue.

It was my understanding that scholars have not reached a concensus as to when the gospels were written. You say they have?

They have not, but I do say (as I do in an article) that Gospel dating arguments have been pitifully underinformed by comparison to how secular documents are dated and authorship is determined. I have yet to see any scholar dating the Gospels interact with procedures for dating other documents.

I agree that all history is biased (as I noted earlier). However, reporting the facts in such a way as to impart your race's superiority (as most of our history does) is not the same as a bias that provokes you to simply accept something as true when you have no proof, and to report it as truth. This is why I keep pointing out the inadmissibility of documents written from a religious bias.

I fail to see a fundamental difference, nor any reason to reject such documents any more than any other. One may say the same of Tacitus' political biases. Indeed it has been said.

It seems from my reading of the Koran, that you rather flippantly dismissed, that its claims are generally far less fantastic than the ones about Jesus in the Bible. Obviously, though, you don't believe a word of it

Must you constantly overstate my case? :smile: Or was that hyperbole? I do not reject it on the basis of any bias; if I did, I would reject it now, for I remember for little of it. Ask me about the Book of Mormon, which I have read more recently. I reject it on simple grounds: New World archaeology isn't helping support it; and Joseph Smith's use of the Bible (and that of other Mormons teachers) is clearly flawed. I wrote a whole book on the latter subject.

The passages are highly debateable, and with reason.

Then let us debate those reasons.

I invite you to register at the Secular Web, go into the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum, and issue a challenge to the Jesus-mythers to debate scripture.

I will not register or participate at iidb.org. I find statements made there to be so in need of correction that I could spend hours on one post. I prefer to keep discussions with persons like you who at least aren't hurling 50 elephants into every discussion. Furthermore there are persons there who continue to make slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations against me that they refuse to defend with specifics (you know who I mean); I see no need to waste time defending against Peanut Gallery Idiots. They can come here if they want to, and most clearly don't.
That said, my special challenge on the myth hypothesis expires today and I will be posting a new one on the authorship and date of the Gospels.

Those who hold that position generally are not so because they are ignorant of the issues or the bible.

I beg to differ. :smile:

Psychological spin-doctoring aside, you haven't explained why poison the well and stoop to ad hominems. I submit to you (still) that the evidence, if as strong as you claim, would stand on its own. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to frighten the sheep away from it.

I submit in return that this is still nothing but psychologial spin-doctoring. I may as well say that you are threatened because you know it will discourage people from considering a position that you know is tenuous and has no support, and desite every opportunity you can to push it. Easy to say, Mrs. Freud. :smile:

Please explain why it is necessary for you to complete "step 1" (proving the existence of Jesus the man) before proceeding to step 2 (proving the existence of Jesus the god). Aren't they inseparable?

Not really. You just did separate them. :smile: It simply is common sense that it is pointless to argue whether X did Y, if your opponent thinks X didn't even exist.

[Jaltus]

If you don't mind, JP, I'd like to answer this snippet.

Diana,

Let me first introduce myself since you likely have no idea who I am. My name on this board is obviously Jaltus. In real life, I am a doctoral student in New Testament studies at a well-known institution which has an immaculate academic record (the institution, not me, hehe). I am also teaching at the seminary I attend (intro Greek). In other words, I know what I am talking about and generally do solid research, assuming I have the time to do so.


Of course, anyone can write historical fiction. You'd think, though, that writers who knew the history wouldn't have made the error of having Jesus be born while under the rule of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, and during the census of Quirinius in AD6.

There are two major errors in this question.

1) The gospels are not historical fiction. You may read them that way, but the actual genre is historic biography. If need be i can defend this further (ie citations).

2) Quirinius was "governor" in 4 BC as well. Let me quote Ben Witherington III, New Testament History:


Before we too rapidly dismiss Luke's record as historically inaccurate, several important considerations need to be borne in mind. First, Acts 5:37 shows that Luke knows that Quirinius's census took place considerably later...Second, if Luke is not simply indulging into rhetorical hyperboloe, it is not absolutely necessary to take Luke 2:1 to mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once. What the Greek suggests is that Caesar decreed that "all of the Roman world be enrolled." The present tense of the verb aporgraphw and the use of pas suggest that what Caesar was decreeing was the extension of the enrollment already going on in some parts of the empire to the rest of the empire. Historian A. N. Sherwin-White reminds us, 'A census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire...was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Agustus.' Luke then would be referring in a general way to this unprecedented ongoing event. Third, there is some evidence of a census of Judea during the governorship of Saturnius between 9 and 6 BC. We know that Herod had lost some of his autonomy after 10 BC when he fell in disfavor with Augustus due to the war with the Nabateans. It is possible that Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod as a reprisal for his violation of the Pax Romana in the region.

Another important consideration is that Luke's precise wording in the Greek of Luke 2:2 is curious. He could be referring to the first or the former census that was taken under Quirinius, or it is even possible grammatically to take the word prote to mean "prior to" or "before" the more famous census of Quirinius that led to the Jewish revolt...The conclusion one must come to is that Luke 2:1-2 cannot be dismissed as historically impossible, especially if Luke is simply identifying Quirinius by his later, more notorious census and his later, more familiar role in the region once Judea was part of a province.

A quick note here is that Quirinius was made consul over the area in 12 BC.

[diana]

It's a pleasure to meet you, Jaltus.

I'm sure with your credentials, you can easily deconstruct Richard Carrier's rebuttal to the common ad hoc argument you just made (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#III).

He seems to think there would be no reason, under Roman law, to have a census prior to Judea coming under direct Roman control in AD 6. Hm.

He also rips into your claims that "maybe the Greek could possibly maybe mean something different here."

Yes, I'm intrigued by how you support the idea that the gospels are historic biography. Please elaborate.


First, Acts 5:37 shows that Luke knows that Quirinius's census took place considerably later.

That's true. According to Josephus (Antiquities 20: 97-98), Theudas was executed circa AD 44. According to Luke, Quirinius' census and Judas the Galilean's uprising happened after this.

Let's see. Maybe our calendar is off by 45 years and Jesus wasn't born until AD 45....

Maybe there were three censuses. (As a matter of interesting historical coincidence, two of them happened to involve the uprising led by a man with the same name.)

Maybe Luke is wrong.

Maybe Josephus is wrong.

One thing's certain. Somebody screwed up.


The conclusion one must come to is that Luke 2:1-2 cannot be dismissed as historically impossible....

Yes, but one can come to the conclusion that, for several reasons that passage completely ignored, the idea of a census in 4 BC is highly improbable.

You have to take more than just the Greek wording of one passage into account. At some point, you will find yourself stretching desperately to somehow "fit" the census in where it clearly doesn't belong, and all because you're willing to do anything to prove the Bible historically accurate, at all costs.

I'd think intellectual honesty would alert a scholar such as yourself when a stretch goes too far to be plausible, and that there is, in fact a far more reasonable explanation for the passage that implies a census in 4 BC.

That reason would be: it's a mistake. Just like the anachronism in Acts 5:36-37.

d

[diana]

Hi, weinerdog.

I fail to see why there need to be any "mythological parallels" for a myth to be born and to flourish. You're perhaps addressing the related hypothesis that the Jesus myth was an offshoot of existing myths. While I think it's possible, I don't think it's necessary.

The miracles attributed to Jesus you write off as unsubstantiated legends, tales and myth when they are applied to anyone else. But you make an exception in Jesus' case. I'm merely pointing out this double standard and saying, in order for there to be consistency, either all of them are equally substantiated or not at all.

As to Judaism and Christianity not being myth-friendly, I don't understand where this gets us, really. The argument I'm making is that I've not found any reason to believe Jesus ever even existed. From the existing evidence, it's just as plausible to speculate that the whole Jesus story was a myth (which, as you point out--thank you--thus saving me the trouble of explaining this point to Mr. Holding, "Myths take generations to arise").

To counter this with "Judaism and Christianity are not myth-friendly" is to suggest that Christianity was not friendly to itself and that Judaism was ever friendly to Christianity.

The fact that Christianity takes its God and history from Judaism does not contradict the idea that the basis for Christian belief is a myth, either.

Belief in a resurrected Jesus is just part of the entire myth I'm positing here. How do you know when it originated? All you know is when--and you only have speculation on that front--it was first written down. And your reference for this is 1 Cor, written by Paul. So he wrote in circa AD 54 that he believed Jesus crucified.

Viewed from the perspective that this may have been a myth entirely--and Paul certainly never claimed to have even met Jesus in the flesh--we have a story that a man has been convinced of to the point of religious fanaticism, and he writes it down. Are you following me yet?

When to myths start? When they're written down? I don't think even you think that. When did the Mithras myth start? How do you know?

This is why I keep coming back to the error of claiming that the Jesus myth had to have been born, bloomed and believed as fact within 30 years. This is a straw man. There's absolutely no reason to posit that the myth wasn't there for generations, as you yourself said, being passed down and fleshed out (so to speak ;)), until it was eventually assumed to be fact and written down.

You pointed out that "the gospels and Acts are not in the literary genre of mythology," that they are in the form of biographies with some history (inaccurate as it may be) tossed in. Are you suggesting that this somehow makes them true?

This is another straw man, by the way. I have repeatedly said that I think the story could have begun as myth. I don't argue that, by the time it was written down, people believed it actually happened. If you think something actually happened, wouldn't it bolster your story to couch it in eyewitness accounts and historical references? The fact that the story was presented as though it actually happened to people living just two or three generations before is quite consistent with the myth hypothesis.

I didn't at any point make the claim that the people who invented the story wrote it. I said it's quite possibly myth. Myth begins as a story, as you pointed out, to explain something or teach something. Events in myths tend to have meanings, as you pointed out. Myth keeps getting handed down, and the details change a bit, and details are added. The "events" morph with the people and times the story is relayed. At some point, people lose track of the fact that it is just a story.

The stories related to the Christopher Columbus drama have been passed down as fact. Someone, at some point, made the New World discovery more dramatic and made CC more likeable, and many of those myths about him are still taught as fact today.

By the time the NT was written, people obviously believed the Jesus tales.

d

[jpholding]

Ms Di-ameter,

Just a note, on Mithra, David Ulansey's book on Mithraic origins is taken as the authoritative word on this subject to date. :smile: If you are interested. He argues that it was started with the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes in the early BC era. Sorry I can't recall the exact date.

[diana]

Yesterday @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jpholding:

Ms Di-ameter,

Just a note, on Mithra, David Ulansey's book on Mithraic origins is taken as the authoritative word on this subject to date. :smile: If you are interested. He argues that it was started with the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes in the early BC era. Sorry I can't recall the exact date.

Yes. The best we can do is speculate as to where any myth came from.

My point exactly.

d

[stevencarrwork]

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

'Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.'

Well before Christianity started.

The author states 'Here in the end we may sense a profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity. ' Not sure where he gets that from , to be honest, but there you go, that's what he says.

[jpholding]

Er,

Yes. The best we can do is speculate as to where any myth came from.

Over the edge, Ms. Di-orama. His case is solid and grounded in firm historical detective work. Of course, if you wish to resort to the line that all history is bunk, help yourself. :smile:

Stevie, you haven't left yet? Why not? Stop wasting our time with sound bites. You know I have an article on Mithraism and if you haven't lost too much face, I'll debate you on that and put you to sleep yet again.

As for where Ulansey got that, read the next few sentences:

For early Christianity also contained at its core an ideology of cosmic transcendence. Nowhere is this better expressed than in the opening of the earliest gospel, Mark. There, at the beginning of the foundation story of Christianity, we find Jesus, at the moment of his baptism, having a vision of "the heavens torn open." Just as Mithras is revealed as a being from beyond the universe capable of altering the cosmic spheres, so here we find Jesus linked with a rupture of the heavens, an opening into the numinous realms beyond the furthest cosmic boundaries. Perhaps, then, the figures of Jesus and Mithras are to some extent both manifestations of a single deep longing in the human spirit for a sense of contact with the ultimate mystery.

In other words, no copycatting. Just commomalities with many religious traditions. Now go outside and play.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 04:36 PM
jpholding:


Stevie, you haven't left yet? Why not? Stop wasting our time with sound bites. You know I have an article on Mithraism and if you haven't lost too much face, I'll debate you on that and put you to sleep yet again.



Why should I debate about Mithraism? Boring subject.

Anyway I have my debate with Dee Dee lined up soon.

I shall be affirming the following proposition:-

RESOLVED that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

She will be denying that proposition.

[jpholding]

Why should I debate about Mithraism? Boring subject.

Nice dodge. You may be 15% smarter than I once gave you credit for. :thumb:

[diana]

Mr. Holding,

I find myself with time today, so 'tis time to answer your defense of Tacitus. First, I'd like to thank you for prompting me to research the matter further. I found something I probably would never have dug up otherwise. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html) It would appear that you have enemies. This one further appears to be an enemy who has done his homework.

I leave that for anyone who wishes to read both sides of the "Shattering the Christ-Myth" argument.

Most, if not all, of my comments are responses to points you made in your article on Tacitus here (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html).

As I’ve already said, I don’t take the position that the passage is a forgery, because to do so, I’d need evidence that it isn’t genuine, which I don’t have. However, I’d like to point out that the reasons you list in favor of genuineness of the passage aren’t very strong, themselves. To wit: “The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it.”

To begin with, the lack of extant copies prior to the 11th C. would bother me a bit, were I arguing for the authenticity of this passage. This in itself is not really damning, though. The same can be said for much of ancient literature. However, even you tacitly admit the lateness of all extant copies takes any “bang” out of the implication that this passage's appearance in extant every copy of the Annals means anything.

I don’t think inserting a short passage into the middle of several volumes that were being copied by hand and managing to give it an authentic "perfect Tacitiean style" would be difficult at all. I'd be far more impressed with this argument if the author was distinctive and difficult to emulate--like Shakespeare, say--and we could positively identify this style for the length of a play or a book, or even for an entire essay. The assertion that one paragraph in a 15-volume work is in "perfect Tacitean style" is not a terribly strong argument.

The distinctly anti-Christian tone, of course, could simply be a reflection of lessons learned from past, less successful interpolations (such as Josephus). It is, as you noted, particularly vicious. If I were trying to emulate Tacitus' style, I'd have no problem saying some nasty things in the name of pious fraud, as his “style” would necessarily include not only how he arranged sentences and thoughts, but his attitudes toward any given subject, as well.

None of the reasons you’ve listed strike me as particularly strong arguments for authenticity. But be that as it may, as I’ve said, I bring no particularly strong arguments against it, either. So I’ll work from the premise that the passage is, indeed, authentic.

You mentioned that “indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers.” I’m curious. What are these indications?

As far as the “accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus,” I suspect he, no doubt, showed incredible accuracy, care, critical capability and trustworthiness in the things that were important to him. To imply that care demonstrated in certain things necessarily implies care in all things is to commit the fallacy of composition.

In addition, you have already admitted that he, no doubt, simply repeated what was accepted as true in his day. For a historian to do this without checking his sources (and how would he, even if he was so inclined?) is to run the chance of sacrificing the accuracy, care, critical ability and trustworthiness you say he usually employed.

You stated: “That Tacitus got his information from Christians is disproven by the negative tone of the reference.” Non sequitor. The personal opinion Tacitus put into any records he wrote says nothing about where he got his information.

As you yourself have said repeatedly, why would he doubt something that "common knowledge" claimed was true? I'll add: Why would he even care if their "pernicious superstition" was based upon fact or fiction? Why would the beliefs of such an unimportant religious sect—one that was so unknown that Tacitus felt obliged to explain anything about them to his contemporaries—matter at all to a man who recorded the lives and deeds of the ruling class?

The passage here is about Nero, you remember. According to your own Tacitean scholars, the lives and deeds of the Caesars were Tacitus’ focus, and what he had reason to be skeptical (and careful, etc) about. (I note he even made a point of saying that Nero was believed to have started the conflagration that he ended up blaming on Christians.) Any information about who the Christians were or where they may have gotten their name, if authentic, would have been entirely incidental to what Tacitus was about.

Again, according to your own list of Tacitean scholars, he wasn't 100% accurate. He carefully chose his sources and interjected his own viewpoint.

And he admittedly made a couple of mistakes. I submit to you that if he was going to make a mistake, as your list of scholars admit he did, this would be one of the places he'd be most likely to.

You remark “That Tacitus got his information on Jesus, or some of it, from Pliny originally is quite possible.” That would be Pliny the Younger, I take it. The one born in AD 61, who would have, of course not witnessed Jesus' ministry and miracles, either.

You said, “In Books 11-16 of the Annals (the Jesus cite is in 15)….” I’m sorry. Did you say the Jesus cite? My copy doesn't have that. To be fair to the text and your readers, it would properly be known as “the Christus cite.” Throughout your piece on Tacitus, however, you use the two as though they are interchangeable.

They are not. Far from it. Considering oneself the follower of a messiah (Christus--Christian), as this passage speaks of, is not the same as claiming to follow a man named Jesus.

In keeping with the myth hypothesis, the “Jesus” part may have not yet been a common part of the story. Also, the distinction between “Christus” and “Jesus” is important in that Tacitus and any non-biased sources would surely have used “Jesus” instead of “Christus,” which was a religious title, not a given name.

You imply that the Christus passage was carefully researched because it “comes in the middle of one of Tacitus' most carefully-documented works. I note, in checking your references, that he seems to note exactly when he gets his information from a specific source. However, I note no such reference in the Christus passage.

You commented that “he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians.” Aside from this being sheer speculation on your part, it runs contrary to another argument you have made. To wit: due to his contempt for Christians, he’d have been pleased to report that their founder had been crucified.

Note also what Tacitus doesn't report: that this Christus character rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Why would Tacitus have reason to doubt that a sect of crazy people worshipped a man who'd supposedly been crucified by the Romans 100 years before? That much at least plausible—and a perfect opportunity to mock Christians.

One of the Tacitus scholars you quote (Mellor), as a matter of fact, says (with your paraphrasing): “Tacitus' special contempt for the lower classes and his bias against Eastern religions, which he says ‘got the better of his judgement’ causing him to think them ‘unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavished in court intrigues.’”

This would appear to support my take on the passage in question, rather than yours. According to a scholar you yourself have quoted, Christianity wasn’t of particular interest to Tacitus. As a matter of fact (according to Mellor), his biases left him simply not giving a flip. Mellor admits Tacitus “accepted a hodge-podge of truth and falsehood with little critical analysis.”

You attempt to discount this little problem with your assertion that, in spite of this admitted bias, “Tacitus is still sufficiently trustworthy” and “there is no indication that Tacitus' bias had any effect on the Jesus reference.” (Again, ‘tis a tiny point, I know, but it’s “the Christus reference,” not “the Jesus reference.”) Both of your attempts to explain away Mellor’s admission of Tacitus’ bias toward Christianity that provoked little critical analysis on his part are rather sad. What Mellor said was that Tacitus is not, in fact, trustworthy with regards to this subject, and precisely why. His admitted lack of interest or care in this area is sufficient reason to suspect the Christus reference. Simply contradicting what Mellor said does nothing to actually address the specific problems he points out.

Moreover, these problems present an insurmountable problem for you if you wish to posit that this passage is somehow exempt from Tacitus’ bias towards Christianity, his lack of interest in Christianity, and his lack of critical review regarding Christianity.

You added that Mellor says (again, with your paraphrasing), “in spite of Tacitus' bias, ‘there is no evidence that he invented or suppressed the facts.’” Of course, no one claimed he "invented" or "suppressed" the facts here--only that he accepted the claims of Christians uncritically. That would make your quoting this comment of Mellor's rather pointless.

Where Tacitus specialized and had interest, I have no doubt he confirmed his information where possible. I also have no doubt that he would not have knowingly reported an inaccuracy.

You make an interesting comment that “Tacitus' bias led him to say things that were disparaging, which means that out of contempt for Christianity, he would have reported any rumor or indication that Jesus was a fiction, or had not really been sentenced to death.”

Of course, we have no indication at all that Tacitus had even heard of a person named “Jesus,” but because I’ve made this point a couple of times already, I’ll stop mentioning it. If our readership hasn’t seen by now where you’re fudging the facts on this matter, I doubt any further repetition will help matters.

Anyhow. You paint a picture of a Tactitus who would have been anxious to report “any rumor or indication that Jesus was a fiction or had not really been sentenced to death.” By the same token, I suppose Tacitus would have been quite pleased to report the disparaging news that Christus hadn’t actually risen from the dead, either. Were it true, I mean. This was, after all, part and parcel to what the Christians claimed to believe.

What I’m getting at is this: based upon your reasoning, which assumes Tacitus was reporting facts and would have leapt at the chance to point out where the Christians had been duped, he’d have quite happily reported that their “messiah” was just dead, period, and hadn’t in fact risen from the dead—which is, as Paul says, the very cornerstone of their faith. But Tacitus doesn’t mention this. It must mean—again, by your reasoning—that he knew it was true.

So why wasn't Tacitus a Christian?

You say, “Tacitus' bias did not allow him to descend into wholesale fabrication.” You appear to waste a great deal of time beating this straw man. As far as I know, no one has claimed that Tacitus made up anything, only that he repeated hearsay uncritically.

Now to Pilate, the part I know you’ve been waiting for.

Mr. Carrier said, “Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts [prefect and procurator] simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit.”

He makes the best argument I've stumbled across yet. I'm still not sure I accept this, though. Pilate is recorded in history as a prefect and a governor. If Tacitus was a sucker for taking extreme care, checking of sources, unbiasedness and checking of details as you claim, I think this would be accurate.

I could see Tacitus insulting the Christians. But this is Pilate we’re talking about.

You quote Sanders as citing “inscriptional evidence that the position held by Pilate was called ‘prefect’ in 6-41 A.D., but ‘procurator’ in the years 44-66, so he deduces that Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar.” This makes no sense in light of (1) your earlier comment that “indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers,” or (2) Tacitus uses the term "prefect" freely and without explanation so much elsewhere in The Annals.

You say “Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 111] note that Tacitus often uses ‘archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary’ and also ‘avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms.’” So now Tacitus isn’t accurate, careful, critical and trustworthy?

You say, “They do not cite the prefect/procurator issue specifically, but it is worth asking, in light of this comment, if the usage might not have been simply part of Tacitus' normal practice.” Not, like I said, judging from Tacitus' occasional uses of the title elsewhere in the Annals, unless you wish to argue he tossed them about indiscriminately, but we’d again call his care, accuracy and trustworthiness into question.

The fact that “the NT itself tended towards the direction of using ‘Christ’ as though it were a proper name” does not explain why Tacitus would use this religious title instead of “Jesus,” even if he had access to this source. The NT forwards the idea that Jesus was the Christ, so it’s no wonder that it would “tend” to use the two interchangeably. What remains a wonder is that Tacitus with his disdain and obvious contempt for Christians, would do so.

Also, if Tacitus had had access to this source, he’d have gotten Pilate’s position right and would have known that the Christians claimed their savior rose from the dead, and—by your logic, above—would have not passed up the opportunity to mock this claim accordingly (unless, as I already pointed out, he believed it, in which case I’m still wondering why he wasn’t a Christian himself).

You make the claim that “Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such....” Always? You support this rather sweeping assertion how?

You commented, “I am also bewildered by Lowder's argument that ‘(u)nless it can be shown that Tacitus actually doubted the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus' professionalism and integrity are not even relevant as Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the matter.’ Professionalism and integrity was one of Tacitus' most compelling motives for doing accurate history.”

You yourself have said and repeatedly used as argument the fact that certain people didn't doubt the historicity of Jesus. It's a matter of understanding that you simply accept certain things as fact, because it has never occurred to you to investigate them. This is usually because they lack any direct importance to you, personally. With the utmost professionalism and integrity, there's still a very human tendency to let things one deems "unimportant" slide as a "given." As I've already pointed out, why would Tacitus be looking into the presumed historicity of Christus?

In response to “If Tacitus reports a rumor without identifying it as such, we wouldn't know it,” you say, “Well, why not? So we are to assume based on non-evidence that Tacitus could be reporting rumors (or in this context, unconfirmed data would be a better term), even when he doesn't say he is, even when he is clearly in the habit of doing so?” When it occurs to him that something is a rumor, I think the evidence shows he checked into it. You are apparently stuck on the idea that the purported existence of a common (lowly, poor, class-discrimination-victim) criminal who supposedly was tacked to a board before any of the current three generations were even born and when the Romans had such a penchant for tacking people to boards was any cause for suspicion.

I’ve heard the defense that “If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been -- without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument centered on this subject.” I don’t understand how you can make such a claim, though. Many factors contribute to the likelihood of people questioning a claim.

In reply to my remark that "The best we can do is speculate as to where any myth came from," you said, "His case is solid and grounded in firm historical detective work. Of course, if you wish to resort to the line that all history is bunk, help yourself."

It's nice that his case is solid and grounded in firm historical detective work. I wonder why all Mithra scholars don't agree with him. And in what way does "good detective work" make any historical conclusions, particularly ancient ones, anything less that speculation?

BTW, you have thus asserted, by necessary inference, that "speculate" is synonymous with "bunk." You have thus obliterated your own argument for the historicity of Jesus, as it rests almost entirely upon speculation.

But if you wish to maintain such a ridiculous position, help yourself. :smile:

Tea and crumpets,

d

[stevencarrwork]

[i]Today @ 07:57 PM
As far as the 'accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus,' I suspect he, no doubt, showed incredible accuracy, care, critical capability and trustworthiness in the things that were important to him. To imply that care demonstrated in certain things necessarily implies care in all things is to commit the fallacy of composition.

Again, according to your own list of Tacitean scholars, he wasn't 100% accurate. He carefully chose his sources and interjected his own viewpoint.

And he admittedly made a couple of mistakes.



http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/histries/chap18.htm

According to Tacitus, the Drusilla who married Felix was the grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra. Acts 24 says she was Jewish.

Could a Jewis woman really have been the grand-daughter of Antomy and Cleopatra?

It seems Tacitus could make mistakes about Roman procurators of Judea - the very area in dispute.

[jpholding]

Could a Jewis woman really have been the grand-daughter of Antomy and Cleopatra?

No, Stevie, I guess conversion to Judaism was right near impossible. :dufus:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 08:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jpholding:

Could a Jewis woman really have been the grand-daughter of Antomy and Cleopatra?

No, Stevie, I guess conversion to Judaism was right near impossible. :dufus:

Is JP Holding claiming that the Drusilla who married Felix was a *convert* to Judaism?????

The daughter of Herod Agrippa 1 *converted* to Judaism?


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05165b.htm explains her relationship to the Herodian family, but curiously , unlike JP Molding's hero Tacitus, does not claim she was the grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra.

Perhaps JP should try the old 'There were two different people with the same name.' tactic , rather than claiming that the daughter of Herod Agrippa converted to Judaism.

I think a posting to Errancy might be in order, so that those poor deluded sceptics can learn that members of the Herodian family converted to Judaism.

Technically speaking, they did, of course, but became Jewish long before Drusilla was born


http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4611.htm

[jpholding]

Dear Ms. Di-alog,

I find myself with time today, so 'tis time to answer your defense of Tacitus.

I'll take it as flattery that you took the time to do research. That puts you in my top ten of intelligent Skeptics by itself. :thumb:

It would appear that you have enemies

Many, many hanging above my fireplace. Stevie os one of them.

This one further appears to be an enemy who has done his homework.

Wells himself? No, not really. He's considered by pro historians to be one of the cockroaches. I also stepped on him myself at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WWW.html in reply to what you cited. He has since gone down back his hole.

To Tacitus, the old heathen.... :brow: No, really, I think he and I would have gotten on well. He had a wicked sense of humor.

However, I’d like to point out that the reasons you list in favor of genuineness of the passage aren’t very strong, themselves

They are the tests that pro historians use, so you may inform them if you wish. :smile:

To begin with, the lack of extant copies prior to the 11th C. would bother me a bit, were I arguing for the authenticity of this passage. This in itself is not really damning, though. The same can be said for much of ancient literature. However, even you tacitly admit the lateness of all extant copies takes any “bang” out of the implication that this passage's appearance in extant every copy of the Annals means anything.

I rather don't think I admit any such thing, for by the canons of inquiry in such matters, that is taken as sufficient evidence for other lit, as you say so.

I don’t think inserting a short passage into the middle of several volumes that were being copied by hand and managing to give it an authentic "perfect Tacitiean style" would be difficult at all.

As one with a literary degree, I would have to disagree. Tacitus is a very distinctive writer -- though I have seen other doubters argue that THIS makes him easier to emulate. At such points I merely throw up my hands and leave. You came close to having me do this here:

The distinctly anti-Christian tone, of course, could simply be a reflection of lessons learned from past, less successful interpolations (such as Josephus).

Come, come, now, Ms. Di-melancholia. If this is suggested, then the theory (forgery) drives the facts, not the other way around. That's poor sport. Your tea just spilled and your crumpets just spoiled.

But since you will take it as authentic anyway...thus agreeing with all Tacitean scholars who we would think know their stuff...we move to:

You mentioned that “indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers.” I’m curious. What are these indications?

His vocabulary is of the sort that would only make sense to the group of aristrocrats of which he was part, plus he writes from a distinctive point of view that would appeal to such persons, as opposed to say, the illiterate farmer. Of course since 95-99% of persons in that age could not read anyway, and few cared about what he had to say (since it didn't help them be happier or better fed), that limited his audience to begin with.

In addition, you have already admitted that he, no doubt, simply repeated what was accepted as true in his day. For a historian to do this without checking his sources (and how would he, even if he was so inclined?) is to run the chance of sacrificing the accuracy, care, critical ability and trustworthiness you say he usually employed.

Do we need to check or report a source to report that:
1) Two planes hit the WTC on 9/11/2001?
2) Over 50 American hostages were held in Iran in 1979-1980?
3) Kennedy was assassinated?
4) Jimmy Hoffa is missing?
5) David Koresh perished in Waco?

I am now simply repeating what is accepted as true today. I did not check sources. Am I running any chances in so doing? Note that I went down a scale in importance of events. Yet this changes nothing.

The personal opinion Tacitus put into any records he wrote says nothing about where he got his information.

It rather does. If he reports negatively then he is certainly not merely copying Christian reports, which is the charge laid against him by Wells, et al. Unless you wish to argue that Christians of the era had very poor self-images. If he has opinions, then he has obviously thought a matter through to some extent and not merely accepted what he has been told.

As you yourself have said repeatedly, why would he doubt something that "common knowledge" claimed was true?

If it WAS common knowledge, as the above examples, then he has no reason to doubt. My point exactly.

Why would he even care if their "pernicious superstition" was based upon fact or fiction?

Doing his work accurately was a matter of personal pride and honor, and this before his peers. Keep in mind that this is in a day when honor was as valued as it now is by the Japanese. It is not so much that he cares about the sect or any of his subjects personally, as that he has a reputation to maintain.

I note he even made a point of saying that Nero was believed to have started the conflagration that he ended up blaming on Christians.

Yes, his standard way of telling the reader that it was rumor and not what he could confirm. A sort of qualification conspicuously missing from his reference to Christus.

Any information about who the Christians were or where they may have gotten their name, if authentic, would have been entirely incidental to what Tacitus was about.

Which in no way lessens his commitment to quality.

Again, according to your own list of Tacitean scholars, he wasn't 100% accurate. He carefully chose his sources and interjected his own viewpoint.

And this would affect the Christus citation, how?

And he admittedly made a couple of mistakes. I submit to you that if he was going to make a mistake, as your list of scholars admit he did, this would be one of the places he'd be most likely to.

Why?

I’m sorry. Did you say the Jesus cite?

Yes. I am writing for a popular readership. Do not nitpick, it does not become you. I already explained earlier why he uses Christus and why that is not a problem; there is no fudging here and you are once again acting beneath your dignity when you harp on this.

I note, in checking your references, that he seems to note exactly when he gets his information from a specific source. However, I note no such reference in the Christus passage.

What part of my article do you refer to? However, it was actually unusual in antiquity for a writer to name their sources.

You commented that “he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians.” Aside from this being sheer speculation on your part

There is not a scent of speculation about it. No one trusts sources they hold in contempt.

it runs contrary to another argument you have made. To wit: due to his contempt for Christians, he’d have been pleased to report that their founder had been crucified.

I do wish you would quote me when you do this. Not that it matters. Had he heard this from Christians alone, he would also have heard them say that Christus was vindicated, which would negate any immediate pleasure he would get to report the crucifixion based only on their report.

Note also what Tacitus doesn't report: that this Christus character rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Of course he doesn't. Do you think he would have believed it?

Why would Tacitus have reason to doubt that a sect of crazy people worshipped a man who'd supposedly been crucified by the Romans 100 years before?

I don't think he did, because of the common knowledge factor. But his integrity as a writer and his care would have led him to check things to the extent needed.

This would appear to support my take on the passage in question, rather than yours. According to a scholar you yourself have quoted, Christianity wasn’t of particular interest to Tacitus.

It does not take "lavish" interest to check as far as what was needed. I replied to this very criticism in my article, did you miss it?

Mellor clearly means (as is obvious by his reference to the reports of court intrigue) that Tacitus would not take the time to do an in-depth report on these subjects: the bare bones information his readers needed would be enough. He would not, therefore, go into things like the teachings of Christianity, church leadership and organization, etc. This has no relevance to the question of whether he would ensure that his bare-bones information was accurate, and the issue of his professionalism and integrity would remain intact.

Like my critic, you are overreading Mellor's statement.

Of course, no one claimed he "invented" or "suppressed" the facts here--only that he accepted the claims of Christians uncritically. That would make your quoting this comment of Mellor's rather pointless.

If he did not invent or suppress, then he also is not one to have accepted uncritically. The character he showed is against such practice.

By the same token, I suppose Tacitus would have been quite pleased to report the disparaging news that Christus hadn’t actually risen from the dead, either.
That is true. And the fact that he does NOT report any such thing
I take as positive evidence of the Resurrection, or at least of the inability of contemporaries to refute it.

So why wasn't Tacitus a Christian?

The same reason many are not today. They choose to believe in spite of the facts, not because of them. You did ask. :brow:

You appear to waste a great deal of time beating this straw man. As far as I know, no one has claimed that Tacitus made up anything, only that he repeated hearsay uncritically.

As I say, six of one, half dozen of the other. He's either critical or he isn't. If he is, falsehoods AND uncritical acceptance are both out of his league.

I could see Tacitus insulting the Christians. But this is Pilate we’re talking about.

And, what of it?

You quote Sanders as citing “inscriptional evidence that the position held by Pilate was called ‘prefect’ in 6-41 A.D., but ‘procurator’ in the years 44-66, so he deduces that Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar.” This makes no sense in light of (1) your earlier comment that “indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers,” or (2) Tacitus uses the term "prefect" freely and without explanation so much elsewhere in The Annals.

Why does it not make sense? His readers would be most familiar with the word procurator.

You say “Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 111] note that Tacitus often uses ‘archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary’ and also ‘avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms.’” So now Tacitus isn’t accurate, careful, critical and trustworthy?

No, he does what he does intentionally, which is sort of Carrier's point.

The fact that “the NT itself tended towards the direction of using ‘Christ’ as though it were a proper name” does not explain why Tacitus would use this religious title instead of “Jesus,” even if he had access to this source.

It rather does. If that was the most familiar name, it would bring the greatest recognition.

You make the claim that “Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such....” Always? You support this rather sweeping assertion how?

Based on the hsitorians whose work I used.

You yourself have said and repeatedly used as argument the fact that certain people didn't doubt the historicity of Jesus. It's a matter of understanding that you simply accept certain things as fact, because it has never occurred to you to investigate them. This is usually because they lack any direct importance to you, personally.

Did the Iranian hostage crisis lack any direct importance to you, personally? Koresh? (I am assuming you are at least my age or more.)

You are apparently stuck on the idea that the purported existence of a common (lowly, poor, class-discrimination-victim) criminal who supposedly was tacked to a board before any of the current three generations were even born and when the Romans had such a penchant for tacking people to boards was any cause for suspicion.

No, I am rather stuck on the idea that a figure whose death incited cause for concern, for a governor of the Romans, and whose followers started immediately thereafter a socially deviant movement with teachings that undermined the Roman social order, is not one whose fate would have been of no concern to those in his time and later. In other words I read the social world of the NT in more than one dimension.

I don’t understand how you can make such a claim, though. Many factors contribute to the likelihood of people questioning a claim.

List them. Please do not generalize.

I wonder why all Mithra scholars don't agree with him.

Most do, actually, on the main points. There are of course discussions over minor points, like Spiedel's identification, and of course those who wrote BEFORE he did (like Cumont) and/or are now dead could hardly disagree with him. Who are you thinking of?

And in what way does "good detective work" make any historical conclusions, particularly ancient ones, anything less that speculation?

That it is grounded in realities. Of course, as I say, if you wish to be that way, you have just reduced almost all historical reportage to being worthless. Suit yourself. :smile:

[jpholding]

Is JP Holding claiming that the Drusilla who married Felix was a *convert* to Judaism?????

No. JPHolding is making a mockery of your rather stupid question implying that there is some problem with a descendant of Cleopatra and Anthony being Jewish.

I think a posting to Errancy might be in order, so that those poor deluded sceptics can learn that members of the Herodian family converted to Judaism.

Post your stupid question with it so they can see you in action. That makes how many in the last 7 years? 6,865? Of course the Herods themselves were Edomites, as I recall, so they weren't exactly Jews by birth either, now were they?

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM [
[i]I think a posting to Errancy might be in order, so that those poor deluded sceptics can learn that members of the Herodian family converted to Judaism.

Post your stupid question with it so they can see you in action. That makes how many in the last 7 years? 6,865? Of course the Herods themselves were Edomites, as I recall, so they weren't exactly Jews by birth either, now were they?

I quoted 'Ask a Rabbi', which stated that the family had long since converted to Judaism. It seems JP Scolding knows better than Jewish rabbis who is Jewish and who is not.


Still, we all make mistakes. I ,for example, had no idea that there was a marked tendency for American-born Chinese to be completely dishonest, until JP posted an article saying that and defied sceptics to refute it.

[jpholding]

I quoted 'Ask a Rabbi', which stated that the family had long since converted to Judaism.

Then why did you ask your Stupid Skeptic Question re Antony and Cleopatra, Stevie? Hello?

Take your sun dog for a walk. :argh:

[Justin70]

Yesterday @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jpholding:

As for where Ulansey got that, read the next few sentences:

For early Christianity also contained at its core an ideology of cosmic transcendence. Nowhere is this better expressed than in the opening of the earliest gospel, Mark. There, at the beginning of the foundation story of Christianity, we find Jesus, at the moment of his baptism, having a vision of "the heavens torn open." Just as Mithras is revealed as a being from beyond the universe capable of altering the cosmic spheres, so here we find Jesus linked with a rupture of the heavens, an opening into the numinous realms beyond the furthest cosmic boundaries. Perhaps, then, the figures of Jesus and Mithras are to some extent both manifestations of a single deep longing in the human spirit for a sense of contact with the ultimate mystery.

In other words, no copycatting. Just commomalities with many religious traditions. Now go outside and play.

How does he come to the conclusion that there are was no 'copycatting'? Considering that Mithraism started in the Roman Empire a full century or so before Christianity showed up and showed quite a few similiarities? Are you aware of any other older religions that have distinct similarities to the 'historical' character of Jesus and what he did?

As for your debate with Diana regarding the Tactius passage. Lemme ask you a question: Assuming that the Tactius passage is authentic, what does that prove to you?

[stevencarrwork]

[i]Today @ 01:42 PM
Then why did you ask your Stupid Skeptic Question re Antony and Cleopatra, Stevie? Hello?

Take your sun dog for a walk. :argh:

As I pointed out , Tacitus wrote about a Roman procurator of Judea that he married the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, hence , Tacitus is not always accurate about the deeds of Roman procurators of Judea.

And JP Folding claimed that the daughter of Herod Agrippa was a *convert* to Judaism, rather than admit that Tacitus is not always accurate about the life and times Roman procurators.

[jpholding]

How does he come to the conclusion that there are was no 'copycatting'?

The similarities he gives are ALL universal religious paradigms. That is not copycatting.

As for your debate with Diana regarding the Tactius passage. Lemme ask you a question: Assuming that the Tactius passage is authentic, what does that prove to you?

It provides sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that the movement began in Palestine.

[jpholding]

As I pointed out , Tacitus wrote about a Roman procurator of Judea that he married the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, hence , Tacitus is not always accurate about the deeds of Roman procurators of Judea.

Why not?

And JP Folding claimed that the daughter of Herod Agrippa was a *convert* to Judaism

I didn't claim dip, Stevie. I just answered your Stupid Skeptic Question.

Let the adults converse in peace.

[diana]

Mr. Holding,

I am, as the title implies, bowing out of this conversation. This conversation has deteriorated so that it's practically impossible for me to keep up with whatever you're responding to, or what your point is, if any. My goal here was to afford you ample opportunity to support your viewpoint, and I believe I have done so.

Instead of offering reasons I should accept your assertions, you have responded with insults (although not as lavishly as you have deployed on others, and for that I suppose I should be thankful), appeals to authority, outright defensive comments that do nothing to explain or support your viewpoint, and, when necessary, you've resorted to simply dismissing points I've made or ignoring them outright.

In short, you've failed to provide a good reason I should accept Jesus as anything more than a myth, whether based upon a real man or not. I invited anyone who was up to it to accept the challenge to historically support Jesus the godman, but you furiously ignored this blatant challenge. Your failure to deliver speaks volumes to how much "historical" basis there truly is for your belief.

The Tacitus passage, if authentic, can only reasonably be said to report hearsay. You've provided no reason Tacitus would bother looking further into the reports by Christians that their founder was crucified. The historians you quote admit Tacitus didn't do his research on Christians or Jews--he didn't think them worthy.

There's also no reason to believe the name "Jesus" was common knowledge, then. Despite his alleged intensive research, there's no evidence that Tacitus was even aware of it.

You cling to the presumed reliability of Tacitus, yet he gets Pilate's position wrong in the very passage you claim he would have carefully researched even though the bit about the Christus followers was incidental to his narrative. You assert "procurator" would be understandable to Tacitus' audience, even though (a) it is inaccurate, and (b) Tacitus uses the term "prefect" freely throughout the Annals, demonstrating that he fully expected his audience to know what it meant. While I don't argue that Tacitus wanted to show his contempt for Christians, you have not addressed why he'd feel the need to insult Pilate by calling him "procurator."

I've tried several times to explain why hearsay is inadmissible as evidence. You have repeatedly responded with, "You still haven't explained why this is inadmissible as evidence." In so doing, you have done nothing to further your own position. You've succeeded only in showing the utter defenselessness of it.

The sizeable time difference between the presumed existence of Jesus and any records of same remains a huge problem for historical verification. Your denial of this does not change this fact.

As a side note, I see my simple rebuttal of the Herod the Great and Quirinius clash has met with silence, as well.

Instead of dealing with the arguments people make, you frequently opt to simply dismiss them as "fringe." Your insistence upon maintaining this stance only suggests to me that you don't, in fact, have any good refutations for their position. It's much easier for you to simply poison the well and walk away.

What you have produced as "evidence" of the historicity of Jesus is sadly inconclusive. When we add the fantastic stories that invariably accompany this character--feats that are otherwise freely attributed to other mythological characters--the most reasonable explanation remains that the Jesus story is a myth.

You have decided, based upon your preconceived idea of what's true and what isn't, which words of Tacitus (etc) are to be believed and which are to be dismissed. You don't think the Christians were the despicable people Tacitus paints them to be, and you bring a ready explanation why this is his opinion--not fact, and of course not supported by any research. But if in the same sentence he mentions a "Christus," you have decided that this is historical, adequately researched fact, period. You handwave over the "procurator" comment, which at the very least represents a research oversight, but cling to the very mention of a "Christus" and somehow stretch this into the assertion that this passage proves the historicity of Jesus--although there is no mention of Jesus in it.

You're clearly seeing what you want to see, and are being blind to the many problems that plague your "historical proof."

Thank you for your time. I have enjoyed our discourse.

I hereby leave the last word to you, as I'm sure you'll offer your usual rebuttal of quote fragments and comments that serve more to obfuscate than enlighten.

Tea and crumpets,

d

[jpholding]

Crumpet time, Ms. Di-ameter?

Instead of offering reasons I should accept your assertions, you have responded with insults

Hardly. Though I might as well be offended by your, erm, caricatures of my position and accusations. But I am not. :smile:

appeals to authority

Only such authorities as know their business, which is no fallacy.

outright defensive comments that do nothing to explain or support your viewpoint, and, when necessary, you've resorted to simply dismissing points I've made or ignoring them outright.

I rather doubt it. I think rather you are encapsulating things in a way to suggest that such was done, for lack of better response.

I invited anyone who was up to it to accept the challenge to historically support Jesus the godman, but you furiously ignored this blatant challenge.

I met it, and ran it over. :smile: See how easy it is?

The Tacitus passage, if authentic, can only reasonably be said to report hearsay.

You never did explain why "hearsay" was a problem. ah well.

You've provided no reason Tacitus would bother looking further into the reports by Christians that their founder was crucified.

I did. You missed it.

The historians you quote admit Tacitus didn't do his research on Christians or Jews--he didn't think them worthy.

I explained this as well. Instead of responding, you have bowed out. So be it.

There's also no reason to believe the name "Jesus" was common knowledge, then.

It probably wasn't in the way you're suggesting. Yeshua was a common Jewish name that held by 9% of 1st century Jewish men. It would have been meaningless to Tacitus' readers.

Despite his alleged intensive research, there's no evidence that Tacitus was even aware of it.

I gave you many reasons for his use of Christus. You ignored them.

You cling to the presumed reliability of Tacitus, yet he gets Pilate's position wrong

I corrected you on that as well. Your reply was marginal and made no sense, I see now because you misunderstood Carrier's point. He was not saying it was an insult to Pilate per se, but to Jesus -- "And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. " You missed the point.

I've tried several times to explain why hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

You did no such thing, and my question was not "why is it inadmissible" but "why is it to be counted as unrelaible."

The sizeable time difference between the presumed existence of Jesus and any records of same remains a huge problem for historical verification. Your denial of this does not change this fact.

It also destroys all attempts to reach history through historians. You never answered this point with more than a shrug.

As a side note, I see my simple rebuttal of the Herod the Great and Quirinius clash has met with silence, as well.

Don't get cocky. Jaltus is a busy student and he is also a mod. I have more time than others here.

Instead of dealing with the arguments people make, you frequently opt to simply dismiss them as "fringe."

I do so as well as dealing with arguments, which I did do.

What you have produced as "evidence" of the historicity of Jesus is sadly inconclusive.

What I have produced is an 18 wheeler crushing all it runs across. See how easy it is? :smile:

You don't think the Christians were the despicable people Tacitus paints them to be

On the contrary. I agree that in the Roman world, the Christians would indeed have been despicable. See Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them for research.

You're clearly seeing what you want to see, and are being blind to the many problems that plague your "historical proof."

You are clearly projecting, and are tired of your world being disturbed. See how easy it is? No hard feelings.

Thank you for your time. I have enjoyed our discourse.

As have I. Thank you as well.

as I'm sure you'll offer your usual rebuttal of quote fragments and comments that serve more to obfuscate than enlighten.

They might indeed confuse those whose thinking is not systematic. :brow: Take care.

[wienerdog]

It appears Monsignior Holding may have scared off Diana, so my following response to her may not be read. Thanks a lot JP! Oh well.


I fail to see why there need to be any "mythological parallels" for a myth to be born and to flourish. You're perhaps addressing the related hypothesis that the Jesus myth was an offshoot of existing myths. While I think it's possible, I don't think it's necessary.
Well, there doesn't need to be. That's just a common argument. The idea behind it is that myths tend to be about the same kind of things. Given the arguments I gave, why do you think it's possible?


The miracles attributed to Jesus you write off as unsubstantiated legends, tales and myth when they are applied to anyone else. But you make an exception in Jesus' case. I'm merely pointing out this double standard and saying, in order for there to be consistency, either all of them are equally substantiated or not at all.
Well, the reason they are written off in other circumstances is because the other circumstances don't have as much historical evidence in their favor, and thus they are not equally substantiated to Jesus. To say "if you're going to Jesus' miracles, you have to accept everyone else's too" can be refuted by substituting any other term for "miracles." For example, "If you're going to accept Julius Caesar's military exploits, you have to accept everyone else's too." You have to judge each particular case by its merits. To point out that there are bogus claims of miracles in world history doesn't say anything about Jesus' miracles in particular. There are bogus claims of all kinds of things, and this doesn't mean that these things never actually happen.


As to Judaism and Christianity not being myth-friendly, I don't understand where this gets us, really.
Where this gets us is that it is historically absurd to claim that people within such a society could believe that a completely or largely fictitious character was historical within the space of only a few years. The timing of Jesus' life is a part of this story. That is, by the mid-30s AD, they thought that just a few years prior, a man named Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhedrin (roughly equivalent to the Supreme Court), paraded around town, publically tortured and crucified, and then rose from the dead.


The argument I'm making is that I've not found any reason to believe Jesus ever even existed. From the existing evidence, it's just as plausible to speculate that the whole Jesus story was a myth (which, as you point out--thank you--thus saving me the trouble of explaining this point to Mr. Holding, "Myths take generations to arise").
Would you agree that this can be applied to Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon as well? The evidence for this is comparable to the evidence for Jesus. And even historical relativists, who deny history almost entirely, admit that there is a common historical core of facts that simply can't be denied without resorting to absurdity. Caesar's crossing the Rubicon is included in those facts.


To counter this with "Judaism and Christianity are not myth-friendly" is to suggest that Christianity was not friendly to itself and that Judaism was ever friendly to Christianity.
? I don't understand this statement.


The fact that Christianity takes its God and history from Judaism does not contradict the idea that the basis for Christian belief is a myth, either.
Well, what do you mean by myth? Do you mean that it's false? The fact that Christianity takes its God and history from Judaism does not mean that it is necessarily true. What it means is that the Christian faith arose in a historically minded environment which was particularly hostile to mythological elaboration.


Belief in a resurrected Jesus is just part of the entire myth I'm positing here. How do you know when it originated?
The same way I know how belief in any historical personage or series of events happened. Historical evidence. That's how I know that, for example, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.


All you know is when--and you only have speculation on that front--it was first written down.
Historical methodology is not speculation. If you really think this, I suggest you contact a few scholars and tell them this. If you apply the criticism that you're applying to Jesus consistently, you would have to deny essentially all of ancient history.


And your reference for this is 1 Cor, written by Paul. So he wrote in circa AD 54 that he believed Jesus crucified.
That's when Paul wrote that letter. The creed that he quotes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is dated by scholars to the mid-30s AD. Even the ridiculously biased Joseph McCabe wrote that Paul firmly believed that Jesus was God incarnate and physically rose from the dead within ten years of the alleged crucifixion. The point of this is that it's simply not enough time for myth (not urban legends, but myth) to arise.


Viewed from the perspective that this may have been a myth entirely--and Paul certainly never claimed to have even met Jesus in the flesh--we have a story that a man has been convinced of to the point of religious fanaticism, and he writes it down. Are you following me yet?
Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee, and it's historically absurd to posit that such a man could have believed what he did about Jesus, and that he believed it all happened only a few years ago, when it was "myth entirely."


When to myths start? When they're written down? I don't think even you think that. When did the Mithras myth start? How do you know?
I have no idea when the Mithra myth started, except to say that it wasn't until several generations had passed from whatever historical base may have been at its core that it could have been significantly divergent from this core. That's how mythological development works. Universally.


This is why I keep coming back to the error of claiming that the Jesus myth had to have been born, bloomed and believed as fact within 30 years. This is a straw man. There's absolutely no reason to posit that the myth wasn't there for generations, as you yourself said, being passed down and fleshed out (so to speak ;)), until it was eventually assumed to be fact and written down.
No reason? Historical evidence doesn't count for anything? The historical evidence which doesn't convince you has convinced virtually all scholars that Jesus existed and was crucified. N. T. Wright calls the crucifixion one of the most certain facts in world history. Do you seriously think that if I applied your skepticism to Julius Caesar, I wouldn't end up doubting his existence and the events of his life (such as crossing the Rubicon) as well?


You pointed out that "the gospels and Acts are not in the literary genre of mythology," that they are in the form of biographies with some history (inaccurate as it may be) tossed in. Are you suggesting that this somehow makes them true?
I'm suggesting that this makes them history and not myth. I'm not suggesting this means they have no errors, even intentional ones. But to claim that they are entirely invented is to claim that these ancient documents were written down in a literary style/genre that wasn't invented until about 200 years ago. Do you not see how ridiculously implausible this is? Do you not see how suspicious this looks to read the Bible as if it were written in a genre that didn't exist in the ancient world, but is quite common in ours?


This is another straw man, by the way. I have repeatedly said that I think the story could have begun as myth. I don't argue that, by the time it was written down, people believed it actually happened.
Well, a collection of Jesus' sayings, dubbed "Q" was supposedly being written in the 40s AD, Paul's letters were being written by AD 49, and the gospels had begun to be written by the 60s AD at the latest. To suggest that they could have been significantly divergent from the facts would require them to be completely unparallelled in literary history. William Lane Craig wrote that "The letters of Barnabus and Clement refer to Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus’ miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Quadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a nonmiraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions. These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. (Reasonable Faith, italics mine) That's important: that the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions.


If you think something actually happened, wouldn't it bolster your story to couch it in eyewitness accounts and historical references?
First of all, as C. S. Lewis said, the idea of inventing little insignificant details to make a story sound more realistic is a purely modern art. It did not exist in the ancient world. Moreover, this would not make it a myth, it would make it a lie, something which you just rejected.


The fact that the story was presented as though it actually happened to people living just two or three generations before is quite consistent with the myth hypothesis.
Well, first, it wasn't presented as having occurred to people a few generations before. It was presented as having occurred to people a few years before. Second, two or three generations isn't enough time for a historical personage or series of events to become myth, as Craig's quote demonstrates. Third, this is radically inconsistent with the myth hypothesis, since myths are always set "outside of time" in the sense that they're meant to be archetypal. To place them within time would disallow them from representing an eternal human condition.


I didn't at any point make the claim that the people who invented the story wrote it. I said it's quite possibly myth. Myth begins as a story, as you pointed out, to explain something or teach something. Events in myths tend to have meanings, as you pointed out.
Right so far.


Myth keeps getting handed down, and the details change a bit, and details are added.
Wrong. Myth never works this way. There is no such thing as "details" in myth, if that means elements with no apparent significance. Whatever changes are made are changes in what the story means or signifies.


The "events" morph with the people and times the story is relayed. At some point, people lose track of the fact that it is just a story.
Again, whatever morphing takes place changes the nature of the story. At any rate, it takes a long time for this to occur, and as I've argued, there are only four or five years, not generations, between Jesus' crucifixion and the 1 Cor 15 creed.


The stories related to the Christopher Columbus drama have been passed down as fact. Someone, at some point, made the New World discovery more dramatic and made CC more likeable, and many of those myths about him are still taught as fact today.
That someone was Washington Irving. About 1830 he wrote his story about Columbus and changed the facts around, but represented it as true. This wasn't a myth, this was a lie. You've already argued against this yourself, and your final statement


By the time the NT was written, people obviously believed the Jesus tales.
confirms this. Thus the urban legends about Coumbus, and all urban legends for that matter, do not parallel Jesus at all.

[jpholding]

Fear not, wiener. Plenty of lurkers to read your response. Will do them a lot of good, I assure you.

Woof! :tongue: Pant pant pant.

[Drummer]

I have read the scriptures and the fact that there are so many holes and mistakes within means I can not take the story of Jesus as a real figure seriously at all.
From my understanding of Roman and Jewish law, very little is correct within the pages of the NT. Pilate was not even Prefect of the area where Jesus was supposoedly killed and the Jews did not have the authority to crucify. Even if they did they certainly would not have crucified a Jew on the passover. Bearing in mind it took 2 to 3 days for a person to die this way.
The writers of the NT then bring Roman soldiers into the equation on the side of the Jews and this does not resemble my understanding of a typical Roman soldier of the period. The Romans had no real respect for the Jews or their god, especially since the Jews had been crushed underfoot. The situation would more likely have been that the Romans would have thanked their own gods for their success, not the Jewish god for his failure. Failure was not a thing a Roman soldier had any respect for.

The constant excuses Christians give for the flaws in the arguments they present, for the lack of union in the writers of the gospels, and the early Christian fathers such as Polycarp and Irenaeus are not something a historian of any credibility or honour, would ever use.
The more I read Christian literature the further away from it I move. One thing that I cannot accept is that Jesus never denounced slavery. There is no point saying "Jesus lived in an age of slavery and so can be excused" because we must expect more from a god. Could this god not feel the suffering of the slaves ? Could he not see a parallel in the Jewish situation under the Romans and that of the slaves ? He who is said to have been of gentle spirit to the extent that Jesus was, could never have spoken of slavery the way the Jesus in the NT does.

Not only that, we are faced with the fact that Jesus failed miserably and did not achieve any of the things he set out to do. The Romans remained in power, the Jews had to do without their saviour, and the real battle for the Jews with the Romans was years in the future. When it came it left them a shattered people, completely under the Roman yoke. The Jews were never able to shrug them off and it was the result of the actions of another race that removed the Romans from the area. The world did not end and the Christ that could present himself to the Jews as their saviour never arrived.
The Jews have always denied the arrival of their Messiah, a Messiah they had been awaiting desperately for many many years. Why did they reject Jesus ? Because they knew him ? This seems more plausible.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wow, what a collection of totally missing the point of the NT and loving to show it off. Oh well..... you sure dug an old thread out of the musty closet... cough, cough... I hope JP is still subscribed to this thread.

[jpholding]

(dusting off mold)

I have read the scriptures and the fact that there are so many holes and mistakes within means I can not take the story of Jesus as a real figure seriously at all.

Nothing like a vague generalization to get the blood going.

From my understanding of Roman and Jewish law, very little is correct within the pages of the NT.

TWO of 'em, by gum.

Pilate was not even Prefect of the area where Jesus was supposoedly killed

Er, WHAT??????? This one is rich. Please DO explain -- I know of no one who thinks Pilate was not prefect over Judaea at that time.

and the Jews did not have the authority to crucify.

And they didn't. Rome did it for them. Pilate's was challenging them to break the law.

Even if they did they certainly would not have crucified a Jew on the passover.

*snork*

Er, yes they WOULD, if they were trying him as a seducer under the rubric of Deut. 13. Besides which, the Romans did all the dirty work and didn't give dip about the Passover.

Bearing in mind it took 2 to 3 days for a person to die this way.

So? That's how long every victim took to die, huh? Got your stats for this?

The writers of the NT then bring Roman soldiers into the equation on the side of the Jews and this does not resemble my understanding of a typical Roman soldier of the period.

HUH??? Oh, this is rich....

The Romans had no real respect for the Jews or their god, especially since the Jews had been crushed underfoot. The situation would more likely have been that the Romans would have thanked their own gods for their success, not the Jewish god for his failure.

Geh -- pfft -- where on EARTH do you get the idea that a Roman was "thanking" the Jewish God for ANYTHING?

The constant excuses Christians give for the flaws in the arguments they present, for the lack of union in the writers of the gospels, and the early Christian fathers such as Polycarp and Irenaeus are not something a historian of any credibility or honour, would ever use.

Wow, third vague generalization in a message! That's not a record, though! :rofl:

One thing that I cannot accept is that Jesus never denounced slavery. There is no point saying "Jesus lived in an age of slavery and so can be excused" because we must expect more from a god. Could this god not feel the suffering of the slaves ?

"Suffering"? Slaves in that day and age suffered no more than anyone else did on average. They were also able to become prominent people and could obtain incredible power and privilege. You probably know zip about NT-era slavery and how it worked and are plastering Kunte Kinte's face on it. BTW, if you hate slavery, may we assume you do not have any credit cards?

Not only that, we are faced with the fact that Jesus failed miserably and did not achieve any of the things he set out to do.

Like what? Nowhere does he say he will kick the Romans out. He established the reign of the Kingdom of God which is clearly expressed as an ideological rule, not a political one. And he predicted that the Jews would be shattered and did not predict that the world would end, but that the age would.

Why did they reject Jesus ? Because they knew him ? This seems more plausible.

It's a less plausible idea coming from someone addicted to sound bites and bad homework. Pony up.

[chsalvia]

Drummer...that was really bad. I mean seriously, I cringed reading your post. No wonder Christians don't take most skeptics seriously.

Have you even read the New Testament?

[BeHereNow]

chsalvia:

Drummer...that was really bad. I mean seriously, I cringed reading your post. No wonder Christians don't take most skeptics seriously.

Have you even read the New Testament?

:flaming:

[Jaltus]

:flameproof:

[Bill the Cat]

:fire:

[-JGR]

JPHolding,
I'm sorry for resurrecting this ancient thread, but as I see it has already been done once before to this thread so I assume it's OK? :)

Pherhaps I should have started a new thread on this... but in this thread (on page 2) you very nicely touch a subject I would want to discuss with such knowledgeable theists as I see frequent this site.



I do wish you would quote me when you do this. Not that it matters. Had he heard this from Christians alone, he would also have heard them say that Christus was vindicated, which would negate any immediate pleasure he would get to report the crucifixion based only on their report.
Note also what Tacitus doesn't report: that this Christus character rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Of course he doesn't. Do you think he would have believed it?

It is your statement (in bold) that I want to discuss.

You seem to imply with certainty that Tacitus would not believe reports of Jesus Christ and his miracles.

Why do you believe this of Tacitus?

The thing is.. I totally agree with you... it is probable that he would not believe such tales even if he heard them.

And here we come to the thing i would like to discuss with you people. The New Testament quite clearly requires one to believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior, or else you go to hell or whatever you choose to believe from that point.

However for one to believe in Christ as the savior, when you already believe something else..well that is no easy task..
How much do you people consider psychology when debating how likely/rational Gods actions are?

If a person has one view of the world... it requires something really extraordinary to turn that view around. And it should be repeated several times.. to give it a chance to sink in... or it simply won't stick.. And this counts for _all_ people. I have no delussions of converting anyone with this post because i know that changing ones outlook on life requires LOTS !

A drastic example of this would be the church fathers that wouldn't believe that the earth was not the center of the universe. They even imprisoned Galileo for saying so. And this was after Copernicus had made the same claims.
In fact they heard Galileos arguments twice before they imprisoned him.
But as we know Galileo didn't surrender and others saw he was right.
But this severly frightened people, neither the common man nor the church fathers _wanted_ to believe any such thing because it was simply to far fetched according to their current world view.
I hope we agree so far ?

With this in mind, let us now look at the bible.
I am not going to say that the bible is incorrect in any way now, that is not the debate I am after here.
But I will say that according to my world view the bible leaves enough room for doubt that _I _ find it more likely that it is false than true.
And as such I choose not to follow it, (nor any other religion).
I have read the whole thing btw so telling me I dont understand it or some such thing won't help since.. In my oppinion I have already made a more than sufficent effort at understanding it.
If Jesus really wanted me to believe in him, he would need to do far more than he has done.
Wether this be because I have had a bad upbringing, have had bad influence, am to sceptical by nature, or by choice or whatever is irrelevant..

The bottom line is that if Jesus had done more.. something I could in some way verify myself.. I would have no problem believing in him.
But he didnt do that. He didn't even do enough to make it uncertain that Tacitus didn't believe it.

Why is that? did he not want me (or Tacitus) to join him and the rest of you believers in heaven when the time is ripe? The trinity knows all that was,is, and shall be doesn't it.. So they must have known the actions they performed would not be sufficient to include me.. and _billions_ of others.

I have asked this question of many christians even priests, and their only reply is that they have faith in God doing the correct thing.
Does anyone here have any other explanations for this ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.
btw I actually want answers from anyone on this not just Holding.

[chsalvia]

I have asked this question of many christians even priests, and their only reply is that they have faith in God doing the correct thing.
Does anyone here have any other explanations for this ?

These are all very insightful points you make here. Whether or not belief in Christianity is possible for any given individual comes down to personal disposition, the individual's own evaluation of the evidence against the backdrop of his or her knowledge and understanding of reality, and the degree of skepticism that he or she is naturally or experientially inclined to hold. In other words, it is mostly subjective. And indeed, this is one of the largest problems I find with Christianity. How can such a subjective process be used to determine such an important thing as one's personal salvation or damnation?

Unfortunately, Christians themselves usually do not accept that the process of coming to believe in Christianity is so subjective. They believe the evidence is convincing enough so that anyone who seriously considers it will be moved by the Holy Spirit to accept the resurrection of Christ as truth. They do not believe that it is even possible for someone to consider the evidence carefully and not be compelled to believe. Therefore, when they are confronted with unbelievers who have studied the evidence and found it lacking, their recourse is usually to conclude that the unbeliever has some emotional obstacle that is preventing him from rationally evaluating the evidence - e.g. pride, an aversion to religion, the desire to be free from a moral standard, the fear of being accountable for one's actions, etc.

Of course, if these Christians could only get into the head's of certain atheists, they would find that in many cases, there are no such obstacles. Many people are sincere in their quest for truth, and I know that many atheists would actually prefer Christianity to be true. (Who in their right mind wouldn't want to accept the free gift of eternal life?) But...alas, many Christians refuse to accept that, since in accepting that it would seem to indicate an act of unfairness on the part of God. Oh well, what can you do?

[jpholding]

I'm sorry for resurrecting this ancient thread, but as I see it has already been done once before to this thread so I assume it's OK? :)

I'll live with it. :teeth:

Why do you believe this of Tacitus?

Tacitus brims over with prejudices against crucial elements of Christianity -- Judaistic connections in particular, but also a skepticism for the miraculous. I don't say he could not have changed his mind later, though we have no evidence for it.

If a person has one view of the world... it requires something really extraordinary to turn that view around. And it should be repeated several times.. to give it a chance to sink in... or it simply won't stick..

I'm not sure I'd agree. But perhaps that's because I'm not like that and can't
see how other people could be. It also depends on what the views consist of and how they were arrived at and why they are held.

I have read the whole thing btw so telling me I dont understand it or some such thing won't help since.. In my oppinion I have already made a more than sufficent effort at understanding it.

I'd have to administer a test to believe that. :smile: How do you assume not to be moving the goalposts so that what level you have arrived at is deemed "sufficient"?

To address chsalvia's concern, it is obvious that when an atheist and a Christian meet, and both claim to be honest and to have done all the digging, one or both must be wrong about one point or another. There's no getting around that; it's the inevitable clash or opposing points of view. I refuse to speculate on what the matter is with anyone until I know them well, and no one here qualifies for that.

That's basically it....

[salvationfound]

The most frustrating thing I hear atheists use is the idea of contemporary eyewitness. I don't even really understand what that means. Does it mean anybody who is not a Christian is a contemporary eyewitness? Is there a precedence for this? Do we look at all historical events and only consider it true if it has contemporary eyewitnesses?

Or let me guess it only applies to the Bible cause the Bible has miracle claims and as such is subject to a higher standard than other documents.

I want to know which book of history states that all extraordinary events (not just the Bible) can only be accepted by contemporary eyewitnesses.

King Midas and his golden touch is an extraordinary story yet that doesn't stop history from accepting that a man named King Midas existed. I just really want to know where the concept of contemporary eyewitness comes from. Besides just like a King Midas existing the idea of if a person Jesus existed is not an extraordinary event.

Besides it seems rather unfair that the moment an eyewitness is a Christian his writings are no longer acceptable as contemporary. We can't accept John 21:24 because the author was a disciple doesn't matter that it states he was an eyewitness because he was a believer. 2nd Peter tells how the author was a witness to the transfiguration.

And let us not forget Paul who states himself he was a persecutor of Christianity until he saw the resurrected Jesus. So if the contemporary eyewitness thing is true than the moment Paul saw Jesus he was a contemporary eyewitness. Darn it all unfortunately by the time he wrote his letters he was a Christian and no longer a contemporary. Is there another example in history outside of Christianity where a person persecutes a group of people and then claims a miracle event changed his mind? Joseph Smith doesn't fall under this category because he was thinking which religion was true and not persecuting the religion when his miracle event happened.

My main question is why should we accept the contemporary eyewitness argument as an acceptable argument. It seems to me like simply a convenient way of not accepting the Bible.

[-JGR]

I'll live with it. :teeth:
thank you for your answer :smile:



Why do you believe this of Tacitus?
Tacitus brims over with prejudices against crucial elements of Christianity -- Judaistic connections in particular, but also a skepticism for the miraculous. I don't say he could not have changed his mind later, though we have no evidence for it.So you would say for Tacitus, a conversion to christianity is less likely than for many other persons? Even though he is presented with the same evidence?

My point beeing if it is so unlikely that Tacitus who was a contemporary didn't believe this, why should I be punished for not believing this.
Hmm or yet another much better example:
John 20,24
But he (Thomas) said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

This was a disciple of Jesus... he had followed Jesus for quite some time.. and he did not believe it before he could see it for himself.
And what more.. Jesus accepts that Thomas did not believe, and shows himself to Thomas so that Thomas may touch and believe.

Why should I, who has seen _far_ less, be punished for it?



If a person has one view of the world... it requires something really extraordinary to turn that view around. And it should be repeated several times.. to give it a chance to sink in... or it simply won't stick..
I'm not sure I'd agree. But perhaps that's because I'm not like that and can't
see how other people could be. It also depends on what the views consist of and how they were arrived at and why they are held.
You are not like that? You do not require more evidence for something you find unbelievable than something that is likely? If I told you that _I_ am god, wouldn't you want more proof of that, than if some friend of yours told you he had had dinner yesterday?
If I sent you a document here from Norway signed by a hundred people saying that they had seen me perform miracles.. And they thought I was the Messiah, would that be enough for you?

what about this guy:
http://chinaqigong.net/english/qgsk/ywx.htm

This is a professor who (among other things) claims he can heal people in a radio show, using Chi enhanced by radiowaves. I bet we could find quite a lot of people in the chinese cities mentioned who would attest to this miracle.
Does that make you believe he has supernatural powers?



I have read the whole thing btw so telling me I dont understand it or some such thing won't help since.. In my oppinion I have already made a more than sufficent effort at understanding it.
I'd have to administer a test to believe that. :smile: How do you assume not to be moving the goalposts so that what level you have arrived at is deemed "sufficient"?So you actually don't believe I have read it? why? because you only have my testimony that I did? What if I got my wife on here so that she could testify to me reading it too? I have some friends who have seen me sitting and reading in it, would you need them to testify too? Why is it you say that _you_ have to administer the test.( Of course I take you mean you or someone you deam trustworthy). Is that because u need more evidence than people who say they are contemporary witnesses?


To address chsalvia's concern, it is obvious that when an atheist and a Christian meet, and both claim to be honest and to have done all the digging, one or both must be wrong about one point or another.Could it not simply be that people are different? what is good evidence for one is not good enough for the other because they simply have different views of the world? And judge things by different criteria?


There's no getting around that; it's the inevitable clash or opposing points of view. I refuse to speculate on what the matter is with anyone until I know them well, and no one here qualifies for that.Could you atleast list some possible "matters" that people could have?

ADDED:

How do you assume not to be moving the goalposts so that what level you have arrived at is deemed "sufficient"?Sorry, I forgot to answer this one.
Well of course that is always the danger, but according to my subjective reasoning I have done far more than the average christian. And several priests have told me that if you read the bible, and still don't believe, there isn't much more they can suggest. So I read the thing, and I still don't believe. So I can actually base my claim on a couple of protestant priests subjective oppionion also.
What would you deem sufficient?

[-JGR]

Or let me guess it only applies to the Bible cause the Bible has miracle claims and as such is subject to a higher standard than other documents.
well not really.. the point is that it has fantastic claims, claims that don't fit with peoples understanding of the world. The more far fetched claims are, compared to a persons view of how the world is.. the more evidence will be demanded. Aren't you like that also?

The excact same requirements would be demanded for any other fantastic book, wether it be some other religious writing, fairy tales, or what not.



I want to know which book of history states that all extraordinary events (not just the Bible) can only be accepted by contemporary eyewitnesses. I doubt there is one.. has anyone told you there is such a book?


King Midas and his golden touch is an extraordinary story yet that doesn't stop history from accepting that a man named King Midas existed.
There aren't that many people who claim there is no possibility there could have been a person called Yoshua on whom parts of the Jesus myth is based either, its the same as with Midas. One removes the pieces one doesn't believe and leaves the rest. With Midas you have a king that could turn stuff into gold. Remove the fantastic and you get: A king.
Same with Jesus: an ordinary guy that could do miracles, remove the fantastic and you get: an ordinary guy.


I just really want to know where the concept of contemporary eyewitness comes from. Besides just like a King Midas existing the idea of if a person Jesus existed is not an extraordinary event.
Noone is saying that a contemporary eyewitness is excatly what is needed, people are just saying that it is doubtfull that you even have that.
For me it wouldn't necessarily have helped. On the other hand, if Jesus had written permanently in the sky, I am Jesus, I am you're saviour (which is no problem at at to an omnipotent beeing). And this eternal writing could not be explained as a fluke of nature(not very likely :) then I would believe in divine forces. However I would not even then necessarily believe that this particular divine force was telling me the truth. For all I know he could be some satanic character trying to lure me away from the true path.
So I would have to make sure there were no other signs in the world that told me this was an imposter, if there were.. I would have to measure those signs credibility with the credibility of the skywriting.


Besides it seems rather unfair that the moment an eyewitness is a Christian his writings are no longer acceptable as contemporary.
Noone is saying that a christian is necessarily not a contemporary.

The reason the writings claimed to come from John and Peter is doubted is that they in many peoples eyes have low credibility.


My main question is why should we accept the contemporary eyewitness argument as an acceptable argument.
It is not a definite argument, it is just one more thing that lowers the credibility.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

So you would say for Tacitus, a conversion to christianity is less likely than for many other persons? Even though he is presented with the same evidence?

I have but a small window on his life, but if I had to make a commitment, I would say that yes, he would be a "hard sell" even with the same evidence.

My point beeing if it is so unlikely that Tacitus who was a contemporary didn't believe this, why should I be punished for not believing this.

The question raises a point only if Tacitus is treated differently than you are, and if neither of you got sufficient evidence. I would not see any reason to think that that is the case.

Hmm or yet another much better example:

Not really. Thomas comes off looking like a remarkable idiot here. He had travelled with Jesus and these men for as much as three years. He is doubting for no good reason (as far as a Jew of the first century is concerned).

And what more.. Jesus accepts that Thomas did not believe, and shows himself to Thomas so that Thomas may touch and believe.

However, he also gives Thomas a little jab for demanding it in the first place.

You are not like that? You do not require more evidence for something you find unbelievable than something that is likely? If I told you that _I_ am god, wouldn't you want more proof of that, than if some friend of yours told you he had had dinner yesterday?

I'll take it on spec. Tell me what you offer as a god, please, and how you negate Christianity.

If I sent you a document here from Norway signed by a hundred people saying that they had seen me perform miracles.. And they thought I was the Messiah, would that be enough for you?

Enough for me to what? You have a host of contexual difficulties to solve, not the least of which is what to do about the Messiah we already have. We need a contextual definition here about what your claims MEAN in practical terms.

Does that make you believe he has supernatural powers?

It makes me think he might or might not, and makes me wonder why I should care.

So you actually don't believe I have read it?

Read it? I am sure you have "read it". I have no guarantee that you have understood it or what it means.

Could it not simply be that people are different?

I am sure they are, but I have no assurance that the differences negate their responsibilities in the least, especially for the worldview that they (generally) take for granted.

Could you atleast list some possible "matters" that people could have?

Honesty and experience, and reaction to it, are offhand two things I'd posit.

Well of course that is always the danger, but according to my subjective reasoning I have done far more than the average christian

I appreciate that. However the average Christian is a pretty low standard to judge yourself by, I'm sorry to say. The average Christian thinks that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered from horseback.

And several priests have told me that if you read the bible, and still don't believe, there isn't much more they can suggest.

Says a lot about the ignorance of the average priest as well...

What would you deem sufficient?

Not to sound balmy, but an education at least the level of a seminarian, that is, if you intend to be critical.

BTW I have no idea why I see all of this in italics.

[-JGR]

Howdy,



I have but a small window on his life, but if I had to make a commitment, I would say that yes, he would be a "hard sell" even with the same evidence.
Thank you

My point beeing if it is so unlikely that Tacitus who was a contemporary didn't believe this, why should I be punished for not believing this.
The question raises a point only if Tacitus is treated differently than you are, and if neither of you got sufficient evidence. I would not see any reason to think that that is the case.So you claim the evidence is just as fresh and believable now as in the year 109 ? Since you see no reason to believe we are beeing treated differently regarding possible evidence.



Not really. Thomas comes off looking like a remarkable idiot here. He had travelled with Jesus and these men for as much as three years. He is doubting for no good reason (as far as a Jew of the first century is concerned).Yes, he does come off looking a complete moron here doesn't he...
And so would I if judgment day was tomorow...
but answer me this.. wouldnt Thomas by far be the bigger moron, if you compared him to me?
Yet still he got his evidence because Jesus did not want to leave him behind.
But _I_, who ask for far less evidence (like some permanent unexplaninable by physics phenomen(this is ofcourse my subjective oppinion of what is easy for an omnipotent beeing that created the universe)), will by all likelyhood never get it.
To put it this way, I can guarantee you that if I had had the oppurtunity to walk with Jesus and witness his miracles and wisdom as the disciples did, I too would have been a believer. And I would not have questioned Jesus' ressurection like Thomas.
So I ask again.. Is the trinity not giving me this evidence on purpose, because they want to leave me behind?

But the point I was trying to make with Thomas is.. that he walked _with_ Jesus and he still didn't believe before he could touch Jesus.
Doesn't that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some people just need a _lot_ more convincing and evidence than others? Or was Thomas just beeing hardheaded on purpose here?


However, he also gives Thomas a little jab for demanding it in the first place. nevertheless he did let Thomas stick his fingers in him.


I'll take it on spec. Tell me what you offer as a god, please, and how you negate Christianity.I didn't claim to negate Christianity.. I'm just Jesus returned to pass judgment. However I want to have a look at the world and talk with some of my believers before I start up the real fireworks. (my intention is not to be blasphemous here btw, so please forgive my example, but I think it prudent to know, what kind of evidence you would need to believe this tale.)
Would a document signed by a hundred people do? Or pherhaps a book describing some of my journeys through Norway and the miracles I have performed here?


Does that make you believe he has supernatural powers?
It makes me think he might or might not, and makes me wonder why I should care.Isn't Jesus' ability to do miracles one of the things that prove he was sent by the father? This professor is claiming to do healing miracles even beyond those that are described by the gospels.
But the reason I brought it up was to give you another shot at describing how much proof you need to believe extraordinary tales. You after all claimed that you didn't need more evidence if something was extraordinary.
ref:

If a person has one view of the world... it requires something really extraordinary to turn that view around. And it should be repeated several times.. to give it a chance to sink in... or it simply won't stick..
(...) perhaps that's because I'm not like that Please let me know if I misunderstood you?


What would you deem sufficient?
Not to sound balmy, but an education at least the level of a seminarian, that is, if you intend to be critical.Seminarian, i'm sorry but that expression is new to me and dictionary.com didn't help me much. Are you saying I would need the same education as a priest?


BTW I have no idea why I see all of this in italics.Hmm seems it can't be turned off?

[jpholding]

Hey ho,

>>>So you claim the evidence is just as fresh and believable now as in the year 109 ? Since you see no reason to believe we are beeing treated differently regarding possible evidence.

"Fresh" seems rather a subjective term that comes from modern wishes for novelty and newness (something the ancients despised, as it happens). Believable, though, yes.

>>>but answer me this.. wouldnt Thomas by far be the bigger moron, if you compared him to me?[b]

Not that I know you well enough to say. :smile:

>>>[b]Yet still he got his evidence because Jesus did not want to leave him behind.

Yes, Jesus had a use for him -- the evangelizer of India, if we accept the accounts. However that still does not negate his responsibility.

>>>So I ask again.. Is the trinity not giving me this evidence on purpose, because they want to leave me behind?

>>>Can't say, since you're not dead yet. :smile: And that you are here asking these questions may be the opportunity you've been wanting.

Doesn't that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some people just need a _lot_ more convincing and evidence than others? Or was Thomas just beeing hardheaded on purpose here?

>>>As a matter of fact, that he was being more hardheaded does suggest itself at once as an option.

nevertheless he did let Thomas stick his fingers in him.

>>>Yes, that has to do with certain social requirements I won't bore you with...not with evidential value per se....

I didn't claim to negate Christianity.. I'm just Jesus returned to pass judgment.

>>>>Oh really. May I ask you some questions that if you are Jesus, you should have no problem answering? :wink: I'd also like to ask you about this guy who has been sending me email, named TED JESUS CHRIST GOD. Can we do something about him?

Would a document signed by a hundred people do? Or pherhaps a book describing some of my journeys through Norway and the miracles I have performed here?

>>>>Send it my way and we'll have a look. (I'm playing along, yes. No offense taken.)

Isn't Jesus' ability to do miracles one of the things that prove he was sent by the father?

>>>>It is claimed as a positive, but not an exclusive one, since even the "lawless one" of 1 Thess. is said to be able to do signs and wonders, and of course Jesus warns of deceivers doing them.

But the reason I brought it up was to give you another shot at describing how much proof you need to believe extraordinary tales.

>>>I am perfectly willing to accept claims on spec; but anyone who makes such claims to me will have a lot of 'splainin to do, much more than Ricky demanded of Lucy.

Seminarian, i'm sorry but that expression is new to me and dictionary.com

>>>Someone who attends a seminary. Sorry. :smile:

Are you saying I would need the same education as a priest?

>>>>To be authoritative as a critic, yes. Obviously anyone can be a critic. To be one that deserves notice is another matter. Unfortunately the idea that anyone can be an equitable authority in anything is a plague of American "democracy".

Hmm seems it can't be turned off?

>>>It must like you. :smile:

[-JGR]

Hello,



"Fresh" seems rather a subjective term that comes from modern wishes for novelty and newness (something the ancients despised, as it happens). Believable, though, yes.
Just as believable?
You do not in any way take into account that the people of two thousand years ago were far more superstitious, uneducated.. and generally less critical and less understanding of their surroundings and the world in general?




>>>but answer me this.. wouldnt Thomas by far be the bigger moron, if you compared him to me?[b]
Not that I know you well enough to say. :smile:hehe, I was kind of expecting an answer like that :)
but of course what i was asking you which i'm pretty sure you figured out even though you didn't answer; based on the fact that Thomas had far more evidence than me, and still didn't believe... wouldn't you say it was far less... hmm... wise of him not to believe? (based on the evidence you know he had, and the evidence you know I have)


>>>[b]Yet still he got his evidence because Jesus did not want to leave him behind.
Yes, Jesus had a use for him -- the evangelizer of India, if we accept the accounts. However that still does not negate his responsibility.Firstly he didn't do a very good job of it, now did he... I wouldn't necessarily call India a particularily Christian country today...
But far more importantly the thing you are saying here is that Thomas was given salvation (evidence that led to it), because the trinity had a _use_ for him.
In other words the trinity gives salvation to those who believe and those they have a use for?



>>>So I ask again.. Is the trinity not giving me this evidence on purpose, because they want to leave me behind?
>>>Can't say, since you're not dead yet. :smile: And that you are here asking these questions may be the opportunity you've been wanting.well, there are some billions like me (and there has been and will be far more billions).. do you claim they _all_ are just to hardheaded?


nevertheless he did let Thomas stick his fingers in him.
>>>Yes, that has to do with certain social requirements I won't bore you with...not with evidential value per se....if it's not to much trouble, please humour me (a link will suffice). I get the impression you are talking about evidential criteria differing between cultures?


I didn't claim to negate Christianity.. I'm just Jesus returned to pass judgment.
>>>>Oh really. May I ask you some questions that if you are Jesus, you should have no problem answering? :wink: I'd also like to ask you about this guy who has been sending me email, named TED JESUS CHRIST GOD. Can we do something about him?Heh, wouldn't you wish... no, sorry, that won't do.. however I can let some people write down some hearsay about me, and pherhaps an eyewitness you will find doubtable can write a couple of chapters too.
I'll even let them write down, me quoting some wrongly translated bible texts.
(ref: Mark 7:6-8, if you have a good explanation for this let me know btw)
Will that make you a believer?


>>>>Send it my way and we'll have a look. Well sorry, you'll have to wait 2000 years so that you have no chance of checking up on the fact that any of the eyewitnesses even existed. Not to mention finding out how credible these characters are, and that they truely are writing stuff that's true not just something that fits with my following at the moment. In addition I'll give you an obviously faked history book, where the author, a hindu (even after he writes the book) writes as if he were a follower of me. And I'll give you another history book which my followers have had full control of for eleven hundred years that claims there once was a group following someone with my title.

Will that do?

I am not claiming these are facts about christianity/the bible btw, it's merely my subjective view of it.
But to the point: This is the way stuff looks in my world, and it is very unlikely that it will ever change.
So _that_ is the evidence I expect you to believe me by, or else you go to the bad place.
(if you don't belive it will never change for me, atleast play along with some hypothetical person very much like me will have these views and never change them.)



>>>>It is claimed as a positive, but not an exclusive one, since even the "lawless one" of 1 Thess. is said to be able to do signs and wonders, and of course Jesus warns of deceivers doing them.I take you are refering to the one in 2 Thess. ?
So you are claiming this is the guy Jesus will throw down when he (I *smirk*) arrives for judgment day?
You are aware that there have been healers similar to this professor throughout recorded history, have they all been the lawless one?


I am perfectly willing to accept claims on spec; but anyone who makes such claims to me will have a lot of 'splainin to do, sorry, not following you now, you are willing to accept claims.. and i take by that you are saying you will believe it, but not fully believe it before you van verify for yourself? or something?


>>>>To be authoritative as a critic, yes. Obviously anyone can be a critic. To be one that deserves notice is another matter. Unfortunately the idea that anyone can be an equitable authority in anything is a plague of American "democracy".
Firstly.. i'm not american ;) (norwegian)
so you're not only plauged by US democracy :)
but more importantly.. i'm not trying to be a critic here.. i'm only saying that I find the proof lacking, and I want to know why Jesus would do that to me (or anyone else of the billions)?
Doesn't he want _everyone_ ? If he supplied more evidence he would get as well as everyone. The ones he is getting now are _mostly_ those who have been brought up in the faith, and that's pretty limited compared to what some more evidence would do.. don't you agree?

>>>It must like you. :smile:[/QUOTE]Heh.. well I must admit... I like the italics too. :wink:

[jpholding]

Howdy,

>>>>take into account that the people of two thousand years ago were far more superstitious, uneducated.

I very much doubt that modern prideful myth. Our superstitions are more sophisticated perhaps but plague us just as much, if not moreso. If your local newspaper has a horoscope page, that speaks for itself.

>>>>>>evidence than me, and still didn't believe... wouldn't you say it was far less... hmm... wise of him not to believe? (based on the evidence you know he had, and the evidence you know I have)

Hard to say, since I do not know the full extent of what you have. I'd have to be in another's mind to make such a judgment.

>>>>>Firstly he didn't do a very good job of it, now did he... I wouldn't necessarily call India a particularily Christian country today...

No, but he's hardly responsible for what happens hundreds of years later.

>>>>>>In other words the trinity gives salvation to those who believe and those they have a use for?

No, I am saying that the Trinity gives more information to those it has a use for. The elect would make some decision to be saved at some point anyway. Thomas would have likely made the same decision later.

>>>> well, there are some billions like me (and there has been and will be far more billions).. do you claim they _all_ are just to hardheaded?

Don't know. Maybe. I'd have to conduct interviews.

>>>>[b]if it's not to much trouble, please humour me (a link will suffice). I get the impression you are talking about evidential criteria differing between cultures?

No, I am referring to a reason why he showed his hands and feet. It has to do with something called zones of interaction.

>>>[b]Heh, wouldn't you wish... no, sorry, that won't do.. however I can let some people write down some hearsay about me, and pherhaps an eyewitness you will find doubtable can write a couple of chapters too.

Needless to say I'd challenge each point, but we need to keep this to limits. :smile:

>>>I'll even let them write down, me quoting some wrongly translated bible texts.
(ref: Mark 7:6-8, if you have a good explanation for this let me know btw)
Will that make you a believer?

Eh?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

What needs to be explained?

Well sorry, you'll have to wait 2000 years so that you have no chance of checking up on the fact that any of the eyewitnesses even existed.

No problem. Where do I meet you? If what followed was meant to be some sort of parallel I'd have serious doubts about each element. You call it a subjective view and I would certainly agree. :smile:



I take you are refering to the one in 2 Thess. ? So you are claiming this is the guy Jesus will throw down when he (I *smirk*) arrives for judgment day?

Yes, 2 Thess. But I am a preterist and believe that the lawless one lived in that era and was providentially thrown down. Probably Nero. So no worries for me about later healers.

>>>Firstly.. i'm not american ;) (norwegian) so you're not only plauged by US democracy :)

Ha ha. It is a plague on most Western nations as well.

>>>[i]Doesn't he want _everyone_ ? If he supplied more evidence he would get as well as everyone. The ones he is getting now are _mostly_ those who have been brought up in the faith, and that's pretty limited compared to what some more evidence would do.. don't you agree?

Not here in America necessarily. And the greatest mission work is now being done in Africa. Maybe that is so in Norway.

And who knows, you may be on your way to the "Light Side" even now. :wink:

[-JGR]

hiya,


Howdy,
I very much doubt that modern prideful myth. Our superstitions are more sophisticated perhaps but plague us just as much, if not moreso. If your local newspaper has a horoscope page, that speaks for itself.Isn't that turning it upside down ? Horoscopes are a dying relic of excatly those superstitious ages I am talking about. Yes, you will probably find an elect few who still believe them, but the majority wouldn't excactly bet their lives on it :)


Hard to say, since I do not know the full extent of what you have. I'd have to be in another's mind to make such a judgment.pardon me for not beeing clear enough here, with evidence that I have access to I am refering to evidence that is available to you and me and all the rest of the people in the world at this time. You do not have to see inside my head to know what evidence is available to humanity today.
If you compare this evidence with the evidence the new testament says Thomas had, do you not agree the evidence Thomas got was far better ?
What of the evidence we have today even comes close to walking with a miracleworker for years?


>>>>>>In other words the trinity gives salvation to those who believe and those they have a use for?
No, I am saying that the Trinity gives more information to those it has a use for. The elect would make some decision to be saved at some point anyway. Thomas would have likely made the same decision later.what are you basing this belief upon ?


>>>> well, there are some billions like me (and there has been and will be far more billions).. do you claim they _all_ are just to hardheaded?
Don't know. Maybe. I'd have to conduct interviews.what about those who haven't even heard of Jesus and the gospels?


>>>>[b]if it's not to much trouble, please humour me (a link will suffice). I get the impression you are talking about evidential criteria differing between cultures?
No, I am referring to a reason why he showed his hands and feet. It has to do with something called zones of interaction.ummm.. I would think the far more likely explanation is what is specifically stated in john, that Thomas wanted to to see the nail marks in his hands, and put his finger where the nails were.. and secondly both he and Jesus are talking about his side not his feet as you are saying.

"But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." "



>>>[b]Heh, wouldn't you wish... no, sorry, that won't do.. however I can let some people write down some hearsay about me, and pherhaps an eyewitness you will find doubtable can write a couple of chapters too.
Needless to say I'd challenge each point, but we need to keep this to limits. :smile: agreed :)


>>>I'll even let them write down, me quoting some wrongly translated bible texts.
(ref: Mark 7:6-8, if you have a good explanation for this let me know btw)
Will that make you a believer?

Eh?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

What needs to be explained?That Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13 from the greek version of the old testament (the Septuagint).
Since he is a god and such this _may_ be ok, but that the pharisee accepts this is pretty unlikely, since the hebrew bible is pretty different in this verse.


Well sorry, you'll have to wait 2000 years so that you have no chance of checking up on the fact that any of the eyewitnesses even existed.
No problem. Where do I meet you? If what followed was meant to be some sort of parallel I'd have serious doubts about each element. You call it a subjective view and I would certainly agree. :smile:So you would have serious doubts? well thats good. that's my point exactly. Because this is the way stuff looks for me... and this is what causing me to ask why God made me so stupid that I can't see things so clearly as you. Because since I am as I am.. it's allways going to look like this to me.


Yes, 2 Thess. But I am a preterist and believe that the lawless one lived in that era and was providentially thrown down. Probably Nero. So no worries for me about later healers.Ummm so why did you mention the lawless one when you are saying that it couldn't be him anyway?


>>>Firstly.. i'm not american ;) (norwegian) so you're not only plauged by US democracy :)
Ha ha. It is a plague on most Western nations as well.heh, I would bet it's a plague on _All_ western nations :)



>>>[i]Doesn't he want _everyone_ ? If he supplied more evidence he would get as well as everyone. The ones he is getting now are _mostly_ those who have been brought up in the faith, and that's pretty limited compared to what some more evidence would do.. don't you agree?

Not here in America necessarily. And the greatest mission work is now being done in Africa. Maybe that is so in Norway.
What makes you think it's not like that in the US ?

What about those that have already died before the missionaries got to them? but anyway you _have_ to agree that more evidence, preferably something "touchable" would make missionary work far easier?


And who knows, you may be on your way to the "Light Side" even now. :wink:And you may be entering the side with no "light or dark" even now :wink:

[jpholding]

Howdy,

Isn't that turning it upside down ? Horoscopes are a dying relic of excatly those superstitious ages I am talking about.

Dying? The sales of books, the presence of such in the papers, indicate any talk of the death of this practice is, as Twain said, premature. And that is but one modern superstition. Need I bring up the popularity of, for example, the Van Praaghs?

If you compare this evidence with the evidence the new testament says Thomas had, do you not agree the evidence Thomas got was far better ?

No, not really. It is a different set of evidences but I can't say his was "better" than what we have.

What of the evidence we have today even comes close to walking with a miracleworker for years?

First of all, you approach this from the presupposition of a naturalistic world, not one in their time in which doing a miracle only got responses of, "He's in league with Beelzebub!" So the evidence of miracles is really less convincing in the first century than you think.

Second, we have evidence of social movements and how they operate, of human psychology (ancient and modern), and historical study that only Paul and perhaps Matthew among the Apostles would have comprehended.

what are you basing this belief upon ?

A doctrine of election. Nothing tangible for a Skeptic.

what about those who haven't even heard of Jesus and the gospels?

Variable. For example, a person who knows of no Jesus, but admits his sinfulness and knows that he requires forgiveness from the Creator, is in my view as in good a position as any hearer of the Gospel.


and put his finger where the nails were.. and secondly both he and Jesus are talking about his side not his feet as you are saying.

Thomas spoke of nail marks; Jesus did not. It is just as well showing him that none are there.

That Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13 from the greek version of the old testament (the Septuagint).
Since he is a god and such this _may_ be ok, but that the pharisee accepts this is pretty unlikely, since the hebrew bible is pretty different in this verse.

Actually the LXX was widely accepted as authoritative until after Christians started making heavy use of it, so there is no reason why Jesus would not have used it and a Pharisee would not have accepted it.


So you would have serious doubts?

About the validity of the parallels you offered, not about your claims.

Ummm so why did you mention the lawless one when you are saying that it couldn't be him anyway?

Merely to make the point (as above) that miracles were not an absolute certifier.

What makes you think it's not like that in the US ?

I have a few Norwegian readers of my site. Of course they open but a small window.

What about those that have already died before the missionaries got to them?

See above.

but anyway you _have_ to agree that more evidence, preferably something "touchable" would make missionary work far easier?

Not really. That's merely preferring one sense over others.

And you may be entering the side with no "light or dark" even now

If you knew who this was, you'd know better. :smile:

[-JGR]

Hiya, sorry for late reply on this one. and btw thanx for bothering with me this far, your answers have actually taught me something :)


Isn't that turning it upside down ? Horoscopes are a dying relic of excatly those superstitious ages I am talking about.

Dying? The sales of books, the presence of such in the papers, indicate any talk of the death of this practice is, as Twain said, premature. And that is but one modern superstition. Need I bring up the popularity of, for example, the Van Praaghs?The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?
And btw, :yes: Yes, you may bring up the popularity of the Van Praaghs, I've never heard of them.


If you compare this evidence with the evidence the new testament says Thomas had, do you not agree the evidence Thomas got was far better ?
No, not really. It is a different set of evidences but I can't say his was "better" than what we have.Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???
To me, experiencing something myself weighs far heavier than the other. Beeing so trusting towards others as to put as much weight in what they say as what I experience myself.. has never anyone tried to deceive you ?
This is totally uncomprehensible to me.


What of the evidence we have today even comes close to walking with a miracleworker for years?

First of all, you approach this from the presupposition of a naturalistic world, not one in their time in which doing a miracle only got responses of, "He's in league with Beelzebub!" So the evidence of miracles is really less convincing in the first century than you think.Then what is it that convinced the jews? They were waiting for the messiah, not the god himself, I take it wasn't thorough understanding of the scriptures either, as he surely wasn't alone in beeing able to quote them.


Second, we have evidence of social movements and how they operate, of human psychology (ancient and modern), and historical study that only Paul and perhaps Matthew among the Apostles would have comprehended.I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?



what about those who haven't even heard of Jesus and the gospels?

Variable. For example, a person who knows of no Jesus, but admits his sinfulness and knows that he requires forgiveness from the Creator, is in my view as in good a position as any hearer of the Gospel.Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?


and put his finger where the nails were.. and secondly both he and Jesus are talking about his side not his feet as you are saying.

Thomas spoke of nail marks; Jesus did not. It is just as well showing him that none are there.So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?



That Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13 from the greek version of the old testament (the Septuagint).
Since he is a god and such this _may_ be ok, but that the pharisee accepts this is pretty unlikely, since the hebrew bible is pretty different in this verse.

Actually the LXX was widely accepted as authoritative until after Christians started making heavy use of it, so there is no reason why Jesus would not have used it and a Pharisee would not have accepted it.
Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ? I _sincerely_ doubt it, on the other hand I am not able to prove it. Can you point me to anything indicating that the LXX was more authoritative than the untranslated texts ?


but anyway you _have_ to agree that more evidence, preferably something "touchable" would make missionary work far easier?

Not really. That's merely preferring one sense over others.And what sense would that be ?


And you may be entering the side with no "light or dark" even now

If you knew who this was, you'd know better. :smile:naah, I never learn :-)

[jpholding]

Hey ho,

>>>>>>>The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?

That has been the case in my experience.

>>>>>And btw, Yes, you may bring up the popularity of the Van Praaghs, I've never heard of them.

Hmm, must not be making much of a streak outside the US. He is a "medium" who claims to speak to the dead and has often appeared in media here. See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451191722/qid=1080326009/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/104-4998622-4646365?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

for a sample.

>>>>>>Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???

If the evidence backing what is told is weighty enough, yes.

>>>>>>.. has never anyone tried to deceive you ?

Many times. I worked for the prison system in my state for 7 1/2 years. :smile: Prisoners are specialists in deception. They did not get away with anything around me.

>>>>>Then what is it that convinced the jews?

I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them if at all.

>>>>>>They were waiting for the messiah, not the god himself,

Hmm. Another topic...it's a long story...

>>>>>I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?

Yes...I have a whole article, but here's one: Preaching a crucified man was the wrong thing to do. Details from my article:

********
With the exception of the Christ-mythers and conspiracy theorists (and I put Muslims in this rank, where this issue is concerned!), few would deny the historical reality of the crucifixion. But once that door is opened, it brings about the first of our problems: Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?

As Martin Hengel has amply shown us in his monograph, Crucifixion, the shame of the cross was the result of a fundamental norm of the Greco-Roman Empire. Hengel observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (22) As Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4], crucifixion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way, including the symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement. The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions - in spite of the fact that thousands of crucifixions were done at a time on some occasions. "(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it." (38) It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly. This was so for Jews (Gal. 3;13; cf. Deut. 21:23) as well as Gentiles. Justin Martyr later writes in his first Apology 13:4 --

They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...

Celsus describes Jesus as one who was "bound in the most ignominious fashion" and "executed in a shameful way." Josephus describes crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths." An oracle of Apollo preserved by Augustine described Jesus as "a god who died in delusions...executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron." (4) And so the opinions go: Seneca, Lucian, Pseudo-Manetho, Plautus. Even the lower classes joined the charade, as demonstrated by a bit of graffiti depicting a man supplicating before a crucified figure with an asses' head - sub-titled, "Alexamenos worships god." (The asses' head being a recognition of Christianity's Jewish roots: A convention of anti-Jewish polemic was that the Jews worshipped an ass in their temple. - 19) Though confused in other matters, Walter Bauer rightly said (ibid.):

The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure. A god or son of god dying on a cross! That was enough to put paid to the new religion.
And DeSilva adds [51]:

No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God's perspective on what kind of behavior merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death, but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating him at God's own right hand as Lord.

The message of the cross was an abhorrence, a vulgarity in its social context. Discussing crucifixion was the worst sort of social faux pas; it was akin, in only the thinnest sense, to discussing sewage reclamation techniques over a fine meal - but even worse when associated with an alleged god come to earth. Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish." That a god would descend to the realm of matter and suffer in this ignominious fashion "ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people." (10, 4) Announcing a crucified god would be akin to the Southern Baptist Convention announcing that they endorsed pedophilia! If Jesus had truly been a god, then by Roman thinking, the Crucifixion should never have happened. Celsus, an ancient pagan critic of Christianity, writes:

But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

This comment represents not just some skeptical challenge, but is a reflection of an ingrained socio-theological consciousness. The Romans could not envision a god dying like Jesus - period. Just as well to argue that the sky is green, or that pigs fly, only those arguments, at least, would not offend sensibilities to the maximum. We need to emphasize this (for the first but not the last time) from a social perspective because our own society is not as attuned as ancient society to the process of honor. We found it strange to watch Shogun and conceive of men committing suicide for the sake of honor. The Jews, Greeks and Romans would not have found this strange at all. As David DeSilva shows in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, that which was honorable was, to the ancients, of primary importance. Honor was placed above one's personal safety and was the key element in deciding courses of action. Isocrates gives behavioral advice based not on what was "right or wrong", but on what was "noble or disgraceful". "The promise of honor and threat of disgrace [were] prominent goads to pursue a certain kind of life and to avoid many alternatives." [24] Christianity, of course, argued in reply that Jesus' death was an honorable act of sacrifice for the good of others -- but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!

This being the case, we may fairly ask, for the first time in this essay, why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? At best this should have been a movement that had only a few strange followers, then died out within decades as a footnote, if it was mentioned at all. The historical reality of the crucifixion could not of course be denied. To survive Christianity should have either turned Gnostic (as indeed happened in some offshoots), or else not bothered with Jesus at all, and merely made him into the movement's first martyr for a higher moral ideal within Judaism. It would have been absurd to suggest, to either Jew or Gentile, that a crucified being was worthy of worship or died for our sins.

There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!

******
>>>>>>Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?

I think knowledge of A Creator (it need not be one, I think), of sin, and of forgiveness is universal. Do you know of a society that does not know of these things, or has not had such concepts?

>>>>>So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?

Yes, I was in fact. :smile:

>>>>Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ?

Yes, of at least equal authority.. Since this is a side issue I will just link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html -- see notes on use of it by Philo, Josephus, etc. Also near the end:

"The earliest Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible of course did not have the benefit of a century or more's reflection on the proper role of the biblical translator, and this was why their work was considered in some circles to be in need of revision. The dilemma posed for diaspora Judaism by this new awareness of the differences between the LXX and its Hebrew original in fact gave rise to two courses of action: alongside those who set out to 'correct' the LXX texts, bringing them into closer line with an authoritative text form of the Hebrew, there were others who cut the Gordian knot by claiming an authority for the LXX Pentateuch equal to that of the Hebrew original...."

And what sense would that be ?

Tactile over intellectual.

[-JGR]

howdy ho,


Hey ho,

>>>>>>>The belief that this is trustworthy is dying, nowadays most people consider it entertainment, and fun to read "just in case". Or are you saying that most people who read horoscopes actually believe them ?

That has been the case in my experience.
seems your neighbourhood is more superstitious than mine then :)


>>>>>>Hmm really interesting. You are saying that beeing told something is just as good evidence as experiencing it yourself ???

If the evidence backing what is told is weighty enough, yes.
What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?


>>>>>Then what is it that convinced the jews?

I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them if at all.
now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.


>>>>>I would say this is highly questionable, could you pick a couple of good examples?

Yes...I have a whole article, but here's one: Preaching a crucified man was the wrong thing to do. Details from my article:
I believe you are shooting at the wrong target here. I will try to show why.


********
With the exception of the Christ-mythers and conspiracy theorists (and I put Muslims in this rank, where this issue is concerned!), few would deny the historical reality of the crucifixion. But once that door is opened, it brings about the first of our problems: Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man? Very many it would seem. Here you are setting up a strawman.


As Martin Hengel has amply shown us in his monograph, Crucifixion, the shame of the cross was the result of a fundamental norm of the Greco-Roman Empire. Hengel observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (..)
I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them. I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time. Also it has a bit more "believable aura" about it (subjective oppinion), than Gods sitting on mountains throwing thunder at people and dicing over peoples destiny.


"(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it."
This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or someone not of the cultured literary. In fact if one reads 1 Cor 1, as you are refering to the author strikes me as someone hatefull of the cultured literary.

"19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+cor&version=NIV#footnote_533091100_3)]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, "


(38) It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly.
"the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing", Those who are perishing ? Does it mean those who do not believe? So.. you are claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?

"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. "

this says it was shamefull. not that it was folly to preach.


This was so for Jews (Gal. 3;13; cf. Deut. 21:23) well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?


as well as Gentiles. Justin Martyr later writes in his first Apology 13:4 --

They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...I seem to recall this beeing in answer to jews? I may be wrong, but you have to give the context for this to have any worth.


The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure.
I could also use such an argument.. that does not mean I do not see that the message will work for others.



But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

This comment represents not just some skeptical challenge, but is a reflection of an ingrained socio-theological consciousness.
heh, I remember using the exact same argument in a discussion once, but still it does not imply I can not see some like the message.


[24] Christianity, of course, argued in reply that Jesus' death was an honorable act of sacrifice for the good of others -- but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!
Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

----


>>>>>>Now you are assuming knowledge of one Creator, the concept sin, and the knowledge that one should ask forgiveness of this sin to this creator. Do you believe everyone has this knowledge ?

I think knowledge of A Creator (it need not be one, I think), of sin, and of forgiveness is universal. Do you know of a society that does not know of these things, or has not had such concepts?
The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept? In norwegian I can assure you there is none, and as such I claim this is proof that the concept was unknown for both norwegian and english speaking populations. And I assume
It may be you are thinking about Gods beeing cross with people and they had to atone to make it good again. But sin has consequences for the afterlife while most old religions were only afraid of the consequences of their actions in this life. And they certainly begged alot of different gods for forgiveness for whatever in no way is the creator the dominant character in general in religions to offer the atonement. In norse mythology the creator wasn't even worshipped.

However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth. And not even jewism which christianity hails from has that concept (according to a Jew I asked yesterday). I know bakhti hinduism has a similar concept though. Do you know of any other ?



>>>>>So now you are not refering to the zones of interaction stuff anymore ?

Yes, I was in fact. :smile:Since you never expained what this zones of interaction stuff was I took the liberty of searching on the internet.. and I found an article on the tectonics site :)

http://www.tektonics.org/eztorefute.html
"Malina and Rohrbaugh in their social science commentary on the Synoptics [356] note that the hands and feet were a "zone of purposeful action" "

Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.




>>>>Authoritative compared to the original scriptures ?
Yes, of at least equal authority.. Since this is a side issue I will just link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html -- see notes on use of it by Philo, Josephus, etc. Also near the end:
ok, this is proving to require more research than I anticipated. So for now I'll give you this one, and retract my assumption that Jesus couldn't have used the LXX.

[jpholding]

Hello Mr Transformer. :wink:

>>>What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?

I've been known to change positions in such cases.

>>>now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.

Er, I am? How?

>>>I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them.

That would be completely contrary to the honor and shame dialectic. No one would have considered this something any god or man should go through. You're looking at this from a modern perspective where honor is not important.

>> I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time

You do, but they would not have. And:

>>>Gods sitting on mountains throwing thunder at people and dicing over peoples destiny.

This is exactly what matched their own sentiments best.

>>>This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or

That would be a contrivance against all scholarship on the matter.

>>>claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?

Celsus and other critics said as much.

>>>well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?

That it grew at all anywhere is the problem that has to be dealt with.

>>>>I seem to recall this beeing in answer to jews?

I think you are thinking of Dialogue with Trypho.

>>>heh, I remember using the exact same argument in a discussion once, but still it does not imply I can not see some like the message.

How, within the attiutudes I have laid out? Not in modern terms; by ancient psychology.

>>>Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

How so? This has nothing to do with utilitarianism but with trying to overcome the shame problem.

>>>>The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept?

Um, no, but how does this show "sin" and wrongdoing as a concept is lacking?

>>>However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth.

I would consider that a marginal issue to the main question of whether men are thought to do any wrong ever at all.


>>> liberty of searching on the internet.. and I found an article on the tectonics site :)

Never heard of the guy. :rofl:

>>>Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.

Mmmm. But with what does Jesus tell Thomas to touch his side? :smile:

>>>ok, this is proving to require more research than I anticipated. So for now I'll give you this one, and retract my assumption that Jesus couldn't have used the LXX.

You earned a lot of respect from me here. :thumb:

[-JGR]

Hello Mr Transformer. :wink:Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big


>>>What if your own experience runs in contradiction to what some very weighty evidence says?
I've been known to change positions in such cases.
hmm ok, that's getting us nowhere.. what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?
The bible?
How the universe functions?
Personal experiences?


>>>now you are avoiding the fact that most of Jesus' followers when he was alive were Jews.
Er, I am? How?
you said:
I suspect only the resurrection of Jesus would have convinced any of them (the jews) if at all.

then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?


>>>I see no reason in belieng this not to be correct. However this may be the strength the competing religions lacked. That the man-god was willing to do this for them.

That would be completely contrary to the honor and shame dialectic. No one would have considered this something any god or man should go through. You're looking at this from a modern perspective where honor is not important.not exactly (i think) , I am trying to look at it from a point of what would be more convincing realisticly like. And I feel that goes beside the point of honor and shame dialectic you are trying to make.
This may very well pose problems for the early christians, but you are assuming that all founders of religions would try to choose stuff that people would like the best, and here I think is my major argument against your dialectic. There is little reason to have this assumption. If we are dealing with people with psychiological delusions (as I will strongly claim atleast the author of revelations was suffering from), there is no reason to think they would even try to pick something that would go well with the public.



>> I certainly find this a more likeable trait than many competing gods of the time
You do, but they would not have.
again the assumption. Hmm another thing might be that they simply tried the story out on a couple of people and saw that it worked. Nomatter if they thought it wouldn't if they see it working why should they not continue using it? I find this very lacking proof of them having knowledge they could not have, as I think you are trying to argue for.


>>>This need not mean more than either some strange fetichist wrote it, or
That would be a contrivance against all scholarship on the matter.agreed, but I have seen no good evidence supporting that popular belief.


>>>claiming that the author didn't even believe it was possible to recruit new believers with the gospel. That Jesus was in error when getting himself crucified?
Celsus and other critics said as much.but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.


>>>well christianity never did grow much among the jews now did it?
That it grew at all anywhere is the problem that has to be dealt with.Is there any reason to not let me deal with it from several angles ?


>>>Umm the greek Epicurus 341-270bc was certainly a utilitarian before christ, I guess that kinda wrecks that line of argumentation.

How so? This has nothing to do with utilitarianism but with trying to overcome the shame problem.
no... your article was at that point arguing that the concept of one sacrificing him for many was unheard of by other than christians.
note the line:
but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!

and I am with Epicurus, pointing at other means :)



>>>>The concept sin is lacking in alot of cultures, take the word sin. It is hebrew in origin. Do you know of any english words (not influenced by hebrew traditions) describing the same concept?

Um, no, but how does this show "sin" and wrongdoing as a concept is lacking? I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.


>>>However when dealing with the christian sin, we must not forget the concept that humans are sinfull from birth.

I would consider that a marginal issue to the main question of whether men are thought to do any wrong ever at all.
that is your definition of sin ? men doing wrong ?
and what "wrong" is that? is there some universal way of knowing? Different cultures have certainly had very different perceptions of what is right and wrong. I would say that very much of what is described as "right" in christian belief, is naturally "wrong" for me.

>>>Here it is completely forgotten the fact I pointed out to you.. that Jesus shows Thomas his hands and __side__ If the theory of zones of interaction had any credit to it. Jesus would have been showing his hands and __feet_.

Mmmm. But with what does Jesus tell Thomas to touch his side? :smile:

His touching appendix :)
Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?

[jpholding]

Hiya,

Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big

I may have guessed if it was the old series but it looks like the new one. There was one that could change into an airport and I think his name was Burrito Supreme. :wink:

what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?

Your second choice, how the universe functions, comes closest.

then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?

I am not sure what the matter is here. There was nothing to "convince" of in the kerygma before the resurrection.


not exactly (i think) , I am trying to look at it from a point of what would be more convincing realisticly like. And I feel that goes beside the point of honor and shame dialectic you are trying to make.

I do not think you are appreciating the depth with which honor and shame affected these people. It is far more than what someone would "try to choose" but what would or could be accepted. Do you think for example a religion would succeed that told people they had to become pedophiles?

If we are dealing with people with psychiological delusions (as I will strongly claim atleast the author of revelations was suffering from)

Hmm, why? Because of the imagery? Such imagery was common and perfectly normal in ancient writers of the genre. This is like saying the author of the Hannibal Lechter books must be deluded.


but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.

Yet you must explain in this context how they came to believe unless it were so. Can you?

Is there any reason to not let me deal with it from several angles ?

Feel free. :smile:

no... your article was at that point arguing that the concept of one sacrificing him for many was unheard of by other than christians.

Er, no, I didn't say that...that was a well known idea (the viacrious death); what I am saying is that Christians tried to use that as a counter to the shamefulness of the crucifixion. In other words others needed to be convinced that it was a sacrificial death in order to believe it; elsewise it is seen as "spin doctoring".

I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.

You mean to say, they need a WORD to go with the concept, or they must not have a concept??? :huh:

that is your definition of sin ? men doing wrong ?

Yes. But if you want to get into epistemics of morality that is beyond my expertise. I am sure at least we agree there are things definably morally wrong?

Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?

Depends what day it is. April Fools Day? :wink: Still that is why the hand became a zone of interaction to begin with.

[-JGR]

Hiya,
Heh, can u guess which one ? hint: he's really big

I may have guessed if it was the old series but it looks like the new one. There was one that could change into an airport and I think his name was Burrito Supreme. :wink:
rofl! heh, nope not burrito supreme.. he is from the original series, though he wasn't in so many episodes and he's a latecommer. But you're in the correct size division.


what evidence for God is it that you find so convincing?
Your second choice, how the universe functions, comes closest.hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?


then how do you explain that he had jewish followers when you do not believe any of them became convinced before he was resurrected?
I am not sure what the matter is here. There was nothing to "convince" of in the kerygma before the resurrection.
so the farmers and fishermen and what not, laid down their work and followed him for years on end without beeing convinced of anything?



I do not think you are appreciating the depth with which honor and shame affected these people. It is far more than what someone would "try to choose" but what would or could be accepted. Do you think for example a religion would succeed that told people they had to become pedophiles? In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.
From what I remember they originated in Germany, but now also have members in the scandinavian countries.
One of the things they preach is that Jesus was a pedophile and one should follow his example.


Hmm, why? Because of the imagery? Such imagery was common and perfectly normal in ancient writers of the genre. This is like saying the author of the Hannibal Lechter books must be deluded. Nope I would say that author was writing fiction. Of course if you want to propose that the authors of the NT were writing fiction, just say so and I'll be right here at your side supporting you :)



but that one of the authors of NT believed it is an entirely different matter.

Yet you must explain in this context how they came to believe unless it were so. Can you?
I'll give it a shot :)
You mention that the vicarious death was a well known idea.
One sacrificing himself for the good of the many. Well if you want to make the sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?
Seen like this, all the shame and dishonouring would serve to strengthen the sacrifice, and could as such be one of the things that actually helped christianity rise. Since it was _so_ obvious that this God was willing to do _anything_ for them.. but yet.. through his resurection he could still be viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

sound just a bit reasonable?


I thought that would be evident. If people have no way of relaying the knowledge of the concept they would not have it.

You mean to say, they need a WORD to go with the concept, or they must not have a concept??? :huh:
ouch, sorry... I wasn't very clear here. I ment of course word or expression that covers the concept.
What I am mean is: Words are made to describe stuff. If there is no need to describe a thing (example: they have no knowledge of it), they won't have a word (or expression) to describe it. Our languages didn't have this before the hebrew word came... and pherhaps that means they didn't know of the concept? I think so.
But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered (actually it is a bit vague who is the main creator, some stuff always existed, while the earth and humans were made by three brothers). Of whom only one, Odin was really worshipped, and as time passed Thor more and more took his place.
BTW these gods were usually only angered by someone not treating them with respect or offending them directly. They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations. So people wouldn't be praying forgivness of the Gods if they had done anything they felt was wrong to their neighbour.


Yes. But if you want to get into epistemics of morality that is beyond my expertise. I am sure at least we agree there are things definably morally wrong?nope, I would not agree with that. In my oppinion wether anything is right or wrong is always a subjective thing. Some stuff is more common to be accepted as wrong, typically stuff that hurst people.. But here one often avoids this by classifying people into it's ok to do hurtfull stuff to this group, and not ok to do it to this group.


Wouldn't it look strange if jesus had asked Thomas to stick his foot in Jesus' side ?
Depends what day it is. April Fools Day? :wink: Still that is why the hand became a zone of interaction to begin with.*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.
How do you explain the behaviour he showed towards the other disciples?
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side.
Him showing his hands and side was not to show them he was the one that had been crucified? Are the hands and side some sort of "zone of identification" ?

[jpholding]

Howdy,

rofl! heh, nope not burrito supreme.. he is from the original series, though he wasn't in so many episodes and he's a latecommer. But you're in the correct size division.

Well, that's all I remember. :sad:

hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?

I have not read it, sorry. :smile:


so the farmers and fishermen and what not, laid down their work and followed him for years on end without beeing convinced of anything?

Just that he had a worthwhile mission inaugurating the Kingdom of God -- a totally ideological mission.


In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.

Well, there you are -- any chance of them growing into a world religion?

Nope I would say that author was writing fiction.

"Fiction"? A better word for the genre would be artistic prophecy.

sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?

That would be too problematic -- all such vicarious deaths were either by animals, or for a noble purpose, which again is not apparent in Jesus' case unless you already believe it.

viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

That also has problems, because the Jews believed that the man and the spirit were a unified totality. What touched the Jesus part could not help but touch the god part.

But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered

So are you saying the Norse did not believe in moral wrong? I think I am missing something here. You say:

They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations.

All right, so this shows the gods did not care much about sin, but we still have a concept of it, do we not?

*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.

I hope you do not mean it is a false concept. This is taken from serious texts by scholars of anthropology.

Him showing his hands and side was not to show them he was the one that had been crucified? Are the hands and side some sort of "zone of identification" ?

No, but it would not be to show that he was crucified anyway -- a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects.

[-JGR]

hiya


Well, that's all I remember. oh well, It's Metroplex :smile:


hmm are you're arguments anything like those found in the "human face of god" thread ?

I have not read it, sorry. Too bad, you don't happen to have any pieces on Tectonics that goes into this do you? It would be very interesting to see your take on what proof the universe itself offers.


Just that he had a worth while mission inaugurating the Kingdom of God -- a totally ideological mission.So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?


In fact I know of such a religion(sect), they call themselves "the children of God", of course they are hunted by authorities and have to keep a low key, but I have read about them a couple of places.

Well, there you are -- any chance of them growing into a world religion I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope). And if there is some growth one should not rule out more growth as time passes. And I feel this kinda weakens the final point in your article that

"Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!"

In their case one could say the same with: The fact that they preach about and encourage pedophilia is their most incontrovertible proofs!"


sacrifice the "best" possible.. what would make the best sacrifice. A pure physical sacrifice, or one that even sacrificed his own honour in this way?

That would be too problematic -- all such vicarious deaths were either by animals, or for a noble purpose, which again is not apparent in Jesus' case unless you already believe it.unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble? And the notion of a "hell" wasn't new to the hellinists, neither the idea that one could be saved from it.


viewed as the allpowerfull and unshamed God. Since it was only the man part of jesus that was touched by the shame, not the god part.

That also has problems, because the Jews believed that the man and the spirit were a unified totality. What touched the Jesus part could not help but touch the god part.Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.



But if this word thing isn't good enough for you. The ancient Norse religions are probably good examples of religions without sin concept, and where the creator was not the one, one would usually pick to ask forgiveness if one thought the gods had been angered
So are you saying the Norse did not believe in moral wrong? I think I am missing something here. You say:The people had their form for moral, and the gods had theirs, but the gods did not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.


They did not care how people were treating each other when they were alive, except that they gave some recommendations.
All right, so this shows the gods did not care much about sin, but we still have a concept of it, do we not?Not as I define it no. If sin is merely described as someone doing something wrong it would fall under that category. But if it is doing something wrong in the eyes of the creator it is not the same concept.


*giggle*, yeah well.. this "zone of interaction" stuff seems a bit ad-hoc excuse if you ask me.

I hope you do not mean it is a false concept. This is taken from serious texts by scholars of anthropology.I have no reason to doubt the concept no. But since Jesus' side is clearly mentioned all the time I see no reason to involve it in this tale.


No, but it would not be to show that he was crucified anyway -- a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects.Then why did he show his hands and side?

[jpholding]

Oyez,

>>>oh well, It's Metroplex :smile:

Darn, never heard of that one. :huh:

>>>>Too bad, you don't happen to have any pieces on Tectonics that goes into this do you?

No -- I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn. :wink:

>>>So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?

I am not sure where you get that. I am saying only that there was nothing objectionable taught in the ministry of Jesus (beyond what the hoidy toidy Pharisees disliked, and the average Jew did not like them anyway).

>>> I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

Hmm, but Christianity did not have that advantage for the first 300 years, did it?

>>>But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope).

How many members now?

>>>unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble?

Not exactly my point. My point is that they woud look at the death and say, "That's shamneful." Then when they were told it was to save humanity they would say, "Yeah, right! Lousy way to do it! Get out of here!"

>>>Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.

I have to disagree that it "did not work for Jews" any less than Gentiles. And the NT shows that the Gentiles were taught by the apostles about the totality concept (more details if you want).

>>> not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.

Was there any way to offend the gods and incur their wrath?

>>> But if it is doing something wrong in the eyes of the creator it is not the same concept.

I would not make a distintion on the basis of the person offended.

>>>Then why did he show his hands and side?

To show that the wounds were NOT there -- which would be evidence of a resurrection (healed, glorified body) that they could touch with their hands (zone of interaction again).

[-JGR]

Oyez,
No -- I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn. :wink:
that's allways good advice, however we are talking about the stuff you deem the most convincing proof. So I had hoped you would have researched it a bit. But of course one does not have time for everything.


>>>So when Jesus was talking about himself as the "Son of Man" all the time, the disciples were silently shaking their heads behind his back, and thought, oh well.. he's a bit crazy, but he does make a good idealogical leader?

I am not sure where you get that. I am saying only that there was nothing objectionable taught in the ministry of Jesus (beyond what the hoidy toidy Pharisees disliked, and the average Jew did not like them anyway).
John5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him? I think this is far beyond ideological stuff as I understand you of claiming.


>>> I dunno, let them lead some world empires and give them free command of their armies to start mass conversions and we'll see.

Hmm, but Christianity did not have that advantage for the first 300 years, did it? Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.


>>>But anyway, they have grown despite what one should think (and hope).
How many members now? Did a little research on the net and it seems they have been a bit more public than I thought, and the sect was founded by David Berger from in the US not germany as I thought, more information from ex-members http://www.exfamily.org/ . Couldnt find any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.


>>>unless you already believed the death was noble ? not sure i'm following you now. What culture would say that saving all humanity from eternal damnation is not noble?

Not exactly my point. My point is that they woud look at the death and say, "That's shamneful." Then when they were told it was to save humanity they would say, "Yeah, right! Lousy way to do it! Get out of here!"
Well that would be a matter of how you tell it, if you say:
Our saviour died in the most shamefull way... and btw you were saved by it.. it wouldn't be so good.
however if you say:
So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.


>>>Ah.. but christianity never did work much for the jews. What about us looking at those who listened to the christian message instead, like the greek.. they did believe that the body and soul were separate. And they did accept the message.

I have to disagree that it "did not work for Jews" any less than Gentiles. And the NT shows that the Gentiles were taught by the apostles about the totality concept (more details if you want).
If it worked equally well why are the roman and greek religions extinct while the jewish religion lives on ?

But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?


>>> not care if the people did not follow up theirs. And as such the people would not pray forgiveness of the creator if they believed they had done something wrong; as you said could help people if they did not believe in Jesus.

Was there any way to offend the gods and incur their wrath?
Go spit 'em in the face would probably work. But not by spitting your neighboor in the face.
Norse religions did not have the good/bad concept that christianity does. Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.
Also one could incur favour by making sacrifices. And there were plenty of rituals for this. When one sacrificed one made a deal with the god in question. Like this: I give you this sacrifice/pledge some stuff to you, and you favour me in return. If one did not deliver on the pledge one might incur their wrath also of course. But this was much more of a deal made between equals as opposed to the "man beeing insignificant next to the allmighty" type of worshipping which one finds in christianity.


>>>Then why did he show his hands and side?

To show that the wounds were NOT there -- which would be evidence of a resurrection (healed, glorified body) that they could touch with their hands (zone of interaction again).
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??
If what you say is correct, Thomas would have wanted to see the _lack_ of nail marks..

[jpholding]

Howdy,


But of course one does not have time for everything.

That would be an apt description. :smile:

Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him?

It is not said -- all that is said is that some came to believe he was Messiah. You may note that John also records many leaving Jesus because of such claims.

I think this is far beyond ideological stuff as I understand you of claiming.

Is it? Is it ideological merely to claim to be a deity? How is that to be tested?

Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.

Hmm. I do not see that this makes a difference. :smile: World religion or not makes my argument the same.

any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.

OK. Who reported the 19000 number? Hopefully not self-reported. :wink:

So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.

By reversal? No. That's just semantic trickery. It's like trying to put bad news after good news to make the bad news more palatable. That does not work that I have ever seen.

But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?

Harder to understand would be better to say.

Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.

Ah. So what we have here is actually just a different orientation in which strength was "good" and weakness was "sin". It's the same thing I said, just different values, really.

Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??

I argue in one of my articles that the disciples, when they first heard of the word of the empty tomb, did not believe Jesus had been resurrected but had merely bodily ascended from the tomb (like Elijah, or Moses in the apocryphal lit). I say then that Thomas was expecting the same body as before, not a resurrected one.

[-JGR]

Hiya,


Were the disciples convinced before the ressurection, and believed Jesus was telling the truth here.. or did they not belive him?

It is not said -- all that is said is that some came to believe he was Messiah. You may note that John also records many leaving Jesus because of such claims.Well if they did believe him your point of the jews not beeing convinced until he was ressurected is void, and if they did not believe him I would say it makes the relationship between Jesus and his disciples a bit odd.



Nope, but it did not become a world religion before it did, and that was what you were asking.

Hmm. I do not see that this makes a difference. :smile: World religion or not makes my argument the same.
You asked wether the children of god (now called the Family) could become a world religion, and I said we can see if we give them armies to start conversion like the christians had at their disposal when they really gained momentum.


any estimates on how many members they have now. only some numbers from the 70's when they allegedly had 19000 members in 60 countries.

OK. Who reported the 19000 number? Hopefully not self-reported. :wink: heh, I believe the numbers were self reported yes.. which is why I said they allegedly have that number of members. Unfortunatly I was unable to find any other numbers. They are a pretty tight knit group.


So that you could live forever, our saviour suffered the greatest agony and shame. It sounds a bit better doesn't it.

By reversal? No. That's just semantic trickery. It's like trying to put bad news after good news to make the bad news more palatable. That does not work that I have ever seen.
It is not trickery no. The difference lies in wether one explaines why it happend and why it was necessary, or not.
If one just gives the fact, I have no problem with your view beeing correct..
that people would just see the shame as a shamefull thing.
However if one explains that this was done intentionally for a reason, I can not see why people should not believe it was done for a reason. (as long as one is given other evidence for the ressurection itself)


But is your argument along the lines that since they had a different cultural upbringing than what was preached, it was harder for them to be conviced of it?

Harder to understand would be better to say.
hmm doesn't this go against what you said earlier that the evidence for christ is just as good for any culture?


Instead it was much more based on strong/weak. If you acted strongly the gods might take notice and favour you, but if you acted weakly they simply wouldn't care about you.

Ah. So what we have here is actually just a different orientation in which strength was "good" and weakness was "sin". It's the same thing I said, just different values, really.
No, strength was valued, and weakness was frowned upon. wether one was nice or bad determined how many friends you got not what the gods thought of you.
but to get back on track this is what you said earlier regarding requirements for salvation:
"but admits his sinfulness and knows that he requires forgiveness from the
Creator"

Even if I were to accept that strong/weak equals good/bad, it doesn't help you any. Because if you prayed to the gods saying you had been weak and asked forgiveness, well It's like a christian praying to god telling Him "today I bought some vegetables, please forgive me". The gods wouldn't be the slightest interested. And therefore people wouldn't pray asking forgiveness for such.
And as already mentioned the creator concept is pretty vague in this religion.
Which of these would you pick as the creator you should ask forgiveness of:
- The one who made the initial world where the gods later were born.
- The one who gave birth to the gods
- The one who freed/shaped/created the one who gave birth to the gods
- The ones who made the world as humans see it
- The one who the world as we know it is made of
- The one who made The one who the world as we know it is made of
- The one who made the bodies of the humans
- The one who gave the human bodies life
- The one who gave the humans will


Then why did Thomas need to see the nail marks to believe that jesus had been resurrected??

I argue in one of my articles that the disciples, when they first heard of the word of the empty tomb, did not believe Jesus had been resurrected but had merely bodily ascended from the tomb (like Elijah, or Moses in the apocryphal lit). I say then that Thomas was expecting the same body as before, not a resurrected one.
Hmm so now you are saying both that "a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects." -
and that the jewish disciples were "expecting the same body as before"
You're loosing me a bit here. does this article of yours clarify this a bit more?

[Robyn Banks]

I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn.

Interesting. 'JP Holding' claims to "keep out of topics" he is "not expert in".

But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!

Here is one example where 'JP Holding' went well outside his expertise. Unfortunately for him it is an area that he wrongly considers himself to be most expert in: basic bible interpretation!

'JP Holding' has claimed to have some knowledge in interpreting the Bible. But is he an expert? Far from it. Take one example, where he claimed to interpret John 20.9.

This is the passage:
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
oudepw gar hdeisan thn grafhv, oti dei auton ek nekrwn anasthnai


Do you know what was JP Holding's "expert" commentary on this verse? Here it is, in all its so-called "expertise":
"rise again from the dead" -- "rise again" is the Greek anistemi used twice for emphasis.

What? The Greek word "anistemi" is "used twice for emphasis"??

'JP Holding' claims that he only ever writes on topics he is an expert in. But here he has made an elementary mistake, which would embarass even a beginner in biblical exegesis!!

1. The Greek word used is not "anistemi", but "anasthnai" (anasthnai). What JP Holding has done is to look up the root-word in Strong's Concordance. However, it is not the root word that is used here at all. Have a look at the verse above, to see that he is incorrect.

One basic error. Definitely not 'expert'. But the worst part is to come.

2. The Greek word "anasthnai" is in fact used only once in the verse! When 'JP Holding' misread his Strong's Concordance, he made a highly embarassing second error. Let me explain. Holding was reading a version of Strong's Concordance that links to the QuickVerse Bible Software KJV translation. The way this software works, it is possible to click on each word of the KJV English translation, and discover the root Greek word. In this case, the English phrase "rise again" is linked to the one Greek root word "anistemi". This is because the English translators of the KJV used the phrase "rise again" to translate "anasthnai". So, by clicking on either "rise" or "again" in the QuickVerse Software, Holding would have got the one word "anistemi".

Holding's elementary mistake was to think that, when his Bible Software provided him with the one Greek word "anistemi" from two English words, the word actually appeared twice in the Greek. This is a very poor and elementary mistake. And this error only goes to show:
a) Holding's ignorance of how his own Bible Software works, and
b) Holding's ignorance of the Greek that he was purporting to comment on 'as an expert'!

Two very basic errors. Definitely far from being an 'expert'.


So when you hear 'Holding' claim that he "keeps out of topics I am not expert in", you can have a wee smile to yourself. Mr Holding is far from being the 'expert' he claims himself to be. His knowledge of basic biblical interpretation is in fact quite rudimentary. Although he likes to puff himself up with the 'air of authority', the truth is that in talking about the Bible, he is talking about a subject in which he is far from expert!

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[jpholding]

But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!

Definitely so. :rofl: What's wrong, little Robyn? Did I make your zit explode? :lmbo:

I think I hardly need remind the intelligent folks how that happened -- and that it had nothing to do with "expertise" or lack thereof.

Meanwhile, when is Robyn ever going to produce all that documentation that Malina, et al are posing outdated ideas? Mmm?

[jpholding]

Howdy, now back to the adult in the room,

Well if they did believe him your point of the jews not beeing convinced until he was ressurected is void, and if they did not believe him I would say it makes the relationship between Jesus and his disciples a bit odd.

There is however a difference between what was asked to be believed before, and what was asked to be believed after. The crucifixion in particular made hard to accept that Jesus could be someone God favored.


It is not trickery no. The difference lies in wether one explaines why it happend and why it was necessary, or not.

I see no difference between the two except order of presentation. Saying it was done intentionally doesn't change that it is shameful and that shame is a serious value concept. Indeed to say one purpsely shamed one's self would make it even worse.

hmm doesn't this go against what you said earlier that the evidence for christ is just as good for any culture?

Not that I see...can you explain?

No, strength was valued, and weakness was frowned upon. wether one was nice or bad determined how many friends you got not what the gods thought of you.

Yes, I see this. And what I see is that it is the same thing I have said, only with different values, in which "weakness" is "sin" and "strength" is "goodness".

bought some vegetables, please forgive me". The gods wouldn't be the slightest interested.

? -- but though you were saying that the gods of the Norse placed value on this? So are you saying they did, but they still did not care?

Which of these would you pick as the creator you should ask forgiveness of:

That of course would have to be step 2. Another topic.


Hmm so now you are saying both that "a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects." - and that the jewish disciples were "expecting the same body as before"
You're loosing me a bit here. does this article of yours clarify this a bit more?

Perhaps. http://www.tektonics.org/tsr914.html -- let me reiterate:

1) They were not expecting a resurrected body.
2) Thus if they saw him they'd have expected wound marks.
3) Jesus showed them the areas and had them touch them so that they would know a) he was real b) he was resurrected and not merely back in normal flesh as they had expected.

[Robyn Banks]

'JP Holding' claims to "keep out of topics" he is "not expert in".
But is Holding's claim true? Definitely not!



Definitely so.

I see 'JP Holding' has been reduced to argument by assertion (together with his usual Fallacies of Ad Hominem, which I have ignored).

This is understandable. When 'Holding' asserted that the Greek word "anistemi" was used twice in John 20.9, he made the embarassing conclusion that this was done "for emphasis".

Not only that, but he has also made the same elementary mistake on other occasions, in respect of other verses.

Here is another 'the Greek appears twice' error - which demonstrates Holding's level of 'expertise' in biblical interpretation:

"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry (Matt. 17:22-23). Matthew uses egeiro here, twice again"

But Matthew does not use 'egeiro' twice. In fact, he did not even use the root-word 'egeiro', but one of its derivatives. And Matthew only used the word once.



I keep out of topics I am not expert in. It's a lesson many do not learn.

Evidently you do not keep out of topics you are not expert in.

Holding is an 'expert' Librarian. That is his training. Biblical interpretation is not an area of his expertise. And, as expected, we find basic errors of biblical interpretation.

Holding's claim to be an expert in interpreting the bible is untrue - untrue in fact, and proved true by his elementary errors.

Robyn Banks

[Jaltus]

Actually, it is the word egeirw, it just happens to be the future passive egerqhsetai. Any first year student could tell you that the qhs combo is the stem for the future passive, and obviously the tai ending shows it is a secondary tense, meaning that the form shifts. Take away the tense formative and add the typical first person ending, w, and we have egeirw since the i drops out in the future stem. Tada!

Evidently we can find "basic errors" in Robyn's posts as well. Perhaps he, too, should keep from posting about things which he does not know.

[Robyn Banks]

Actually, it is the word egeirw, it just happens to be the future passive egerqhsetai.

duh! ... which is precisely what I explained above, Jaltus:

"he [Matthew] did not even use the root-word 'egeiro', but one of its derivatives". The derivative, which Holding failed to identify, but which you kindly point out, is in fact "egerthesetai".

But Holding did not know this:
1. Holding did not know that the word was not egeiro, but egerthesetai.
2. Holding did not know that the word 'egerthesetai' appeared once, not twice as he claimed.

Understand, Jaltus?

If you had bothered to read my first post in this thread, you would have seen that I made the exact same point about Holding's two errors, in respect of John 20.9:

"The Greek word used is not "anistemi", but "anasthnai". What JP Holding has done is to look up the root-word in Strong's Concordance. However, it is not the root word that is used here at all."





Evidently we can find "basic errors" in Robyn's posts as well.

Evidently not. But it goes to show how you are prepared to misrepresent the truth, rather than face up to the fact that Holding made quite basic errors in biblical interpretation.

Do you admit that Holding was wrong in the two points I made above, Jaltus? Or are you less interested in the truth, than in misrepresenting what I plainly set out about Holding?

Robyn Banks

[Dee Dee Warren]

LOL at JP's sig link!

[Jaltus]

duh! ... which is precisely what I explained above, Jaltus:

"he [Matthew] did not even use the root-word 'egeiro', but one of its derivatives". The derivative, which Holding failed to identify, but which you kindly point out, is in fact "egerthesetai".

But you are wrong! A derivative would be dihgeirw or some other compund. It is not a derivative, IT IS THE WORD! Sure, it is inflected, just like "am" is a form of "be", but they are THE SAME WORD! One is not a derviative of the other.

Good grief, at least admit when you are wrong.


But Holding did not know this:
1. Holding did not know that the word was not egeiro, but egerthesetai.
2. Holding did not know that the word 'egerthesetai' appeared once, not twice as he claimed.

They are the SAME WORD! Grab a clue and stop using English to understand Greek. One is an inflected form of the other. It is not a derivative, it is THE SAME WORD!


Understand, Jaltus?

I do not care about your petty little battles with Holding, the point I am making is that you are wrong also. Now quit whining and trying to score points with the peanut gallery.

[Robyn Banks]

But you are wrong! A derivative would be dihgeirw or some other compund.

Derivative: "A word formed from another by derivation, such as electricity from electric." The definition fits well. Future tense derived from the root-word.

And you are just incorrect, Jaltus. The word egeiro is a different "word" from the word egerthesetai, even if egeiro is the root-word of egerthesetai. So your point is a Fallacy of Tu Quoque at best, but (and in fact) wrong at worst.

I hope you will admit you were wrong, Jaltus.

But it is clear that you are not even interested in the actual point I was making:



I do not care about your petty little battles with Holding

As you are just trying to score points with some petty definition game of yours concerning 'derivative', I won't bother replying to you any more, Jaltus.

The fact remains that:

1. Holding failed to distinguish "egeiro" from "egerthesetai", and failed to distinguish "anistemi" from "anasthnai".

2. Holding wrongly thought that each word appeared twice! And he even tried to explain that this was done "for emphasis"!! Amusingly, he made this mistake by looking at the two English words used to translate the one Greek word.


Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

LOL at JP's sig link!

To explain the 'joke':

JP Holding's http://www.tektonics.org/board.html is a parody of:

http://pub149.ezboard.com/btektonicsministry

Robyn Banks

[AVmetro]

Robyn stated:

Derivative: "A word formed from another by derivation, such as electricity from electric." The definition fits well. Future tense derived from the root-word.

And you are just incorrect, Jaltus. The word egeiro is a different "word" from the word egerthesetai, even if egeiro is the root-word of egerthesetai. So your point is a Fallacy of Tu Quoque at best, but (and in fact) wrong at worst.

I hope you will admit you were wrong, Jaltus.
As you are just trying to score points with some petty definition game of yours concerning 'derivative', I won't bother replying to you any more, Jaltus.

Does anyone else see this as patent rationalization? I don't think throwing quotation marks around the word, "word" lets you off the hook. Its obvious to us what you meant. Jaltus doesn't need to admit anything because he wasn't "wrong." You're the one who is going into minute details over the Greek. Given this, if you use the term, "derivative" when speaking of a different FORM you are going to be called on it. There is absolutely no way anyone familar with Greek is going to construe your words differently. Even I caught it. The only other option you have is to admit that you were extremely sloppy in your terminology.


1. Holding failed to distinguish "egeiro" from "egerthesetai", and failed to distinguish "anistemi" from "anasthnai".

Being they are the same word, can you inform us of the relevance? Did the form of the word impact his argument? If not, then your objection is insignificant.


2. Holding wrongly thought that each word appeared twice! And he even tried to explain that this was done "for emphasis"!! Amusingly, he made this mistake by looking at the two English words used to translate the one Greek word.

..and admitted his mistake and moved on! Given your obsessive fixation, the apellation, "teenager" is really becoming appropriate.

-AV

[-JGR]

hiya


The crucifixion in particular made hard to accept that Jesus could be someone God favored.
not if the point was for God to make the biggest possible sacrifice.

I have always wondered why Jesus was let so easely off the hook painwise, after all this was supposed to be a big sacrifice.
I mean people have suffered far more and far longer than Jesus did, but if I accept what you have told me about the shame, and especially considering that Jesus knowingly brought it upon himself. It gets far better than a couple of days of suffering as is how I have understood it before.



I see no difference between the two except order of presentation. Saying it was done intentionally doesn't change that it is shameful and that shame is a serious value concept. Indeed to say one purpsely shamed one's self would make it even worse.Haven't we already agreed that utilitarianism and vicarious death were well known conepts. In my oppinion these explain nicely why doing this on purpose would make people accept it. If it was _not_ done on purpose however your argument would be valid.


hmm doesn't this go against what you said earlier that the evidence for christ is just as good for any culture?

Not that I see...can you explain?
My understanding of your answers to my intial questions in this thread, is that everyone is given evidence equal in worth to what the next guy is given, for him to become a believer if he so wishes.
But now you are arguing for that a society which has this type of understanding of shame would have a harder time understanding it than a society which doesn't have it (like ours)?

ref:
"Harder to understand would be better to say"


Yes, I see this. And what I see is that it is the same thing I have said, only with different values, in which "weakness" is "sin" and "strength" is "goodness".
I'll try another angle to make it the difference clearer.

A follower of the norse religion would pray to his gods and brag about his strengths, while keeping quiet about his weakness because it is his strengths that are important.

apply this to a christian and we get:
A follower of the christian religion would pray to his God and brag about his goodness, while keeping quiet about his sins because it is his goodness that is important.

See how they can not simply be exchanged?


bought some vegetables, please forgive me". The gods wouldn't be the slightest interested.

? -- but though you were saying that the gods of the Norse placed value on this? So are you saying they did, but they still did not care?they placed value in strength, admitting weakness is just another sign of weakness.


Which of these would you pick as the creator you should ask forgiveness of:
That of course would have to be step 2. Another topic.
Please follow me just a bit on this, I am trying to show how your view of other religions does not necessarily work with all religions. And this very much affects your answer to my initial questions about why the Trinity does not give people the required evidence, so I would think it is well within our topic here.
You assumed that if they had not received the evidence they would still know that asking forgiveness of the creator was the correct thing to do. But I am trying to show that not only did the followers of the Aesir not pray forgiveness they did not even have a creator to pray forgiveness to.



Hmm so now you are saying both that "a Jewish resurrection body would be glorified and have no defects." - and that the jewish disciples were "expecting the same body as before"
You're loosing me a bit here. does this article of yours clarify this a bit more?

Perhaps. http://www.tektonics.org/tsr914.html -- let me reiterate:

1) They were not expecting a resurrected body.
2) Thus if they saw him they'd have expected wound marks.
3) Jesus showed them the areas and had them touch them so that they would know a) he was real b) he was resurrected and not merely back in normal flesh as they had expected.
There is yet one more thing I can not get to make sense here.
Initially you said:

"Not really. Thomas comes off looking like a remarkable idiot here. He had travelled with Jesus and these men for as much as three years. He is doubting for no good reason (as far as a Jew of the first century is concerned)."

Here you say he is doubting, but in your article and your reiteration you say he was simply expecting something else.

Another thing. Remember, Mary met Jesus first, and told the disciples about it, then all disciples except Thomas met the ressurected Jesus and then they told Thomas about it.
Are you saying that they all failed to tell Thomas about the fact that he had not risen as all jews would have expected him to? Or pherhaps they are misleading him on purpose?
Because Thomas clearly states _after_ the disciples have told him of the ressurected Jesus that he will not believe it until he sees the _marks_.
The only reason he would have had to ask for marks here is that the others did not say anything that made him question his assumption of what kind of ressurection Jesus would have. Since his words are directed at the other disciples he would have said he wanted to see the _lack_ of marks to believe their claim (If they had told him about the kind of ressurection you say it was.)

[jpholding]

I think we cam safely ignore Teenager Banks, who is now taking some time to help Bill Clinton define the word "is". :lmbo:

To the adult in the room... :smile:

not if the point was for God to make the biggest possible sacrifice.

That again workms only if you are willing to consider that God was involved. That the sacrifice WAS shameful would first suggest to these people that God was as far from it as possible.

I have always wondered why Jesus was let so easely off the hook painwise, after all this was supposed to be a big sacrifice.

I have some material on that, since it is a side topic: http://www.tektonics.org/2muchshame.html -- actually pain was not even close to the most important thing. Shame was what was most important.

Haven't we already agreed that utilitarianism and vicarious death were well known conepts.

Yes, but it did not help erase the value issue. The natural answer is, "God would do it better/different."

t everyone is given evidence equal in worth to what the next guy is given, for him to become a believer if he so wishes.

OK, I would only add that it would be sufficient evidence, though I would also posit that some never get any or enough anyway, based on foreknowledge that they would be convinced by no amount of evidence, but that is another story.

But now you are arguing for that a society which has this type of understanding of shame would have a harder time understanding it than a society which doesn't have it (like ours)?

A harder time accepting it, yes, because of cultural prejudices, not for rational reasons.



See how they can not simply be exchanged?

My exchange is not that simple nor relevant to bragging. I still see an equation of strength = good. The equal to asking forgiveness would be, the bragging itself and never admitting weakness, because strength has been made the prime value. In other words they subverted the whole sin and forgiveness paradigm by redefining "sin," which is itself an indication that they were aware (or once were aware) of what a Creator required in terms of sin.



Here you say he is doubting, but in your article and your reiteration you say he was simply expecting something else.

Thomas doubted EVERY possibility of Jesus being back, here -- he had not even got as far as, "Was it a rez body, or a resuscitated one?" He doubted at a much earlier stage of the analysis, do you see what I mean?

Are you saying that they all failed to tell Thomas about the fact that he had not risen as all jews would have expected him to?

I doubt that they fully understood what had happened at all. No one expected a resurrection of one man like this. I suspect this is why Jesus needed 40 days to get their heads straight. :wink:

[Gideon Brown]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but doesn't John 20:27, 'Reach out your hand and put it into my side' imply that Jesus' wounds were still there? Or is 'into' a poor translation in this case?

[jpholding]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but doesn't John 20:27, 'Reach out your hand and put it into my side' imply that Jesus' wounds were still there? Or is 'into' a poor translation in this case?

That's more a Jaltus question, but I'd ask how a hand can fit "inside" a spear puncture wound... :smile: Maybe it means inside the curve of the body?

[-JGR]

howdy


not if the point was for God to make the biggest possible sacrifice.

That again workms only if you are willing to consider that God was involved. That the sacrifice WAS shameful would first suggest to these people that God was as far from it as possible.I think you are putting to much weight in the jewish view of how a God should behave.
What if we consider the fact that the gods the hellinistic societies were used to could be shamed? I take you now agree that the gospel worked much better with the hellinistic societies than with the jews? So it is more important to see things from a hellinistic view than from a jewish view.


I have some material on that, since it is a side topic: http://www.tektonics.org/2muchshame.html -- actually pain was not even close to the most important thing. Shame was what was most important. interesting article, thank you :smile:


Haven't we already agreed that utilitarianism and vicarious death were well known conepts.

Yes, but it did not help erase the value issue. The natural answer is, "God would do it better/different."I would say the natural answer would be that God wouldn't even do anything viewable to humans. Why should God have to sacrifice anything/or do anything visible to change rules he can change at a whim? The whole story seems meaningless to me. hmm but that's a side issue so I think I'll start a new thread on that.

but regarding the value issue... ok let's try a different angle.
I would say that everyone has a limit to how much evil they will accept for a greater good. But the greater the good the greater the evil they will accept.
agree?
Do you believe the ANE was different?
Is it not possible that some (but certainly not all) accepted that as long as the good was so great as it was, they could ignore the shame?


question: when you talk about a jewish "real" ressurection removing all blemishes to the body, what would such a ressurection do to a persons shame? I take the answer is nothing, but you know more about that ressurection stuff than me, so I have to ask :)


t everyone is given evidence equal in worth to what the next guy is given, for him to become a believer if he so wishes.

OK, I would only add that it would be sufficient evidence, though I would also posit that some never get any or enough anyway, based on foreknowledge that they would be convinced by no amount of evidence, but that is another story.
WOW, now that is interesting! You say that God ignores giving some people evidence because he has given up on them before they even had a chance?

Why is it that some people are so hopeless? Do you not believe we are all created with the same potential for understanding that God does exist?

Up til now I thought I was starting to understand (if not agree) with your view on this... but now you totally lost me.


But now you are arguing for that a society which has this type of understanding of shame would have a harder time understanding it than a society which doesn't have it (like ours)?

A harder time accepting it, yes, because of cultural prejudices, not for rational reasons. So the culture one is born in directly influences how easy it is to accept the evidence for Jesus ?



See how they can not simply be exchanged?
My exchange is not that simple nor relevant to bragging.yes it is.. because we are talking about two religions that have different methods of worshipping. In one bragging would be one method of worshipping while it would not be in the other.


I still see an equation of strength = good. The equal to asking forgiveness would be, the bragging itself and never admitting weakness, because strength has been made the prime value. In other words they subverted the whole sin and forgiveness paradigm by redefining "sin," which is itself an indication that they were aware (or once were aware) of what a Creator required in terms of sin.
ah yes.. I can agree to that no problem. But now you are opening for that a culture "once were aware of what a Creator required in terms of sin", which means they are no longer aware of it. And then I can't see how they are supposed to understand how to come to heaven? See my problem?



Thomas doubted EVERY possibility of Jesus being back, here -- he had not even got as far as, "Was it a rez body, or a resuscitated one?" He doubted at a much earlier stage of the analysis, do you see what I mean? yep, I do now :wink:


Are you saying that they all failed to tell Thomas about the fact that he had not risen as all jews would have expected him to?
I doubt that they fully understood what had happened at all. No one expected a resurrection of one man like this. I suspect this is why Jesus needed 40 days to get their heads straight. :wink:
hmmmmm...... so now your argument is that all the disciples were a bit... slow?

[Amazing Rando]

hmmmmm...... so now your argument is that all the disciples were a bit... slow?

That's an understatement! :smile: The Synoptics (especially Mark), are full of examples of Jesus getting really fed up with the disciples slowness to comprehend his message and identity.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

I think you are putting to much weight in the jewish view of how a God should behave.

ERGH! :rant:

I'm afraid that's where the weight NEEDS to be. The context is what tells us what they will do and how they will react.

What if we consider the fact that the gods the hellinistic societies were used to could be shamed?

Um -- I don't agree with that, if by that you mean, they could be shamed and still be honored and have a following. Who do you have in mind? The Greeks were just as much into honor and shame as the Jews.

I would say the natural answer would be that God wouldn't even do anything viewable to humans.

OK....so then we have an objection typical of skeptical persons: "I don't see any evidence..."

Why should God have to sacrifice anything/or do anything visible to change rules he can change at a whim?

I actually do not think God can do that. As a consistent and logical being I do not see that He can "whim" as He pleases.

greater good. But the greater the good the greater the evil they will accept. agree?

Yes. However I do not think one's personal level of acceptance makes any difference.

Is it not possible that some (but certainly not all) accepted that as long as the good was so great as it was, they could ignore the shame?

Possible? Only in theory. There is not one shred of evidence for it, and all is against it.

question: when you talk about a jewish "real" ressurection removing all blemishes to the body, what would such a ressurection do to a persons shame?

For Jesus, it would be God saying that the shame accorded men because of the crucifixion, is overturned.

WOW, now that is interesting! You say that God ignores giving some people evidence because he has given up on them before they even had a chance?

I say this of those whom any number of chances would be ineffectual anyway.

Why is it that some people are so hopeless?

I'd have to ask them. :smile:

Do you not believe we are all created with the same potential for understanding that God does exist?

Yes, but they are not all created with the same will to choose -- because that is not something "created".

means they are no longer aware of it. And then I can't see how they are supposed to understand how to come to heaven? See my problem?

Yes. As for an answer I'd be foolish to make suggestions without living in the culture itself. Missionaries are taught to tailor the message and take years of education to learn how to do so.

hmmmmm...... so now your argument is that all the disciples were a bit... slow?

As Rando noted, the NT is full of such instances. Only Matthew among the original 12 had any sort of rabbinic education, and it was probably moldy from being a tax collector. :wink:

[-JGR]

hiya,




I think you are putting to much weight in the jewish view of how a God should behave.

ERGH! :rant:
I'm afraid that's where the weight NEEDS to be. The context is what tells us what they will do and how they will react.
heh, sorry... didn't intend to make you (or rather your smilies :smile: ) upset
Of course I fully agree on the part that the _context_ is important. But we are disagreeing on what the context is. I see jews influenced by hellinistic traditions. While your jews are not influenced (at least influenced to a much smaller degree).
There are many examples of jews picking up on hellinistic views.
As First Maccabees recounts a century before the christ arrived, "In those days there emerged in Israel lawless men [Jewish Hellenists] who persuaded many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the nations that are around us; for since we separated ourselves from them, many evils have come upon us’" (I Maccabees 1:11).

You are not denying that jewish hellenists existed I hope?
Since christianity did not gain wide acceptance among the jews. I only have to prove that _some_ jews probably had other views on this than the majority. Which I believe is easy. However you will have to prove that _all_ jews most likely had your view.


What if we consider the fact that the gods the hellinistic societies were used to could be shamed?

Um -- I don't agree with that, if by that you mean, they could be shamed and still be honored and have a following. Who do you have in mind? The Greeks were just as much into honor and shame as the Jews.
The first that comes to mind would be Hera, an extremely powerfull goddess that was shamed by her husband all the time. Their relationship even started of with Zeus raping her. Another good example would be Merope, who was so ashamed that she had married a mortal that she hid herself in the pleiades for all eternity.

There are of course many other and probably better examples, but we need to remember that unlike the jewish YHWH, the hellenistic gods were much more human like (flawed) in their actions and social interactions. They were not in any way "perfect".


I would say the natural answer would be that God wouldn't even do anything viewable to humans.

OK....so then we have an objection typical of skeptical persons: "I don't see any evidence..."agreed.. it was a very subjective remark and I should have left it out.


Why should God have to sacrifice anything/or do anything visible to change rules he can change at a whim?

I actually do not think God can do that. As a consistent and logical being I do not see that He can "whim" as He pleases.I was unclear, I merely ment that as an omnipotent beeing He could make this change happen any way he saw fit. And doing it in the way that he did(leaving enough room for billions to doubt the authenticity), is in my subjective view not a good way of doing it, if the goal really was to "save" humanity as a whole.



question: when you talk about a jewish "real" ressurection removing all blemishes to the body, what would such a ressurection do to a persons shame?

For Jesus, it would be God saying that the shame accorded men because of the crucifixion, is overturned. What I am wondering is what it would do to the average person on the street.


WOW, now that is interesting! You say that God ignores giving some people evidence because he has given up on them before they even had a chance?
I say this of those whom any number of chances would be ineffectual anyway.
Why do you suppose someone like that even exists?
Do you believe that all of those who die as unbelievers today would not have believed if they had gotten more evidence?



means they are no longer aware of it. And then I can't see how they are supposed to understand how to come to heaven? See my problem?

Yes. As for an answer I'd be foolish to make suggestions without living in the culture itself. Missionaries are taught to tailor the message and take years of education to learn how to do so.
But your assumption that God has in some way provided for them, lies in the fact that the Bible says that God is good and just, even though you see no way God has actually provided for them?

[jpholding]

Heya,

Of course I fully agree on the part that the _context_ is important. But we are disagreeing on what the context is. I see jews influenced by hellinistic traditions. While your jews are not influenced (at least influenced to a much smaller degree).

True, but when it comes to the matter under discussion Hellenism was in agreement with the Jews on this point. All of Mediterranean society at this time was of the same orientation.

The first that comes to mind would be Hera, an extremely powerfull goddess that was shamed by her husband all the time. Their relationship even started of with Zeus raping her.

I do not know this story, so I may have to ask questions. Is there a copy of it online? Also given tat Zeus married Hera, that amounted to a restoration of her honor afterthe same of rape.

Another good example would be Merope, who was so ashamed that she had married a mortal that she hid herself in the pleiades for all eternity.

I do not know this one either, but that she had to hide tells me enough. This being was worshipped? By whom?



I was unclear, I merely ment that as an omnipotent beeing He could make this change happen any way he saw fit.

As long as it is logical, yes, I'd say so.

And doing it in the way that he did(leaving enough room for billions to doubt the authenticity),

I think you'd need to show that 1) there were billions; 2) their "room for doubt" was viable, but then I suppose that is what we are deciding. :smile:

What I am wondering is what it would do to the average person on the street.

If they really believed the resurrection then they would accept it as a vindication.


Why do you suppose someone like that even exists?

I think such people existing is inevitable in a world of free choices, as part of the variety.

Do you believe that all of those who die as unbelievers today would not have believed if they had gotten more evidence?

I think it is likely, yes.

But your assumption that God has in some way provided for them, lies in the fact that the Bible says that God is good and just, even though you see no way God has actually provided for them?

Of course; though given that it is out of scope to prove (being inside minds) I don't find this a great concern to worry about.

[-JGR]

hiya,


The first that comes to mind would be Hera, an extremely powerfull goddess that was shamed by her husband all the time. Their relationship even started of with Zeus raping her.
I do not know this story, so I may have to ask questions. Is there a copy of it online?http://www.greeka.com/greek-mythology.htm

Also given tat Zeus married Hera, that amounted to a restoration of her honor afterthe same of rape.
yes.. but my point is that the concept of gods beeing able to be shamed was there. And since they were able to be shamed, _and_ restore their honour as seen with Hera. There is no reason Jesus could not do the same, as you are claiming.

And in addition you were arguing for that if shame was involved people would not believe God was involved.
"That again workms only if you are willing to consider that God was involved. That the sacrifice WAS shameful would first suggest to these people that God was as far from it as possible"
But as I am saying shamed gods was certainly not unthinkable to these people.

Another god beeing seriously shamed, Ixion a son of Ares. While Zeus was doing it with Ixions wife (behind Heras back), when Ixion cast his eyes at Hera, Zeus made him do it with a cloud, and then made the furies flay him alive, and tie him to a burning wheel for all eternity.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/persephone/damned.html


Another good example would be Merope, who was so ashamed that she had married a mortal that she hid herself in the pleiades for all eternity.
I do not know this one either, but that she had to hide tells me enough. This being was worshipped? By whom?*shrug*, she was part of the pantheon, certainly not a major deity, but a deity none the less. There is no reason someone wouldn't ask for her help especially if in a similar situation as she was.

btw I read your last reply again:
"Um -- I don't agree with that, if by that you mean, they could be shamed and still be honored and have a following. Who do you have in mind? The Greeks were just as much into honor and shame as the Jews." (emphasis added)

when you ask about them having a following it seems to me you are expecting a monotheistic sort of worship, where each god has a certain following that prays to that specific god?
This is very unlike how the greek religion worked. Each god had a certain role and interest, so if you wanted to do something within their sphere of influence or something which that god might have an interest in then you would do some worshipping to that god. It's not like everyone selected what god was "their" god.



And doing it in the way that he did(leaving enough room for billions to doubt the authenticity),
I think you'd need to show that 1) there were billions; 2) their "room for doubt" was viable, but then I suppose that is what we are deciding. :smile:1,2. umm there are billions alive today that don't have enough evidence.
Lets go back to the missionaries in Africa whom you mentioned earlier. These guys and girls convert people all the time? And they will probably continue to do so for many years to come? Many people in Africa die even today _before_ the missionaries arrive. Could _none_ of these have been converted had the missionaries arrived in time?


What I am wondering is what it would do to the average person on the street.
If they really believed the resurrection then they would accept it as a vindication.So if they were told about hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ressurection, by someone they deemed trustworthy. Then they would accept that the shame was gone, wouldn't they?

[jpholding]

Hey ho,

yes.. but my point is that the concept of gods beeing able to be shamed was there. And since they were able to be shamed, _and_ restore their honour as seen with Hera. There is no reason Jesus could not do the same, as you are claiming.

I do not say that there is no reason; I say that it is impossible to get someone to believe that he was vindicated, without sufficient evidence.

But as I am saying shamed gods was certainly not unthinkable to these people.

I spoke specifically of "God", the Jewish deity YHWH. The Jews would never accept this, and the pagans would still demand proof of vindication.

*shrug*, she was part of the pantheon, certainly not a major deity, but a deity none the less.

But without worship, what does it matter? Members seem to have been in the pantheon because of what they were; not because of what they did. If no one admired them, what good is it?

There is no reason someone wouldn't ask for her help especially if in a similar situation as she was.

Do you have examples of such? I think this is crucial.

when you ask about them having a following it seems to me you are expecting a monotheistic sort of worship, where each god has a certain following that prays to that specific god?

No...it need not be monotheistic.

Each god had a certain role and interest, so if you wanted to do something within their sphere of influence or something which that god might have an interest in then you would do some worshipping to that god. It's not like everyone selected what god was "their" god.

All right, so what "sphere" did the deity you named work in?

1,2. umm there are billions alive today that don't have enough evidence.

I cannot assume that unless I talk to them. :smile: if you don't mind, this is a side topic I'd rather put aside to keep the conversation neat, and anyway, I am discussing it in another thread here in Apol 301 if you want to look that over.

So if they were told about hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ressurection, by someone they deemed trustworthy. Then they would accept that the shame was gone, wouldn't they?

That's somewhat simplified as a scenario. I'd put it that if they had trustworthy evidence, then they would accept it.

[-JGR]

Greetings



I do not say that there is no reason; I say that it is impossible to get someone to believe that he was vindicated, without sufficient evidence.You say the evidence you have today is sufficent don't you?
They would have the same accounts of masses of eyewitnesses that you have accepted for true. Are you demanding more of them than you are of yourself?


But as I am saying shamed gods was certainly not unthinkable to these people.
I spoke specifically of "God", the Jewish deity YHWH. The Jews would never accept this,You spoke of the jewish God as seen by jews, I am speaking of how the God would be seen by the hellenists (who are the ones who really accepted the religion), and some hellinistic jews.
And remember that unlike the classical jews the hellinists did not have the totalitarity concept. So the concept that the god was not touched by what happened to the man would not be as foreign to them as most jews.
And as such the God part did not even necessarily need the vindication, since only the man was touched.
And hmm... remember this is a sacrifice.
For the sacrifice concept to work the shame doesn't even have to be vindicated! Pherhaps they saw it as the man kept the shame (and was actually never vindicated), while they worshipped the god part of him, which was never shamed.
As I see it, it helps you nothing arguing from the view of the standard jew, since we have agreed that there was a heavy hellinistic influence on some jews. And the hellinistic society would not have the same objections as the standard jew, even though of course they also had very strong concepts of shame.

A big difference in the honor of the jews and the hellinists is that, for the Jews YHWH could be a source of Honor, and as such could not be shamed, since he partly is honor.
While for the hellinists gods could be shamed just as humans could.

I think you here have only showed me a cultural difference that made people of one culture look at the gospel of Jesus and not believe it, while others since they had a culture more fit for the message were willing to believe it.


and the pagans would still demand proof of vindication.If proof was _so_ important to them.. what proof did they get and demand of Hera's vindication ?
The greek culture did certainly not care much with their religion beeing logical and consistent, which would go hand in hand with demanding proof. They had no problem with themselves having one view and set of tales of one god, while the next village would say something totally different about the same god.


*shrug*, she was part of the pantheon, certainly not a major deity, but a deity none the less.

But without worship, what does it matter? Members seem to have been in the pantheon because of what they were; not because of what they did. If no one admired them, what good is it?A deity would still be above a mortal, nomatter how shamed. And she would still have the powers of a deity. I can see no reason to ignore her.


There is no reason someone wouldn't ask for her help especially if in a similar situation as she was.
Do you have examples of such? I think this is crucial.I'm not able to find any examples for you at the moment no, I'm only basing this on my understanding of how the religion worked.
But please ignore this Merope part if you do not find it satisfying, I only brought her in to prove that for hellinists, gods could be shamed.
And since it is likely that the hellinists would in some degree apply their understanding of gods to the new God YHWH, it would certainly not tell them that the new God, would have nothing to do with shame.


I cannot assume that unless I talk to them. :smile: if you don't mind, this is a side topic I'd rather put aside to keep the conversation neat, and anyway, I am discussing it in another thread here in Apol 301 if you want to look that over.ok, no problem.


So if they were told about hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ressurection, by someone they deemed trustworthy. Then they would accept that the shame was gone, wouldn't they?
That's somewhat simplified as a scenario. I'd put it that if they had trustworthy evidence, then they would accept it.Again, you trust the evidence, so why shouldn't they do it?

ADDED:
From what I see in addition to shame and honor, two other major principals were held in equal high regard among the ANE societies. Honesty and hospitality. Hospitality is of course not interesting to this.
However that honesty was held in such high regard could explain some of why not much evidence was needed to believe something.
If something was said it was regarded as beeing the truth. People would (more than today) believe that people simply do not lie.

This is of course a very nice concept until someone for some reason isn't telling what is factually the truth. The reasons for this could be many of course; lies, dreams, excagerations, misinterpretations, dellusions or any combination of these.

[jpholding]

Hiya,

ou say the evidence you have today is sufficent don't you? They would have the same accounts of masses of eyewitnesses that you have accepted for true. Are you demanding more of them than you are of yourself?

No, I would have demanded the same. I can see myself as one of the wealthy converts who did the investigation needed.

Of course sufficient evidence provided, and then taking the step of coming to grips with it, are two different matters.


You spoke of the jewish God as seen by jews, I am speaking of how the God would be seen by the hellenists (who are the ones who really accepted the religion), and some hellinistic jews.

Hellenist Jews were no different than Palestinian Jews in this respect that I can find.

And remember that unlike the classical jews the hellinists did not have the totalitarity concept.

Where do you get this from? What data we have suggests that Hellenism did not seriously affect the Jewish view of God to this point, not even in Philo the most "Hellenist" of all.

Pherhaps they saw it as the man kept the shame (and was actually never vindicated), while they worshipped the god part of him, which was never shamed.

There is no basis for this "perhaps" that I have seen in study. And even then a Hellenist would wonder about permitting such shame to happen to an occupied body.

While for the hellinists gods could be shamed just as humans could.

But I have asked: Shamed, and then worshipped, without vindication?

If proof was _so_ important to them.. what proof did they get and demand of Hera's vindication ?

The tale was told of it, was it not? The acceptance of the ancient tales was a cultural given. It's accuracy would have been "ensured" by it being a tradition of the people.

A deity would still be above a mortal, nomatter how shamed. And she would still have the powers of a deity. I can see no reason to ignore her.

But I ask: Did they ignore her? Or did they worship her? Or.....?

If you do not know just now that is OK. I respect those who say so. :smile:


However that honesty was held in such high regard could explain some of why not much evidence was needed to believe something.

I have to quiz you on this. Honesty was valued, yes (as it always was) but honor was valued more; thus the "honorable lie"....let me see if this is relevant to what you say....

If something was said it was regarded as beeing the truth.

I'm afraid this is false according to the social science works I have read. If anything people of this day were always ready to assume they were being lied to. If you wish I will find more on this point from one of my books.

[-JGR]

howdy


No, I would have demanded the same. I can see myself as one of the wealthy converts who did the investigation needed.

Of course sufficient evidence provided, and then taking the step of coming to grips with it, are two different matters.yes.. but how is that relevant?


You spoke of the jewish God as seen by jews, I am speaking of how the God would be seen by the hellenists (who are the ones who really accepted the religion), and some hellinistic jews.

Hellenist Jews were no different than Palestinian Jews in this respect that I can find.
Well, this of course would depend on how much they took the hellinistic principles to heart. And there surely are signs of them fashioning their belief after hellinistic views. So I don't see why this should be a "rule" that couldn't be broken.


And remember that unlike the classical jews the hellinists did not have the totalitarity concept.

Where do you get this from? What data we have suggests that Hellenism did not seriously affect the Jewish view of God to this point, not even in Philo the most "Hellenist" of all.
Saying that Philo is the most hellenist of all doesn't sound right to me.

Since I have already brought up the maccabees, I'll point to them again :)
Or rather their adversaries, the jews following king Antiochus. These certainly let their religion be influenced by hellenistic traditions. Dropping circumsision, sabbath, rules for kosher food and such.

Do you agree that jewism won a great number of converts from the societies around them at this time? If you do there is the issue of people using the mindset they already have to understand their new religion and so bring with them other understandings of how a God should be.

I see people also use the near disappearance of the Alexandrian jewry as an argument for jewish identity (and thus also their religion) beeing undermined by the influence of other cultures.


Pherhaps they saw it as the man kept the shame (and was actually never vindicated), while they worshipped the god part of him, which was never shamed.
There is no basis for this "perhaps" that I have seen in study.Have you seen any study that would directly oppose it?

And even then a Hellenist would wonder about permitting such shame to happen to an occupied body.And this wonder would for some (those who became believers) be remove by the fact that there was a reason for it.


While for the hellinists gods could be shamed just as humans could.
But I have asked: Shamed, and then worshipped, without vindication?There are two reasons for this not beeing a relevant point.
First is the concept of the trinity, in which the Father/creator can not be seen to get any shame from this. So if the unshamed Father vindicated him (by ressurection) it's not a problem after all.
The other is my point above that there may be no need for a vindication.


If proof was _so_ important to them.. what proof did they get and demand of Hera's vindication ?

The tale was told of it, was it not? The acceptance of the ancient tales was a cultural given. It's accuracy would have been "ensured" by it being a tradition of the people.
Hmm so you see that tradition leads to acceptance even though there never has been any proof.
two major questions from this:
1. How did the myth originate?
2. What is the reason you do not apply this to christianity?
that there were sensible people here who surely checked if all of this was true, because it says so in the bible?

I think I'll list up some of my assumptions on this last point.

- if one believed the gospels one were told. Would one go to check it out?
probably not. If you already believed it there wasn't need for more proof.
- If one did _not_ believe the gospels one were told. Would one go to check it out?
probably not. If one doesn't believe it, why waste time on making sure you don't believe it.
- Were there many of those who wanted to check it out anyway, who really had the option of setting aside a couple of months of ones life to actually do it.
probably not.
- When he came back and said it was all fiction, would many of those who were "willing to die for the belief" believe it?
probably not.
- Even if all of those in one settlement stopped believeing, would necessarily those of other settlements also stop believing?
probably not.

My point beeing... if you really are willing to die for something (and stuff doesn't have to be true for people to be willing to die for it).. you're not going to let your self be affected by one guy simply saying.. "yeah I was there and it's all total BS, they've never heard of any ressurection, they've never heard of Jesus, heck, even his supposed home town of Nazareth doesn't exist."
If you don't have the option of checking it out for yourself.. what would you do? continue with what you have already dedicated your life to, or listen to this obvious envoy of Satan trying to lure you away from the true path.

Have you heard of the psychological principal called "sunk cost"?
This is an ok explanation:http://www.travismorien.com/FAQ/psychology/sunkcostfallacy.htm. It is a well proven psychological fact that the human brain (or supposed free will, if you like) has this flaw.
The more people have invested in something the more reasons they will need to abandon their investment, even though it is logically obvious that abandoning the investment is the reasonable thing to do.
This concept plays a major part in my assumptions above, if someone has dedicated their lives to something and pherhaps have even left their home and family, their investment is extremely large. And even a former fellow christian telling him stuff is not true, might not be enough to get passed the "sunk cost" flaw in his mind.

[quote]A deity would still be above a mortal, nomatter how shamed. And she would still have the powers of a deity. I can see no reason to ignore her.

But I ask: Did they ignore her? Or did they worship her? Or.....?

As I said from my understanding of it, she would not be ignored, and would probably get a prayer once in a while, but since this is not relevant to the point which I was trying to make with Merope (that greek gods could be shamed), I'll leave it at that.
I still believe Hera is sufficient for one that was shamed, and then afterwards was still worshipped. That she pherhaps had to be vindicated first by marrying, is not important since the Father vindicated Jesus through the ressurection.

[quote]However that honesty was held in such high regard could explain some of why not much evidence was needed to believe something.

I have to quiz you on this.
Sure go right ahead. But keep in mind this was just a thought I got when reading up on the shame and honour systems of the ANE.
I'll explain my thoughts a bit better.

- If you live in a society where honesty is very much valued, you will expect the people of that society to also keep honesty in high regard. Therefor you will expect people to tell the truth. (to a higher degree than we do today)
and thus have a lower guard towards untruths than people of other cultures.

- You will likely encounter very few lies, since everyone around you is always doing their best to keep their honesty. And with this people will not get much training in recognizing untruths in the very few instances they are exposed to it (except where regarding religion, they are already used to stuff not necessarily making sence).

But please note that I am not saying this makes people totally gullible by itself, just somewhat more gullible than they would have been in an other culture.


Honesty was valued, yes (as it always was) but honor was valued more; thus the "honorable lie"....let me see if this is relevant to what you say....

If something was said it was regarded as beeing the truth.

I'm afraid this is false according to the social science works I have read. If anything people of this day were always ready to assume they were being lied to. If you wish I will find more on this point from one of my books.Yes please, I'd like that very much, it sounds interesting.

I notice you did not comment on my point that these people were obviously not used to questioning wether religions were logical or not, it would be interesting to hear your thought on the subject.
As I said, it was not uncommon that the same gods where described very differently by people living side by side. Without this seeming to cause any problems for their beliefs.
And we both know neither of them could have pointed at any _real_ evidence for their position, other than.. this is what I've always heard or this and that book says so, this suggest to me they were not what you and I would call sceptical about the religions they had.
I am of course now talking of the common man, I know there were those who questioned it.. but for some reason the common man did not understand and/or listen to the sceptics, just as the religious of today do not listen and/or understand the sceptics of today.

On this I've even seen plenty of people today that are publicly advocating that those who are religious should not even listen to the arguments of the sceptics. Since if there had been anything to the arguments, the religious people would have listened to it long ago. I suspect they were saying the exact same thing back then, what do you think?

In addition.. I would like to wish Mr. Holding and everyone else a good weekend :smile:

[jpholding]

Howdy,

Any chance I can clone you can have your clone replace Johnny Skeptic? :lmbo:

Yes.. but how is that relevant?

It would make the point that lack of being convinced is no guarantee that the truth was not told.

Saying that Philo is the most hellenist of all doesn't sound right to me.

Do you have a better candidate? :smile:

These certainly let their religion be influenced by hellenistic traditions. Dropping circumsision, sabbath, rules for kosher food and such.

These are practices, but does this show they dropped their anthopological assumptions about man? If they did, can they be rightly called Jews any more?

If you do there is the issue of people using the mindset they already have to understand their new religion and so bring with them other understandings of how a God should be.

If we had some literary evidence from such converts it would be very helpful. I know of none. It would be of interest to know how they came to grips with the differences.

Have you seen any study that would directly oppose it?

Not as yet.

een to get any shame from this. So if the unshamed Father vindicated him (by ressurection) it's not a problem after all.

And we are back to the same matter: How to get persons to believe it?

Hmm so you see that tradition leads to acceptance even though there never has been any proof.

No, only for the ancient tales. The question of origin of the myths for these persons was beyond investigation; this cannot apply to Christianity, which did not have antiquity and which for crucial decades was open to scrutiny and debunking.

- if one believed the gospels one were told. Would one go to check it out?
probably not

I say they would check it out, believe or not believe, if they had the resources, which it appears many did, as Christianity had an unusual number of converts from the mobile and somewhat well-off middle class.

- Were there many of those who wanted to check it out anyway, who really had the option of setting aside a couple of months of ones life to actually do it.

Yes, for a matter of honor was at stake and of a deviant and dangerous movement that proclaimed Jesus as Lord and not Caesar. A couple of months for the persons in question would be of little matter; they also had slaves to send for much of the work.

- When he came back and said it was all fiction, would many of those who were "willing to die for the belief" believe it?

They would not be "believing" unless it had already been verified beyond question.

doesn't have to be true for people to be willing to die for it).. you're not going to let your self be affected by one guy simply saying..

In this world, perhaps so, but that is not the case for the ancients and their concern for honor and family.

Have you heard of the psychological principal called "sunk cost"?

I have heard it in agriculture. :smile: However, the flaw in application here is not only that this is a different social setting, but it is also a fact that one would get a far better "investment" leaving Christianity in this setting than staying with it.

- You will likely encounter very few lies, since everyone around you is always doing their best to keep their honesty. And with this people will not get much training in recognizing untruths in the very few instances they are exposed to it (except where regarding religion, they are already used to stuff not necessarily making sence).

Well here as I said you have a world that is the opposite. People expect to be lied to and everyone does their best to keep honor, including lying if needed. A book to read here is Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentaries (on the Synoptics for one, John on the other); also Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, though happy hunting finding them where you are.


I notice you did not comment on my point that these people were obviously not used to questioning wether religions were logical or not, it would be interesting to hear your thought on the subject.

Are you talking here about logical consistency, or whether religions were true in fact, or both? I see no reason to think they were not accustomed to questioning claims any less than people today. On the other hand the outraegous nature of the claims is one bound to raise questions even in the most credulous in this world.

I do agree that there was (always is) talk of, "don't listen to that person" -- but to make it fair, there are also always those who will disobey, no?

[-JGR]

Greetings


Howdy,Any chance I can clone you can have your clone replace Johnny Skeptic? ROFL well of course. I'll get it arranged immediatly. We'll just have to wait 26 years for the clone to age though.


Saying that Philo is the most hellenist of all doesn't sound right to me.

Do you have a better candidate? certainly... Jesus :wink: , better known by his greek name Jason, high priest of the jerusalem temple from 174 BCE.

http://radiobergen.org/history/alex.html
http://www.mlc-wels.edu/schone/The%20Macabees%20-%20Info.doc

These certainly let their religion be influenced by hellenistic traditions. Dropping circumsision, sabbath, rules for kosher food and such.

These are practices, but does this show they dropped their anthopological assumptions about man? If they did, can they be rightly called Jews any more?I just find it reasonable to assume that when they are willing to drop their most sacred laws they are also willing to have their perceptions changed.

And I also find it reasonable to assume that if one has representatives from both extremities. People that are 100% jews, and those who were 100% but are now 0%, you will be able to find people between those poles also.

Wether they can be called jews anymore would be a matter of definition, the question is if they viewed themselves as jews, if the gentiles viewed them as jews and wether other jews viewed them as jews.


If you do there is the issue of people using the mindset they already have to understand their new religion and so bring with them other understandings of how a God should be.

If we had some literary evidence from such converts it would be very helpful. I know of none. It would be of interest to know how they came to grips with the differences.Is there any reason to expect them to do anything else than all other have done (hmm pherhaps you don't agree with this?), mix their old views with the new, and arrive somewhere in between.

I take you agree that religions are born, change, adapt and die all the time.
Just looking at christianity - a range from mother theresa to voodoo priests.. and they all believe they have a correct understanding.


Hmm so you see that tradition leads to acceptance even though there never has been any proof.
No, only for the ancient tales. The question of origin of the myths for these persons was beyond investigation; but somewhere back in time.. some people _did_ accept them as truth.. even though there was nothing of what you and I would call evidence.
So here we see that it is possible for people to become convinced of something even though there is no proof.
And this is all my argument needs.. that _some_ people believe it. If one first collects enough of these some people.. when you next meet up with someone who demands more evidence, the fact that you have already convinced many people makes your arguments look stronger.. even though your arguments are just as unprovable as they were in the beginning.


this cannot apply to Christianity, which did not have antiquity and which for crucial decades was open to scrutiny and debunking.From what I see earlier in this thread you assume Tacitus' works to be authentic. Do you believe Nero would let the christians keep much wealth to go on such verification missions?



- if one believed the gospels one were told. Would one go to check it out?probably not
I say they would check it out, believe or not believe, if they had the resources, which it appears many did, as Christianity had an unusual number of converts from the mobile and somewhat well-off middle class.Do you check out all the new religions you hear about that you don't believe?

but.. I am much more of the impression that christianity was a religion embraced by the poor common man. As is said by Luke, Matthew and Mark: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Doesn't seem to me as something the rich would find very likeable. (this would of course be an argument for your side, if you could prove that infact rich folk did flock to this religion)


- Were there many of those who wanted to check it out anyway, who really had the option of setting aside a couple of months of ones life to actually do it.

Yes, for a matter of honor was at stake and of a deviant and dangerous movement that proclaimed Jesus as Lord and not Caesar. A couple of months for the persons in question would be of little matter; they also had slaves to send for much of the work.How many of the rich today do you see setting aside a couple of months to check out something they don't really believe in?
And if they sent people to check it out for them.. my main argument is that even if people told others that they had checked it out, and it had been proven false.. it would not necessarily have a significant impact on the movement.
It certainly doesn't have any impact on religions today.

ADDED:
just look at jehova's witnesses, I mean.. it's stated that the world will end at a specific date.. then everyone sees that the world does not end, but people _still_ believe, then again..it's stated that the world will end at a specific date.. then everyone sees that the world does not end, but people _still_ believe, then again..it's stated that the world will end at a specific date.. then everyone sees that the world does not end, but people _still_ believe, then again..
verifyable proof that a religion is incorrect does not make people stop believing it. that at least is proven :wink:


- When he came back and said it was all fiction, would many of those who were "willing to die for the belief" believe it?

They would not be "believing" unless it had already been verified beyond question.To me it seems as if people have very different oppinions as to what "verified beyond question" is. You do agree that people have died for facts that are provably wrong throughout history? Facts that they _could_ have checked out themselves, but didn't think they needed to.. or never got the oppurtunity.

You and I are of the type that like to check out stuff before we believe it.
Others do not. Otherwise I can't understand how "false" religions get any footing.
I have no problem seeing you as some rich person that heard about an intriguing new belief and descided to check it out. However the problem lies in what happens if you discover that it is a fraud. How much impact would it have on those who have descided to believe on much less evidence.
How much evidence don't you have of how false other religions/sects are today?
does this mean the other religions wither and die instantly because they can be proven wrong? nope.


doesn't have to be true for people to be willing to die for it).. you're not going to let your self be affected by one guy simply saying..

In this world, perhaps so, but that is not the case for the ancients and their concern for honor and family.I am unable to see how the concern for honor and family would make one more suspicious. I think I could equally well argue for how a purely egoistical concern for one self could make one a very suspicious person also.

Have you heard of the psychological principal called "sunk cost"?

...However, the flaw in application here is not only that this is a different social setting, but it is also a fact that one would get a far better "investment" leaving Christianity in this setting than staying with it.If one assumes christianity is false you are quite correct, that the objectively "wise" thing to do is leave the religion, however this is where the sunk cost kicks in, it makes you continue with what you have already invested in.

seems I've been unclear on what the "investment" means.

If someone invests something in something, she is less willing to let it go than someone who has not invested anything in it, should the something be proven to not be worth any further investment.

Applied to religion.
If someone invests in a religion, she is less willing to let it go than someone who has not invested anything in the religion, should the religion be proven false.

In other words one can end up demanding more evidence to leave the investment (religion in this case), than one initially demanded to start the investment. Which is totally illogical.. but nevertheless.. this is how humans work.

Different social setting could be a factor btw.. however I do not see why it should be in this case, do you have any suggestions?

A book to read here is Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentaries (on the Synoptics for one, John on the other); also Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, though happy hunting finding them where you are.I'll give it a shot, one never knows :-)


I do agree that there was (always is) talk of, "don't listen to that person" -- but to make it fair, there are also always those who will disobey, no?certainly, and is there any reason to believe that noone left the early christian movement?

[Jaltus]

Derivative: "A word formed from another by derivation, such as electricity from electric." The definition fits well. Future tense derived from the root-word.

Again, the future tense is derived from the present STEM, but both are the same WORD. Read a Greek grammar and get your head out of the English dictionary. Note that even in the example given, electricity is a noun and electric is an adjective, whereas both forms of the word you are disputing ARE VERBS. It did not say "shocked" and "shocking." Try reading something in the field you are disputing instead of pretending you know anything at all. Good grief, man, I am working on my third degree in Greek.


And you are just incorrect, Jaltus. The word egeiro is a different "word" from the word egerthesetai, even if egeiro is the root-word of egerthesetai. So your point is a Fallacy of Tu Quoque at best, but (and in fact) wrong at worst.

Again, not a root word, they are the same word.

Here, maybe this will help. Look up egeirw in a Greek dictionary. It will list all 6 principle parts (assuming it has all 6) and call them THE SAME WORD. There is no change in meaning of the word, only a change in tense (which is not meaning related but time or aspectually related, just as a nominative is different from a genitive even though they are the same word).


I hope you will admit you were wrong, Jaltus.

When I am wrong, I admit it. Can you say the same?


But it is clear that you are not even interested in the actual point I was making:

I told you that up front. I told you that you are criticizing JP for something HE DID CORRECTLY.


As you are just trying to score points with some petty definition game of yours concerning 'derivative', I won't bother replying to you any more, Jaltus.

My hopes and dreams are fulfilled, assuming you really mean that.


The fact remains that:

1. Holding failed to distinguish "egeiro" from "egerthesetai", and failed to distinguish "anistemi" from "anasthnai".

2. Holding wrongly thought that each word appeared twice! And he even tried to explain that this was done "for emphasis"!! Amusingly, he made this mistake by looking at the two English words used to translate the one Greek word.


Robyn Banks

1. Same word, different inflected form. You are wrong for critiquing him on this.

2. You sure about that? I thought it was a goof in his software.

In any event, Robyn, you are wrong on point 1.

[Robyn Banks]

1. Holding failed to distinguish "egeiro" from "egerthesetai", and failed to distinguish "anistemi" from "anasthnai".



1. Same word, different inflected form. You are wrong for critiquing him on this.

Your silly semantic obfuscation aside, the fact remains that Holding didn't pick up on the fact that the symbol that appeared was "egerthesetai" and not "egeiro". And then Holding failed to pick up on the fact that "anasthnai" and not "anistemi" was used. If he had actually read the text, he would have known what was in it. But, as explained below, he had no idea what was in the text ...





2. Holding wrongly thought that each word appeared twice! And he even tried to explain that this was done "for emphasis"!! Amusingly, he made this mistake by looking at the two English words used to translate the one Greek word.



2. You sure about that? I thought it was a goof in his software.

I am quite sure about this. I have the same software 'Holding' used. :smile: Where one Greek word is translated as two English words, you can 'click' on either English word, and get the Greek root each time.

'Holding' clicked on each English word, saw the same Greek root appear twice, and wrongly interpreted his software.

For example, when Holding attempted to read John 20:9, he found the word 'anistemi' when he clicked on "rise" ...

:anestemi:

... and then he found the word 'anistemi' again when he clicked on "again" ...

:anestemi1:

And Holding's conclusion? The word 'anistemi' (not the word 'anasthnai') appears twice (not once). Two basic errors from Holding!! But it was then compounded by a third basic error on one occasion. Holding said that the double appearance was done intentionally by the author for "emphasis"!! Clearly Holding was speculating wildly, and had no idea what the intention of the author was at all.

The software itself works perfectly. But, amusingly, Holding could not accept that he failed to use his software properly. He made a basic error. Amusingly, when confronted with his error, Holding said that he would be not using the software anymore!!

Yes - he actually tried to blame the software for his own elementary error. I bet he throws the monopoly board on the ground when he's losing. :smile:

It is clear he is far from 'expert' in biblical interpretation.

Robyn Banks

[jpholding]

Howdy,

certainly... Jesus , better known by his greek name Jason, high priest of the jerusalem temple from 174 BCE.

Um, did he leave any writings? :smile:

I just find it reasonable to assume that when they are willing to drop their most sacred laws they are also willing to have their perceptions changed.

I do not find it reasonable, for one's thoughts about the nature of man are of greater depth and importance than surface rituals. Furthermore it is not clear that the Greeks and Jews were even aware of this difference in thinking between them. Tacitus does not mention it as a distinctive of the Jews.

And I also find it reasonable to assume that if one has representatives from both extremities. People that are 100% jews, and those who were 100% but are now 0%, you will be able to find people between those poles also.

I disagree here as well. Ancient persons were either "all" or "nothing".

Is there any reason to expect them to do anything else than all other have done (hmm pherhaps you don't agree with this?), mix their old views with the new, and arrive somewhere in between.

Yes. The Jewish idea of boundaries and uncleanness leads more to an "all or nothing" approach. Moden religions as your example (Theresa vs voodoo) arise in cultures where syncretism is much more acceptable. At best syncretizing would be accomplished by wholesale redefinition of terms.

but somewhere back in time.. some people _did_ accept them as truth.. even though there was nothing of what you and I would call evidence.

True, but we deal here only in the social world of the first century and around it, and that represents a significant change versus something in the mists of history. The parallel would only hold if Jesus lived 1400 BC!

From what I see earlier in this thread you assume Tacitus' works to be authentic. Do you believe Nero would let the christians keep much wealth to go on such verification missions?

He'd kill them before taking their wealth, but that would still leave 30 years more before that, plus anyone outside the city of Rome with money. I think Phillippi may have been the source of Christianity's first "investigator" actually.



Do you check out all the new religions you hear about that you don't believe?

If they make a serious enough claim I might, though as decided I have the true religion now, I would not bother. :smile:

but.. I am much more of the impression that christianity was a religion embraced by the poor common man.

Well, 99% of all people then were poor and common so all religions were essentially mostly embraced by them but scholars have shown that Christianity was embraced by an unusual number of the more well-off middle and upper class for its size.


How many of the rich today do you see setting aside a couple of months to check out something they don't really believe in?

Not many, but then again the rich back then didn't flock off to Antigua on their yachts either. :wink:

It certainly doesn't have any impact on religions today.

We are of an entirely different mindset today however, that is my main point. You appealed to JWs. Their claims are overwhelmingly rooted in inaccessible theology, not history; they also cover up past mistakes and discourage investigation. In Rome they'd have been dead or at least much transformed within a few dozen years and washed up, just like the Gnostic sects. They also do not tell their new converts about past failures, nor at your door do they mention it...they probably do not even know about it!

You do agree that people have died for facts that are provably wrong throughout history?

I would ask for examples.

How much impact would it have on those who have descided to believe on much less evidence.

There's a rub here. If I found it was a fraud I would be obliged to put a stop to it. I would be obliged to publicize. That is also noticably absent from the record. There WOULD be impact in this world; that is my point. Too much to give up for no practicable benefit not available from Judaism or a pagan religion.

I am unable to see how the concern for honor and family would make one more suspicious

Because anyone outside family was automatically mistrusted. No benefit of the doubt; they had to prove themselves.

objectively "wise" thing to do is leave the religion, however this is where the sunk cost kicks in, it makes you continue with what you have already invested in.

But again, what "sunk cost" in Christianity do you see in the 1st century that outweighs benefits or cannot be otherwise achieved?

certainly, and is there any reason to believe that noone left the early christian movement?

They did, but by means that still keep the evidence "valid" -- i.e., Gnostics who say the Jesus crucified and arose was a vision. Not because of evidence being turned around on them.

[jpholding]

Your silly semantic obfuscation aside,

Oh please do keep this up, dear Robyn.

It's funny to see a pretend expert like you, who just prostitutes his Daddy's library for quotes he can't defend, get reamed by a real one. :lmbo:

I have the same software 'Holding' used. :smile:

And it shows EXACTLY what I said.

Now explain to us, "Robyn" (if that is your real name):

How many times does "verily" appear in John 1:51, in English?
How many times does the corresponding word appear in Greek?
How many times does it appear in both languages in the software?

I rest my case.

But do keep fussing. Such pedantic whining becomes those who can't answer anything more substantive, eh, Chad? :lmbo:

Amusingly, when confronted with his error, Holding said that he would be not using the software anymore!!

No doubt Robyn continues to drive a Yugo. :lmbo: And blames himself when it breaks down. What poor self-esteem! :rofl:

It is clear he is far from 'expert' in biblical interpretation.

I see. 1500+ articles versus one error make for no expertise. Hmm. :ahem:

Poor soul. Frustrated by his losses at my hands. :lmbo:

When do you plan to send me that material proving that (ahem) Malina, Crossan, etc are using outdated paradigms?

[Robyn Banks]

How many times does "verily" appear in John 1:51, in English?
How many times does the corresponding word appear in Greek?
How many times does it appear in both languages in the software?

'Holding' cannot admit that he failed to interpret his bible software. He cannot simply admit that he made an elementary error. He cannot admit that he was wrong to conclude that a Greek word appeared twice in a verse in which it appeared once. He cannot admit his absurd explanation - that the 'double appearance' was the biblical author's deliberate attempt to give the word emphasis - was incorrect.

And, shamefully, Holding not only fails to admit his error. Holding blames his software.

I wonder if he throws the Monopoly Board on the ground when he's losing, as well?

:anestemi:

:anestemi1:






It is clear he is far from 'expert' in biblical interpretation.



I see. 1500+ articles versus one error make for no expertise.

One ... what? One "error" did you say...?

Someone whose only 'expertise' in theology is publishing on the internet may fool himself into thinking that quantity equals quality. But until your qualifications amount to more than librarian studies, you're not fooling anyone with your pop-apologetics which hacks together various conservative theological sources.

You make many errors.





When do you plan to send me that material proving that (ahem) Malina, Crossan, etc are using outdated paradigms?

I have no idea why you are bringing up a complete red herring. I guess it must be a desperate attempt to hide your red face. Have you read Johanna Stiebert's The construction of shame in the Hebrew Bible : the prophetic contribution, Journal for the study of the Old Testament, Supplementary Series 346 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002)? The author tries to incorporate the more nuanced ideas of shame and guilt from psychological and ancient historical (e.g. Cairns) insights. It's not much like the conception you put forward - which reminds me of the armchair anthropology of the nineteenth century.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[-JGR]

Greetings,



certainly... Jesus , better known by his greek name Jason, high priest of the jerusalem temple from 174 BCE.

Um, did he leave any writings? :smile:None that I know of, no. But I still feel his actions speak for themselves, he is definatly more hellenist than Philo whom you said was the most hellenist of all.


I just find it reasonable to assume that when they are willing to drop their most sacred laws they are also willing to have their perceptions changed.

I do not find it reasonable, for one's thoughts about the nature of man are of greater depth and importance than surface rituals.Surface rituals?
Do you think the macabees would agree with you on that? Considering they thought those neglecting _surface_rituals_ to be worthy of killing?

heres some interesting stuff from 2.macc

"4:13 Now such was the height of Greek fashions, and increase of heathenish manners, through the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly wretch, and no high priest;
4:14 That the priests had no courage to serve any more at the altar, but despising the temple, and neglecting the sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of exercise, after the game of Discus called them forth;
4:15 Not setting by the honours of their fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all. "
Please explain the last sentence in light of your proposal that the values of the jews were not changed by hellenistic influence.

BTW guess what happened to the gymnasium (place of exercise), which drew so many into doing unlawfull stuff, after the macabess won?
Nothing. It stood there for another two hundred years. I think that indicates a significant change in their values towards more hellinistic ideals.

I also find it interesting that Ezekiel a jewish playwright, rewrote the exodus as a greek tragedy, and inserted a meeting with the Phoenix.
If this isn't mixing mythologies please tell me what is.



Furthermore it is not clear that the Greeks and Jews were even aware of this difference in thinking between them. Tacitus does not mention it as a distinctive of the Jews.If they did not even view it as a difference I can't understand why you are arguing for that they would not adopt it.? I think there is a misunderstanding here.


Is there any reason to expect them to do anything else than all other have done (hmm pherhaps you don't agree with this?), mix their old views with the new, and arrive somewhere in between.

Yes. The Jewish idea of boundaries and uncleanness leads more to an "all or nothing" approach. Moden religions as your example (Theresa vs voodoo) arise in cultures where syncretism is much more acceptable. At best syncretizing would be accomplished by wholesale redefinition of terms.I find this hard to understand, to me you are now saying that jewish thought and perceptions have never changed throughout history?
You are saying that Spinoza and the macabees viewed the world and God the same way? I doubt you'll find many jews agreeing with you.
Or are you just saying that the jews of a couple of centuries before christ could not have their views changed, while the jews of other timeperiods could?


but somewhere back in time.. some people _did_ accept them as truth.. even though there was nothing of what you and I would call evidence.

True, but we deal here only in the social world of the first century and around it, and that represents a significant change versus something in the mists of history. The parallel would only hold if Jesus lived 1400 BC!Then how did the gnostic movement appear? the mishra worshippers?


He'd kill them before taking their wealth, but that would still leave 30 years more before that, plus anyone outside the city of Rome with money. I think Phillippi may have been the source of Christianity's first "investigator" actually.How about the period before Jerusalem was destroyed.. I see you arguing in another thread that the jews didn't excatly approve of strangers. In fact you say it would be _idiotic_ to visit the lands of Jesus.



Lovely, Johnny. So now they move a stinking, decaying body *100 miles* (yet no one notices that, or the vultures overhead), thereby degrading and dishonoring the body in a way that the people of the land they MUST travel in (Jews) would find horrifically offensive, and as strangers in a land where strangers will be treated as enemies. So now, what country were they from? The Land of Idiotica?

Excuse me. Untouchables, for everything else, are still native Indians, not foreigners, and there are so many of them that they can form their own society, whereas you have no such large party in Judaea. They are also expected to exist because of the nature of the Hindu religion (karma produces untouchables), whereas the presence of unclean Gentiles was a pollutant that would not be tolerated. Inapt comparison that merely exposes your ignorance.

The "reason" is because you are ignorant of the ancient collectivist mentality and because you do not know how to create proper associative examples. Any stranger was assumed an enemy, especially a foreign stranger. If you did not come with a spear in your hand and enough beef, you may as well have painted a sign that said KILL ME on your back.I'm not sure I agree with your argumentation on this, but do I understand you correct in that you are saying:
that you would expect many rich hellenists to visit a land they are likely to be killed in to prove a religion they did not necessarily believe in?

ADDED:You have already argued to me that no one would sacrifice themselves (become martyrs) unless they already had proof that made them sure.
what is it I am missing here? /ADDED


but.. I am much more of the impression that christianity was a religion embraced by the poor common man.

Well, 99% of all people then were poor and common so all religions were essentially mostly embraced by them but scholars have shown that Christianity was embraced by an unusual number of the more well-off middle and upper class for its size.hmm interesting I have been taught by christian scholars the opposit, is there any documentation of this outside the NT?


It certainly doesn't have any impact on religions today.

We are of an entirely different mindset today however, that is my main point. You appealed to JWs. Their claims are overwhelmingly rooted in inaccessible theology, not history; good point

they also cover up past mistakes and discourage investigation. I'm not sure how much I agree with this beeing a valid point.
If they did not have the oppurtunity to check out the facts (lack of funds/time, or fear of life), it does not matter if the early christians were encouraged to check it out.

In Rome they'd have been dead or at least much transformed within a few dozen years and washed up, just like the Gnostic sects. They also do not tell their new converts about past failures, nor at your door do they mention it...According to my view, nor would the early christians tell of their past failures.

they probably do not even know about it!not correct, many of those who live past the date of an apocalypse still stick with the JWs and start believing in the next apocalypse when it is announced.


You do agree that people have died for facts that are provably wrong throughout history?

I would ask for examples.Wouldn't you put all martyrs of other religions in this category?


How much impact would it have on those who have descided to believe on much less evidence.

There's a rub here. If I found it was a fraud I would be obliged to put a stop to it. You would yes, but I think we are agreeing that there couldn't have been so many who actually did check it out.
So from those left we have to remove those who wouldn't bother with publicizing it, pherhaps they had other stuff to do after beeing away for so long, or they were embarrassed that they had used so much time on something that wasn't true.


I would be obliged to publicize.It wasn't so easy publicizing anything to the whole world at that time.


That is also noticably absent from the record. Centuries later, I doubt christians would spend much time copying works of obviosly crazy people claiming Jesus did not exist.
I think they'd either leave it to rot, or tear it up so that other christians wouldn't have to read through such garbage.


There WOULD be impact in this world; that is my point. Too much to give up for no practicable benefit not available from Judaism or a pagan religion. The claimed benefit of this religion is the same today as it was then.. that it was true and the others false. So if you found the story of Jesus plausible this would automatically put the other religions out of the equation.


I am unable to see how the concern for honor and family would make one more suspicious

Because anyone outside family was automatically mistrusted. No benefit of the doubt; they had to prove themselves.Could be a good point, I've ordered the books you recommended they'll probably arrive next week, hopefully they will expand more on this issue.


objectively "wise" thing to do is leave the religion, however this is where the sunk cost kicks in, it makes you continue with what you have already invested in.

But again, what "sunk cost" in Christianity do you see in the 1st century that outweighs benefits or cannot be otherwise achieved?Seems I'm not able to relay the meaning of this very well. Forget the words "sunk cost".
Lets instead call it something in our minds that makes us continue to do foolish things despite objective reasoning, because we have already invested in the foolish thing.

example:
person1 has spent much time and effort on religionA
person2 has spent some time and effort on religionA
person3 has not had any contact with religionA

We have three separate pieces of evidence that proves religionA is false.

person3 might agree that religionA is false after seeing one piece of evidence.
person2 might not agree that religionA is false before she has seen two pieces of evidence.
While person3 might not agree that religionA is false before she has seen all three pieces of evidence.

This does not have anything to do with christianity specifically, nor does it have anything to do with what can be achieved or benefits one gets from the religion. It is simply the way we work, this is an undisputed psychological fact.

Have you ever heard people talking about going on with something despite all odds? Everyone told them it was wrong and wouldn't work, but they continued nevertheless.. and in the end they managed to do it whatever it was they were trying.

This is a result of the beforementioned "feature" of human nature, but these are the people who are extremely lucky, many more are those who do things despite what everyone says.. and consequently fails miserably.


certainly, and is there any reason to believe that noone left the early christian movement?

They did, but by means that still keep the evidence "valid" -- i.e., Gnostics who say the Jesus crucified and arose was a vision. Not because of evidence being turned around on them.How can you rule out that the gnostics had some evidence that was enough to convince them that Jesus wasn't ressurected.
It might not have been enough to convince all of the christians (of reasons we are currently discussing). But enough that some descided to drop that part of the doctrine.
Lets say someone, went to Jerusalem and found out Christ had never been ressurected, but he had indeed lived and preached.
Like the JWs who simply drop one part of the doctrine when proven false. (current apocalypse)
Some early christians likewise dropped one part of the doctrine when proven false.(the ressurection)

[jpholding]

'Banks' cannot admit that the Bible software was misleading. He cannot simply admit that such errors exist in reference works. He cannot admit that it is understandable to hypothesize and explanation for why a Greek word appeared twice in a verse in which it appeared once. He cannot answer why this is not understandable if 'amen' appears twice where it actually is twice in the Greek.

And, shamefully, 'Banks' continues harping on this matter because he needs the self-esteem boost. :lmbo:

I wonder if his rich Daddy has taken him over his knee lately?


One ... what? One "error" did you say...?

Never used the word yourself, eh? :lmbo:

Someone whose only 'expertise' in theology is publishing on the internet may fool himself into thinking that quantity equals quality

Someone who has no other answer may fool himself into thinking ignoring the quantity AND quality for the sake of one point refutes the entire quantity, and actually has. No doubt for lack of ability to answer on anything of substance.

You make enough errors to sink a ship.

I have no idea why you are bringing up a complete red herring.

Because you never did answer my request for proof of your asinine assertions about this subject. I guess your refusal to do so must be a desperate attempt to hide your red face.

It's not much like the conception you put forward - which reminds me of the armchair anthropology of the nineteenth century.

I'll look for it. I suspect it's by yet another non-anthropologist who doesn't understand the views in question, just like Paul and the Salvation of the Inidividual, and in fact, what I found out verifies this. In the meantime, the anthropologists remain in the "armchair" to this century, a point to which you again had no answer. Her credentials indicate no special expertise in this area and an unusual focus on modernist/feminist issues (and titles like "Homosexuality in Botswana and in the Hebrew Bible" which don't foretell any special expertise in this area). Indeed she has been roundly criticized already for her lack of familiarity:

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/journal_hebrew/reviews/2002/1202a/review069.htm

"While some of her criticism is deserved, an anthropological understanding of contingent honor in patron/client relations (i.e., for YHWH and Israel) and an appreciation for the challenges YHWH addresses to rival deities in Isaiah would have shown links with the model she dismisses."

"Stiebert is to be commended for calling the attention of biblical scholars to a neglected semantic domain and for focusing our attention on the writings in which they predominate. She has summarized important criticisms of the honor-shame rubric, appropriately asserting that models presuming cultural continuity should not be superimposed on ancient texts.

"Stiebert may also be guilty of superimposing contemporary models, however. Social anthropologists have tried to integrate the study of ancient Greek social history with ethnographic research in a wide variety of modern Mediterranean societies. In contrast, writers in the field of psychology whom Stiebert cites have not made their case in terms of cross-cultural research (except, apparently, G. Piers and M. Singer, mentioned on p. 7 but missing in the bibliography). Ironically, Stiebert makes assertions early in the book about what shame is (e.g., "Shame is a self-conscious emotion," p. 23), but her definitions come from research and analytical frames even more limited than the anthropological one. To be fair, both fields of study contribute questions to ask of the texts but neither should provide templates that control the outcome. (1) The reader further wonders if Stiebert's ideological criticism or "anti-language" constructs are any less anachronistic impositions on the prophetic texts than the social scientific ones she criticizes. In the end, the best insights of the book are the careful, lexically sensitive readings of biblical texts, the kind of work this reviewer wishes there was more of."

Hope that hurts. :rofl:




JGR: I will return for a reply to you Monday. I am out of time for today.

[jpholding]

[QUOTE=-JGR]But I still feel his actions speak for themselves, he is definatly more hellenist than Philo whom you said was the most hellenist of all.[/quute]

Well perhaps, but without anything written by him there is not much that can be said. Even his actions do you not give him the ability to articulate his ideas adequately.

Surface rituals? Do you think the macabees would agree with you on that?

I think you misunderstand; I am speaking on matters of priority. The persons in Maccabees moreover are those whose outward rituals expressed an inward move. They had likely changed their inward values already.

Nothing. It stood there for another two hundred years

Stood there? Used as well, after the same fashion (nude exercise)? I have never heard this; where is it from?

If this isn't mixing mythologies please tell me what is.

He probably is, but do we have anything of a philsophical nature by him?

If they did not even view it as a difference I can't understand why you are arguing for that they would not adopt it.?

I do not say view as a difference; I say they may not have even been aware of the difference.

I find this hard to understand, to me you are now saying that jewish thought and perceptions have never changed throughout history?

No.

Or are you just saying that the jews of a couple of centuries before christ could not have their views changed, while the jews of other timeperiods could?

I do say it a) wold be harder to get one to change; b) if they did, it would be "wholesale".

Then how did the gnostic movement appear? the mishra worshippers?

No...no one is quite sure how it appeared; traces of its sort of thought are found before and after Christianity.

How about the period before Jerusalem was destroyed.. I see you arguing in another thread that the jews didn't excatly approve of strangers. In fact you say it would be _idiotic_ to visit the lands of Jesus.

I agree. My prime investigators would be wealthy Diaspora Jews.

that you would expect many rich hellenists to visit a land they are likely to be killed in to prove a religion they did not necessarily believe in?

My "killed" point was hyperbole for a purpose (which is why I referenced a sign on the back); I do however literally maintain it was dangerous. What I see though indeed is a weighing between a) working to disprove a faith that was socially dangerous; b) the personal danger of being in the Jewish land. Such persons as rich Gentiles would require an escort (beef) to introduce them to that society (thus Paul and his entourage accompanying Gentiles to Jerusalem); at the same time, I do not see THAT happening until Christianity erases the social distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It could not happen BEFORE (and thus does not help Johnny's thesis).

hmm interesting I have been taught by christian scholars the opposit, is there any documentation of this outside the NT?

No; however it is Christian scholars who say this. For example, Wayne Meeks and E. A. Judge.


I'm not sure how much I agree with this beeing a valid point.

Are JWs in your area smarter than the ones here? :rofl:

According to my view, nor would the early christians tell of their past failures.

Perhaps so, but under the investigative rubric this becomes irrelevant.

not correct, many of those who live past the date of an apocalypse still stick with the JWs and start believing in the next apocalypse when it is announced.

Not that I have met; they do not even know of the history of their own movement.

Wouldn't you put all martyrs of other religions in this category?

It depends. I see a difference between dying because of a historical claim and dying because of a spiritual and untestable one (i.e., virgins in heaven).

long, or they were embarrassed that they had used so much time on something that wasn't true.

Actually they would be honored for putting a stake into the heart of a false and dishonorable faith if they had such information.

It wasn't so easy publicizing anything to the whole world at that time.

Why not? :smile: It was not as hard as you may think.

I think they'd either leave it to rot, or tear it up so that other christians wouldn't have to read through such garbage.

But then what of Origen preserving the words of Celsus?

religion. It is simply the way we work, this is an undisputed psychological fact.

I just do not see that it applies the same to people of this ancient mindset, but we will see what you make of the books.

Have you ever heard people talking about going on with something despite all odds?

Honestly no, not in person. I have heard of such persons but they usually seek a reward as well, which again, where Christianity is concerned, was of no moment (since other religions promised just as good).

How can you rule out that the gnostics had some evidence that was enough to convince them that Jesus wasn't ressurected.

But see, they DID believe he was; they just reinterpreted how it was done by calling him an illusion. They would not have solved any "problems" with their view. If you ask why this could not be what happened (I assume you don't mean to seriously! :smile:) it would make no sense in a Jewish setting.

I hope I have not cut you short; I have to be in a hurry just now!

[LovingTheist]

Holding deff. won that debate.

[-JGR]

I hope I have not cut you short; I have to be in a hurry just now!Your answers were quite sufficient, I hope you can forgive me for taking so long to answer. I'm not making this very easy for you when you have to remember what you were discussing last week :)
But I try to include enough of our conversation for it to be easy to see where we were :smile:



Surface rituals? Do you think the macabees would agree with you on that?
I think you misunderstand; I am speaking on matters of priority. The persons in Maccabees moreover are those whose outward rituals expressed an inward move. They had likely changed their inward values already. hmm.. and these values just changed overnight?
Just as the differences between Pharisees and Saducess were non-existant?
Just as the jewish converts instantly adopted and understood the whole jewish doctrine overnight, leaving no trace of their original understanding of how Gods functioned?

I'm sorry.. but it seems impossible for me to agree that the judaism of Jesus' time was an all or nothing thing with no differences in the view of God.


Nothing. It stood there for another two hundred years
Stood there? Used as well, after the same fashion (nude exercise)? I have never heard this; where is it from?Josephus, the jewish war, 2.344

Nothing says it was still used for nude exercise though. However if the jews really hated everything hellinistic so much. One (atleast I) would expect them to tear down the thing at first oppurtunity, however there is no record of them ever doing it.


If this isn't mixing mythologies please tell me what is.

He probably is, but do we have anything of a philsophical nature by him?Doesn't it have philosophical implications that he blends his own religion and egyptian religion in a "greek way".


If they did not even view it as a difference I can't understand why you are arguing for that they would not adopt it.?

I do not say view as a difference; I say they may not have even been aware of the difference.
i'm falling off a bit here. this is what was said originally:



I just find it reasonable to assume that when they are willing to drop their most sacred laws they are also willing to have their perceptions changed.

I do not find it reasonable, for one's thoughts about the nature of man are of greater depth and importance than surface rituals. Furthermore it is not clear that the Greeks and Jews were even aware of this difference in thinking between them. Tacitus does not mention it as a distinctive of the Jews.
Why is it of interest to us what differences they were aware of?



I find this hard to understand, to me you are now saying that jewish thought and perceptions have never changed throughout history?

No.

Or are you just saying that the jews of a couple of centuries before christ could not have their views changed, while the jews of other timeperiods could?

I do say it a) wold be harder to get one to change; b) if they did, it would be "wholesale".so you are saying A) the jews of this specific period were much harder to change, then jews of other periods.
Then why is it this specific period so special?

and B) If they were to change it would bewholesale. In other words you expect them to totally forget everything about how the universe and its supernatural beeings functions, and learn instantly how the hellinists perceived it?
Are you taking into consideration the human learning process now?
We simply do not have the possibility of instantly forgetting one belief system and just insert another one.


Then how did the gnostic movement appear? the mishra worshippers?

No...no one is quite sure how it appeared; traces of its sort of thought are found before and after Christianity.But you would say that mithraism appeared not long after christianity wouldn't you? So you will have to explain atleast one possible scenario for this movement appearing other than beeing convinced by deception/misunderstandings, since you are claiming that the hellinists of this age would be very suspicious of all they didn't know, and any messages they might have.

and on that note.. what is it Paul is talking about to the Galatians if he, as one who knows the society as you describe it, knows that people will want evidence in order to believe new stuff.

"6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel"

btw, what do you think this gospel Paul is refering to here is?


How about the period before Jerusalem was destroyed.. I see you arguing in another thread that the jews didn't excatly approve of strangers. In fact you say it would be _idiotic_ to visit the lands of Jesus.

I agree. My prime investigators would be wealthy Diaspora Jews. Ok, so then you agree that the hellinists that were convinced did probably not "check it out" even if they wanted to ?

You mentioned in a previous post that you believed that there would be investigators from Philipi, after reading acts I can't seem to find any mention of wealthy people able to conduct such investigations, why did you single out Philipi?



(regarding JW's knowing of the organizations past failures of apocalypse predictions)

Are JWs in your area smarter than the ones here?
doubtfull :)


not correct, many of those who live past the date of an apocalypse still stick with the JWs and start believing in the next apocalypse when it is announced.

Not that I have met; they do not even know of the history of their own movement.Since you claim that JW's don't know about past failures. Are you of the oppinion that JW's have started with entirely new members after each failed prediction ?


Wouldn't you put all martyrs of other religions in this category?
It depends. I see a difference between dying because of a historical claim and dying because of a spiritual and untestable one (i.e., virgins in heaven). So the muslims do not claim to base their religion on history?
Lets take current events as an example; Muslim suicide bombers.
Why is it they kill themselves? Because they think they are fighting Satan, is this unprovably false?


long, or they were embarrassed that they had used so much time on something that wasn't true.

Actually they would be honored for putting a stake into the heart of a false and dishonorable faith if they had such information.
ok.. so if we assume for a moment that the christian gospel was in fact provably wrong.

<start assume christianity was provably wrong>

one would expect the most resilient resistance towards it to be where people are most likely to know the truth. And less and less resistance the farther from the source we get, agree?
Places farther off who wouldn't immediatly know if it was fact or not, would have to listen to both sides and make a desicion.
And as you say some might even try following the christians and right the wrongs they keep telling people.

If we then have a look in Acts to see what happened.
What happened to those spreading the word at the source?
They were told to "shut up" 4:18.They were flogged when they wouldn't keep silent 5:40 , They killed the most outspoken 6:54, They persecuted and scattered the whole sect 8:1.

If the people at the source really wanted to stop people spreading these falsehoods, what more would you have expected them to do?

They could of course also spread the word, and tell people the truth were they saw that the falsehood had been spread. They might even go to the king and ask him to intervene.

If we again look to acts, what happened at the places farther off from the source?

Damascus, Saul was attempted killed and fled.

Antioch, Someone has infact complained to the king. The king starts to persecute them.

Cyprus, nothing mentioned.

Pisidian Antioch,"But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high
standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up
persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them
from their region"

Iconium, "5There was a plot afoot among the Gentiles and Jews,
together with their leaders, to mistreat them and stone
them"

Lystra, "19Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the
crowd over."
You said there was honor in following them to reveal the lies did you not?

Philipi, no jews harassed them there yet, but they were thrown in jail nomatter.

Thessalonica, the christians reputation precedes them "shouting:
"These men who have caused trouble all over the world have
now come here,"

Berea, again.. as you said it would be honorfull to try to put an end to the falsehoods: "13When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was
preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too,
agitating the crowds and stirring them up."

Athens, nothing mentioned.

corinth, the jews opposed Paul and became "abusive".

Ephesus, "9But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way."
And there was some rioting against the christians.

greece, "Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was
about to sail for Syria,"

and to round off Paul states himself 20:23 "I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. "
It seems to me someone was really out to get him.

<end assume christianity was provably wrong>



It wasn't so easy publicizing anything to the whole world at that time.

Why not? It was not as hard as you may think.
The problem is that when the message arrives it is not so easy making up your mind who you should believe, the christians did after all promise eternal salvation if one believed in them.
Nowadays it's much easier checking up on both alleged miracles and alleged debunkings of said miracles. But even today do you see ordinary christians seriously checking out miracles? Or do they simply accept those that seem "reasonable", and let it strengthen their faith?

If I can interest you, have a look at the "miracles today ?" thread
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24327
Here learning has accepted this as a good provable miracle, yet the paper that published his miracle, shows no interest in verifying it for those doubting.


I think they'd either leave it to rot, or tear it up so that other christians wouldn't have to read through such garbage.

But then what of Origen preserving the words of Celsus?He did not preserve the words of Celsus.


I just do not see that it applies the same to people of this ancient mindset, but we will see what you make of the books.I was hoping they would arrive in time for me to read a bit before answering you anymore, It's a bit more interesting when we both know what the arguments are we that we are using.
But since people seem to think I gave up I had to write this reply anyway, the books will hopefulle arrive by friday, originally they should have been here monday at the latest.

Honestly no, not in person. I have heard of such persons but they usually seek a reward as well, which again, where Christianity is concerned, was of no moment (since other religions promised just as good).hmm I don't know so much about that, what other religions offered paradise at that time and in that area?

How can you rule out that the gnostics had some evidence that was enough to convince them that Jesus wasn't ressurected.

But see, they DID believe he was; they just reinterpreted how it was done by calling him an illusion. They would not have solved any "problems" with their view. If you ask why this could not be what happened (I assume you don't mean to seriously! ) it would make no sense in a Jewish setting.From a saduceean viewpoint it would make sence wouldn't it, since they didn't believe in physical resurrections, or didn't they believe in any form of ressurections at all?

[jpholding]

Your answers were quite sufficient, I hope you can forgive me for taking so long to answer.

No worries! I could use the extra time; you may have seen I have magazine articles to write. Due June 21. So no apologies needed! :smile:

hmm.. and these values just changed overnight?

Some may have given way easier than others. There are really too many variables to deal with the issue so broadly.

Just as the differences between Pharisees and Saducess were non-existant?

I do not see the point of this or the other... :sad:



Josephus, the jewish war, 2.344

Um, I have the "new" division system but I think this is right. All it says is that some people met in a "gallery". It doesn't seen clear that it is a gymnasium.


Doesn't it have philosophical implications that he blends his own religion and egyptian religion in a "greek way".

I do not think so, automatically. I need specifics to say yea or nay.


Why is it of interest to us what differences they were aware of?

Put it this way: If Gentiles were unaware that Jews thought in terms of totality of the person, and Jews were unaware of Gentile dualism, then they will just talk past each other and there will be no effective way for either side to change the other. In fact I think such difference might never emerge as obvious until something like Christianity comes along.



so you are saying A) the jews of this specific period were much harder to change, then jews of other periods. Then why is it this specific period so special?

Mainly it's when Jesus came would be my point. :smile:

and B) If they were to change it would bewholesale. In other words you expect them to totally forget everything about how the universe and its supernatural beeings functions, and learn instantly how the hellinists perceived it? Are you taking into consideration the human learning process now?

Yes. After all converts to new religions often act the same way as some critics here like to point out. :smile: They may learn clumsily but the core and basics get down pat within a very short time. I also do not say they actually forget but would say they effectively ignore their prior way of thinking, which in outworking is the same thing.


But you would say that mithraism appeared not long after christianity wouldn't you?

Um, that's a huge question. :smile: Mithraism of Roman times came about due to the precession of the equinoxes according to the leading expert here and had nothing to do with Christianity or Gnosticism or vice versa. I am not even sure why you refer to it?

So you will have to explain atleast one possible scenario for this movement appearing other than beeing convinced by deception/misunderstandings, since you are claiming that the hellinists of this age would be very suspicious of all they didn't know, and any messages they might have.

Well, Mithraism by this theory would not be based on any deception but on something anyone could observe in the stars.

and on that note.. what is it Paul is talking about to the Galatians if he, as one who knows the society as you describe it, knows that people will want evidence in order to believe new stuff.

The thing is here that "gospel" is not a proper name, as in the books today. The word means any good news at all. Most experts say Paul refers here to a sort of Judaizing tendency, so as far as "evidence" goes this would be different, it would be based on a Jewish understanding of salvation which was already entrenched in Jewish persons. Nor is it something tangible being taught, like a historical resurrection.


Ok, so then you agree that the hellinists that were convinced did probably not "check it out" even if they wanted to ?

No, I'd say those that did would have been less likely than Diaspora Jews.

You mentioned in a previous post that you believed that there would be investigators from Philipi, after reading acts I can't seem to find any mention of wealthy people able to conduct such investigations, why did you single out Philipi?

It was a Roman colony of some significant means. Lots of old retired people there. :smile: Like Florida where I am.



Since you claim that JW's don't know about past failures. Are you of the oppinion that JW's have started with entirely new members after each failed prediction ?

I don't know enough to say but they have never had enough members to judge accurately IMO. I only know today you'll seldom find a JW hee who knows of their failed prophecies or things like Russell's references to the Great Pyramids.



So the muslims do not claim to base their religion on history?

Not in the same sense. The message came from a historical person but was not dependent on him particularly doing anything, it could have come from someone else.

Why is it they kill themselves? Because they think they are fighting Satan, is this unprovably false?

Yes, plus of course the rewards in heaven. It is unfalsifiable.



one would expect the most resilient resistance towards it to be where people are most likely to know the truth. And less and less resistance the farther from the source we get, agree?

Perhaps, but that could just as well be a function of geography and the spread of the message as it is people closer to the truth knowing the truth and time for the word to spread. Also:

If we then have a look in Acts to see what happened.
What happened to those spreading the word at the source?
They were told to "shut up" 4:18.They were flogged when they wouldn't keep silent 5:40 , They killed the most outspoken 6:54, They persecuted and scattered the whole sect 8:1.

True. Yet outside Judaea there was no administrative body yet that would have the option to do this to them.

They could of course also spread the word, and tell people the truth were they saw that the falsehood had been spread. They might even go to the king and ask him to intervene.

Correct. yet they would do this also if they even WRONGLY believed that they were correct, would they not? Or if they were merely being irrational or frustrated? I don't think your pattern proves anything in particular....other than that the persecutors saw a need to stop the thing at any cost. I'd expect the same even if they knew the tomb was empty.


The problem is that when the message arrives it is not so easy making up your mind who you should believe, the christians did after all promise eternal salvation if one believed in them.

True, but not much to go on; the mystery religions offered the same, as did Judaism. Actually I think the vast majority when they first heard the message would do what we do to JWs, i.e., slam the door in their face. I don't think many got to the "think about it, make up your mind" stage at all.

Nowadays it's much easier checking up on both alleged miracles and alleged debunkings of said miracles. But even today do you see ordinary christians seriously checking out miracles?

Yes, we do have some "police" over here doing that even in our own house. :smile:

He did not preserve the words of Celsus.

? -- then how is it possible for Joseph Hoffman to use Origen to derive a text for Celsus?



But since people seem to think I gave up I had to write this reply anyway, the books will hopefulle arrive by friday, originally they should have been here monday at the latest.

Be careful. Another poster read one of them and is getting addicted. :wink:


hmm I don't know so much about that, what other religions offered paradise at that time and in that area?

Judaism of course; the mystery religions as well, if you want more specifics I need to dig a book out. Of course the mysteries were associated with gods like Dionysius, Mithra, etc.

From a saduceean viewpoint it would make sence wouldn't it, since they didn't believe in physical resurrections, or didn't they believe in any form of ressurections at all?

Not really, since they also believed that there was no way for a spirit to walk the earth except by forbidden necromancy, if that is what you mean.