Jesus A "Copycat Savior"?

[KingDavid8]

Hey, everyone.

I frequently hear non-Christians make the claim that the Jesus story borrows from the stories of pre-Christian deities. I've done a fair amount of research on the subject, and have not seen any pre-Christian deities that strike me as possible influences on the Biblical Jesus story. Lists I've seen on comparisons between Jesus and "godmen" like Mithra, Zoroaster, Krishna, Horus, Buddha, Dionysus and others don't match any versions of the story I can find in books or websites.

So I'm wondering if anyone who believes that such borrowing occurred would like to present their evidence, so that we can discuss and debate.

Thanks,

David

[Unknown Banana]

Well, here are some links to look at if you like. I haven't yet reached my own conclusions either, but I'd like to do a bit of my own research sometime...

Pro-Copycat:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm
http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/lb.html

Anti-Copycat:
http://www.tektonics.org/osy.html

[Socrates]

Of course, the www.tektonics.org article is far better than that from the religious tolerance bozos (which is actually fanatically INtolerant of biblical Christian absolutes!).

But even without that, the copycat thesis fails right at the start, because it commits the Genetic Fallacy. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail; chemists don’t need to worry about correct snake behavior or dream psychology to analyse benzene! Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.

[Unknown Banana]

Today @ 08:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94001#post94001)
Socrates:
Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.

So what you're saying is, if you had evidence the bible is not as it seems and drew all it's inspiration from a mish-mash of alternate religions (an evolution of religions if you will), you'd still believe in it's validity?

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 05:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93906#post93906)
Unknown Banana:

Well, here are some links to look at if you like. I haven't yet reached my own conclusions either, but I'd like to do a bit of my own research sometime...

Pro-Copycat:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm


This one makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really give any examples.



http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/lb.html


This one compares the worship services of ancient Egyptians to the worship services of modern Christians. Interesting for sure, but doesn't do anything to suggest that Jesus borrows from earlier deities, just that the way we worship Him (singing hymns, listening to sermons) is borrowed from the way they worshipped theirs.

Thanks for the links, though.

David

[jpholding]

The page cited by Unknown Banana is just one of about 2 dozen I have done on this sort of claim.

I find, King David, that most such people are just copying the work of Kersey Graves or some other 18th-19th century theorist.

Mithra is the most popular choice. A good look at Mithraic studies lit tends to put it in mothballs.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.

Unknown Banana:So what you're saying is, if you had evidence the bible is not as it seems and drew all it's inspiration from a mish-mash of alternate religions (an evolution of religions if you will), you'd still believe in it's validity.I meant, you can show parallels till you're blue in the face, and you would still not invalidate Christianity. The historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ stands on its own merit even if you could find a million myths about it. After all, no matter how much counterfeit money you find, it doesn't invalidate the real thing.

And by your "reasoning", the benzene molecule can't really be a hexagonal ring, because Kekulé first proposed this structure after awaking from a dream about a snake forming a ring by taking its tail in its mouth.

JPH shows that the alleged parallels are spurious anyway. Note that there are two ways to refute an argument: show that a premise is false, or show that the argument is invalid (i.e. a true conclusion wouldn't even follow from a true premise). So my point was to show the copycat argument had a flaw in the logic.

[WinAce]

"Historical fact of the Resurrection"

Haha, good one Socrates. *High five*

[Unknown Banana]

Yesterday @ 04:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94263#post94263)
Socrates:

Socrates:

Unknown Banana:So what you're saying is, if you had evidence the bible is not as it seems and drew all it's inspiration from a mish-mash of alternate religions (an evolution of religions if you will), you'd still believe in it's validity.I meant, you can show parallels till you're blue in the face, and you would still not invalidate Christianity. The historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ stands on its own merit even if you could find a million myths about it. After all, no matter how much counterfeit money you find, it doesn't invalidate the real thing.

And by your "reasoning", the benzene molecule can't really be a hexagonal ring, because Kekulé first proposed this structure after awaking from a dream about a snake forming a ring by taking its tail in its mouth.

JPH shows that the alleged parallels are spurious anyway. Note that there are two ways to refute an argument: show that a premise is false, or show that the argument is invalid (i.e. a true conclusion wouldn't even follow from a true premise). So my point was to show the copycat argument had a flaw in the logic.

I do see what you are saying. I also admit I haven't found anything solid on this theory yet, so it seems a little thin to me.

However, to me, having incredibly similar parallels that predate christianity would invalidate it's authenticity to me. Money is a bad analagy, as there can be many authentic notes and many counterfeits. There can only be one truthful religion (perhaps). It's more like an original painting - there can only be one original. If it was a copy of an original predating it, and this original was found... well, the copy isn't as authentic anymore is it?

lol, gotta love arguing with analagies :P Anyway, I'd still like to see some more solid evidence favouring paralells, if there is such a thing.

I apologise for my bad links, they were all I had when I did my miniscule investigations a while back. Here's the place I first heard about it though, and apparently there's a book on it.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/freke_Gandy_jesusMysteries.php

(by the way, the graham hancock site is - I find - a highly interesting site, constantly updated with all the latest archeological and scientific finds. Well worth a look around :smile: )

[boxy]

Interesting link, banana. I can't wait for Socrates or JPH to analyze it.

[AtheistArchon]

- My own two cents:

- Christianity is a religion like most any other, complete with miracles of varying types, creation (and armageddon) mythology, and an attempt at describing a set of moral values. Christians share my disbelief in all those other religions... I see no valid reason to believe that Christianity is the one and only correct one.

- Religion and mythology existed long before Christianity. What does Christianity have to offer that any of the others do not? (In terms of validity, that is.)

- It really doesn't matter to me whether Christianity was a completely "new" idea or whether it was borrowing from other older myths. However, we do know that religious myths get hijacked, reshaped, and redistributed as religious fact... we've all seen that happen with, shall we say, Islam. There are serious Islamic scholars who show some pretty good evidence that Islam is actually an offshoot of Christianity that got misunderstood early on and was adapted to a new culture. (Try being critical of Islam in an Islamic country... heh. Those scholars get a thumbs up from me.) We even see it within Christianity when we compare today's "compassionate Christians" with early puritanical American settlers. Same bible, same story, but the differences are like night and day. The puritans were certain that they were right in their interpretations... as certain as JP or T5S is about their own, and we're only talking a couple of hundred years of time gone by.

[AtheistArchon]

I meant, you can show parallels till you're blue in the face, and you would still not invalidate Christianity.

- As an afterthought, I should mention that for people like Soc here, it's impossible to invalidate Christianity. Critical thinking requires that we weigh both sides equally, and Soc isn't prepared to consider the possibility that Christianity could ever be false. It's "history" for him, regardless of anything else.

- Of course, it doesn't help things that Christian beliefs are largely nonfalsifiable anyhow (and those that are are considered miracles... and only for the purposes of Christianity (i.e. the resurrection. It can't happen now of course, but it happened then, and it's plausible because goddidit, which of course leads us into a whole new debate.))

[Andrew]

Miller does a good general analysis of the copycat charge here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

[AtheistArchon]

Miller does a good general analysis of the copycat charge here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

- Hmm. Basically, Miller claims that you have to be ultra-specific in order to be valid in the claim of religious borrowing. Additionally, that certain ideas and motifs are so ordinary that they could be explained arising in other cultures in other eras by sheer chance.

- I claim instead that Christianity contains a set of pretty specific ideas which are central to its core. The most mentionable is of course the resurrection. Miller deals with this either by claiming that earlier religions or myths cannot be shown to have ever actually incorporated resurrection myths into them, OR that the resurrection myth itself is SO common that any odd religion is bound to have come up with it on its own (before the REAL religion incorporated it, of course...).

- To me, these arguments seem to flow against each other. Hm.

- Regardless, I find it highly suspect that Christians find one religion with a resurrection claim is wrong, but a later one is right.

[edit] Additionally, reading further, I see that Miller even allows my own argument as fact:


The vast majority of the pre-modern world was syncretistic, meaning that one religion would often incorporate the myth and ritual of other cults with which it came in contact. Often the deities would simply change names. In the ANE, Western Semites adopted deities from the Sumerian pantheon and Israel took up the pagan Canaanite cult. Closer to NT times, we see the Greek colonists at Ephesus "adopt" the goddess of the natives (e.g. The Great Mother) and call her by THEIR name "Artemis" (ZPEB, s.v. "Ephesus"). In some cases, deities would 'merge' into one.

- ... but then pulls a double standard and excludes Christianity from this phenomenon:


[Christianity, as we have noted often, was the opposite--it was not 'inclusivistic', but 'exclusivistic'--it would not 'merge' with anything. It was completely out-of-synch with the age and culture of the day. And hence, it was understood as such--and attacked by the powers and elites.]

- Just because it was attacked by power and elites does not make it immune to the social changes that apply to every other religion out there. I would be curious to read what Miller claims is the reason behind singling his own religion out of the mix thusly. It can't be just a frowning upon fledgling Christianity by Rome.

[jpholding]

Boxy: I already deal with Freke and Gandy in my present articles.

Archon:

Hmm. Basically, Miller claims that you have to be ultra-specific in order to be valid in the claim of religious borrowing. Additionally, that certain ideas and motifs are so ordinary that they could be explained arising in other cultures in other eras by sheer chance.

Correct. And scholarship as a whole agrees with that, as he notes.

Miller deals with this either by claiming that earlier religions or myths cannot be shown to have ever actually incorporated resurrection myths into them, OR that the resurrection myth itself is SO common that any odd religion is bound to have come up with it on its own (before the REAL religion incorporated it, of course...).

It's actually more like there is no match for the rez process as in Judaism, nor for it as a unique event (versus the springtime dyin and risin gods). I think you see a reverse flow because you are summarizing too much.

Regardless, I find it highly suspect that Christians find one religion with a resurrection claim is wrong, but a later one is right.

I find vague comments like this highly suspect myself. :smile: Miller's point is more that Christianity itself was of a character that resisted syncretism. This is NOT the same as social change. There is a difference between social, religious, and theological change. Christianity (and Judaism) resisted the latter two because of the way they were set up, but did indeed accede to the first.

[jimbo]

Hi,

To start with, Christianity obviously grew out of Judiasm. When Christianity started, it hijacked the Jews' holy book, the Torah. Christians just slapped the NT onto the OT. The NT only makes up about what, a quarter of the bible. I think this was done to make it look like Christianity was based on ancient traditions and beliefs, which would have made it appear more valid to people. The portrayal of "God" in the NT and the OT is quite different.

Another thing to note is that Genesis originally referred to a plurality of gods, indicating that the Jews' montheism grew out of polytheism:



Genesis 3:22

"and the lord god said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."


Genesis 11:7

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

And of course there are references in the OT to many other gods that apparently existed back then:


Exodus 12:12

"For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute Judgement."



Deuteronomy 10:17

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and an awesome, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward."

Psalms 82:2

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

I wonder what happened to all these other gods? Hmmm...I guess they must have died between now and then.

Ask yourselves where Christmas and Easter came from. These dates were celebrated by the earlier religions and then taken over by the Christian Church once it got hold of the reins of power.

One other thing. Early Christian apologists were aware of the similarities of their religion to earlier religions because they were forced to explain away the similarities, much as the Christians on this discussion board are forced to do now. These early apologists tried to pretend that the fact that Christianity was so similar to the earlier religions (what we now call pagan religions) was because of a plot of Satan to confuse people, or because the similarities were meant to be prophetic:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm


Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry." Satan was said to have use "plagiarism by anticipation." That is, the Devil replicated the life experiences of Jesus, centuries before his birth. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous godmen.

Other Christian writers have concluded that the Mysteries were a type of pre-echo of Jesus' life -- "somewhat like premonitions or prophecies." 1

Of course, such rationalizations are no less ridiculous than the ones we see every day on these boards. Not much has changed in 2000 years it seems.

I am going to see if I can find some quotes from these early Christian apologists.

Later,

Jimbo

[jpholding]

In rides Jumbo, his foot in his mouth,

Shouldn'ta spoken up, Brooks. I'm about to drop you hard.

To start with, Christianity obviously grew out of Judiasm.

No duh huh. Even Evangelicals agree with this.

When Christianity started, it hijacked the Jews' holy book, the Torah. Christians just slapped the NT onto the OT.

Grossly begs question of whether it was done legitimately.

I think this was done to make it look like Christianity was based on ancient traditions and beliefs, which would have made it appear more valid to people.

Nayh. Couldn't have been because it was an actual continued tradition. :rofl: So what excuse did the Essenes have? Same one?

The portrayal of "God" in the NT and the OT is quite different.

Examples, please. You know better than that.

Another thing to note is that Genesis originally referred to a plurality of gods, indicating that the Jews montheism grew out of polytheism:

Er, no -- it was "polyelohimism". Whatever an elohim was, and it was not a "god" as we define it, a being with independent power and/or discretion. I guess you haven't heard that the most recent research calls what the Jews observed "monolatry" and not monotheism? Tut tut -- you get way behind the times when all you read from the opposition is Chick tracts. :rofl:

I wonder what happened to all these other gods? Hmmm...I guess they must have died.

Probably so. Spectacular failures is what they were.

Ask yourselves where Christmas and Easter came from.

Did that already. From Glenn Miller:

First, let's note that it is not at all certain that this theft actually occurred--the data is mixed:


"In regard to the day of Jesus’ birth, as early as Hippolytus (A.D. 165–235) it was said to be December 25, a date also set by John Chrysostom (A.D. 345–407) whose arguments prevailed in the Eastern Church. There is nothing improbable about a mid-winter birth. Luke 2:8 tells us that the shepherds’ flocks were kept outside when Jesus was born. This detail might favor a date between March and November when such animals would normally be outside. But the Mishnah (m. sûeqal. 7.4) suggests that sheep around Bethlehem might also be outside during the winter months (Hoehner). Therefore, though there is no certainty, it appears that Jesus was born somewhere between 4–6 B.C., perhaps in mid-winter. Both the traditional Western date for Christmas (Dec. 25) and the date observed by the Armenian Church (Jan. 6) are equally possible. The biblical and extra-biblical historical evidence is simply not specific enough to point decisively to either traditional date. The celebration of the nativity is attested in Rome as early as A.D. 336 and this celebration also involved recognizing January 6 as Epiphany, the day the Magi visited Jesus." [NT:DictJG, s.v. 'birth of jesus']

"The exact day of Jesus birth' is unknown. The Gnostic Basilidians in Egypt (late second century) commemorated Jesus' baptism on January 6, and by the early fourth century many Christians in the East were celebrating both his nativity and baptism then....In 274 Emperor Aurelian decreed December 25 as the celebration of the 'Unconquerable Sun," the first day in which there was a noticeable increase in light after the winter solstice. The earliest mention of a Feast of the Nativity is found in a document composed in 336. Some feel Constantine (who died in 337) may have selected this day for Christmas because of a deep-seated respect for the popular pagan solstice festival. Others argue that the date was chosen as a replacement for it, that it, to honor the 'Sun of Righteousness.' Firmly established in the West within a few decades, another century passed before the Eastern church adopted December 25...The only holdout was the Armenian church, which still observes the nativity on January 6." [TK:104f]
"Aurelian celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti ("birthday of Sol Invictus") on December 25. Whether this festival was celebrated earlier than the third century is unknown. Nor is it certain that December 25 was the birthday of Mithras as well as of Sol Invictus. This has not prevented many scholars from assuming that Mithraic influence upon Christianity was involved in the adoption of this date for Christmas...Roger Beckwith concludes that 'a date in the depths of winter (January-February) is therefore one of the two possibilities; and it may be that Clement, and through him Hippolytus, were in possession of a genuine historical tradition to this effect, which in the course of time had been mistakenly narrowed down to a particular day.'...Clement of Alexandria (circa 200) in his Stromateis (1.146) noted that Gnostic Basilidians in Egypt celebrated Jesus' baptism either on January 10 or January 6. By the early fourth century Christians in the East were celebrating Jesus' birth on January 6..." [OT:PAB:520f]

Later church tradition remembered it as a 'competitive strategy': "The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6th celebration to December 25th was this, they say: it was the custom of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25th the birthday of the Sun, and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted the Christians to these rites. When, therefore, the teachers of the Church saw that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set the celebration of the true Sunrise on this day, and ordered Epiphany to be celebrated on January 6th; and this usage they maintain to the present day along with the lighting of lights." (12th century bishop, cited in [HI:CP68C:155]

"The equinoxes and solstices must have been especially sacred. This was verified for the spring equinox of 172, the day when the Mithraeum 'of the Seven Spheres', at Ostia, was opened to a new community. The vernal equinox marked the anniversary of the sacrifice that had revived the world. Perhaps at the winter solstice (25 December) they celebrated the birth of Mithras emerging from the rock..." (HI:TCRE:234, emphasis mine...and I might ask the question here as to how many solar deities did NOT celebrate the Winter Solstice as a 'rebirth'?! All the ones I know of did (e.g. HI:SSK:157-65), not sure that really counts as a 'historical birthday' in the same sense as Jesus'; so, Eliade: "The anniversary of the Deus Sol Invictus was set at December 25th, the 'birthday' of all Oriental solar deities" [WR:HRI2:411]...)


Secondly, what difference would it have made? The Roman Empire, with the "conversion" of Constantine, knew quite clearly the difference between the Jesus of the Christians and the Sun God of the Roman elite or the Mithras of the military. There would be no confusion between the two. The fierce struggles "for the minds of men" between Christian thought and pagan thought of the past two centuries kept the distinctions very, very clear..."Converting" a holiday from Sol/Mithras to Christ would even "make sense", given the early Kingdom-theology of the Church (see below discussion)...Just as 'converting' temples would look to them a bit later, and maybe even 'converting' statues (and changing the names, obviously). And you can rest assured that Mithraists no more celebrated the birthday of Christ on that day, any more than the Christians did Mithra's. For someone to assert that this could only happen if the two 'gods' were already very similar, simply does not understand the intense Christian-versus-pagan polemic of those times, and the highly developed positions within that polemic. The major exchanges between the second and third century Christian apologists and theologians, and the sharp and powerful attacks of Celsus and Porphyry, were only the tip of the iceberg. The Roman legislation battles and the constant watchful eye (and interventions) of the Roman government over this 'dangerous sect' insured that the battle lines were always clear to the rulers, elites, and urban middle-class. And, we don't even have to get all the way to 'conversion'--it might have been picked for 'protest' reasons: "The purpose was that it should be celebrated in opposition to the sun-cult" [NIDNTT]
So,

It's not clear that it was deliberately set to the same day as the birthday of Sol Invictus (it may have be December 25 anyway)
It's not clear that it was established later than the first known celebration of Sol's birthday (Hippolytus is writing before Aurelian's law)
It could have been deliberately set to the same day, as a 'protest' or 'opposition' movement, or as a 'conversion' initiative--without true 'borrowing' of the holiday itself (i.e., the content and conceptual meaning of the holiday would certainly be massively different, and clear to the participants, even if the 'trappings' were the same)

And, therefore, it is not at all clear that the action was a case of 'borrowing pagan ideas' and smuggling them into Christianity.

On Easter, from me:

A recent letter-writer suggested an item on the subject of Easter as a pagan holiday. Notice that I do not say "alleged". Some caution is due here as there is little to disagree with in terms of certain aspects of what we call "Easter" being of non-Christian origin (eggs, wabbits, etc.); where the line must be drawn is in the allegation that the elements of what we call "Easter" associated with the Resurrection of Christ are also tied to pagan origins.

To explore this premise I went out and checked for some websites alleging such borrowing. The first I came to was from the folks at religioustolerance.org. I offer this as an informative but somewhat misguided look at the situation. Their point about most pagans having a holiday at the Spring Equinox raises the question of whether Resurrection Day, and by extension the Passover holiday, was itself one of these pagan festivals originally. Skeptics might want to say so, but there's a point to consider. The largest danger in the ancient world for the Israelites was idolatry. Now consider this situation: Everyone else around them was celebrating at the Spring Equinox, doing all the usual orgiastic things. Now as a parallel, if you are in a business, and your rival business is having a big sale on April 10, how might you get something out of that and also deflect your rival's success? The answer: Hold an even bigger sale the same day. And that's the "why" of Passover being scheduled on the Spring Equinox (and by this I also mean that God intended it that way when He timed the plagues of Egypt). The Israelites could hardly occupy themselves with joining in with the pagans if they had their own festival to celebrate. That's a better explanation than trying to foist "pagan" interpretations on the Passover rites. (Liberal scholars variously and creatively speculated that Passover was rooted in an otherwise unattaested ancient Jewish custom of slapping blood on tent posts to protect the flock and the well-being of the people from roving demons, and add that the Exodus itself may have been a rework of seasonal "cattle drives" [!], but ultimately admitted that the particular elements of Passover and their origin remain enigmatic.)

The tolerance folks offer a few other bugs. They try to relate the Resurrection to Attis (see here for response -- this is also cited by several other sites, along with other figures we have covered like Dionysus); they also have the usual bit about alleged chronology problems with Jesus' date of death (see here) but little else to fight about. The only other connection I have seen attempted is to connect the idea of a "sunrise service" with the pagan welcoming of the sun, but clearly the Resurrection had to occur at some time of day, and from the Gospel records it seems that it took place before the sun was up, which makes for a less than adequate match.

So in short, this is one bunny that doesn't hop, but I'll be on the lookout for any other such attempts to forge a pagan chain to either Passover or Resurrection Day.

Back to Jumbo:

These dates were celebrated by the pagans and then taken over by the Christian Church once it got hold of the reins of power.

As was perfectly proper for the ideological victors.

One other thing. Early Christian apologists were aware of the similarities of their religion to those of the pagans because they were forced to explain away the similarities, much as the Christians on this discussion board are forced to do now.

:zzz: Which pagan figure you want to debate, Brooks? You do go ahead and find those quotes. I really want to roast you now that you've dared to show your rear.

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 07:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95425#post95425)
jimbo:

One other thing. Early Christian apologists were aware of the similarities of their religion to earlier religions because they were forced to explain away the similarities, much as the Christians on this discussion board are forced to do now. These early apologists tried to pretend that the fact that Christianity was so similar to the earlier religions (what we now call pagan religions) was because of a plot of Satan to confuse people, or because the similarities were meant to be prophetic:

I am going to see if I can find some quotes from these early Christian apologists.


I doubt you'll find them. I'm about 95% sure those statements were completely created by skeptics in an attempt to discredit Christianity. I've debated people about them before (over E-mail or in chat rooms) and none of them have been able to find the quotes, though I can't say how hard they looked. If you can find them, it'll certainly clear things up. If you can't find them, I think that'll clear things up, too.

David

[quetzalphoenix]

Back to the idea of Christianity as a copycat religion

1. Is it possible that similar symbols point to one reality, in different ways...and that the reason Christianity shares these symbols is because it is rooted in humanity? (i.e., death/life, water symbols, flood, serpent, trees, etc...we have a finite reality from which to draw transcenden imagery)

2. How are the symbols/themes used in other religions? Just as an example, many argue that the gospel of John borrows from Gnostic theology. Aside from being anachronistic, that argument ignores the use of very common human motifs.

3. I'm with CS Lewis in affirming the mythological nature of Christianity, as long as we realize that it is in a sense "the Myth", revealed in scripture, developed through time, and rooted in--yes, the historical fact--the reality of its events.

4. Reading too much Joseph Campbell is bad for you. (I made that mistake in college...and was misled for a long time along some of these lines)

[John Powell]

SOCRATES:
But even without that, the copycat thesis fails right at the start, because it commits the Genetic Fallacy. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail; chemists don’t need to worry about correct snake behavior or dream psychology to analyse benzene! Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.


POWELL:
I'm very late to this discussion.

What Socrates says assumes that the critic is making a deductive, rather than a statistical argument. Perhaps the critic is arguing that since Jesus is so similar to earlier deities that His story is PROBABLY significantly borrowed. Then it does not suffer deductive fallacies because it's not a deductive argument.

Consider the following example.

When a car is reported missing and on that same day someone unknown to the owner is found driving the vehicle then the driver is "clearly" the thief or knows the thief (such a court case could be easily won). If your car were stolen, Socrates, and the driver claimed that it was logically fallacious (genetic fallacy) to conclude that he was the thief or knew the thief, would you drop the charges? If you would not, what valid deductive argument would you use to justify your belief that he was the thief or knew the thief?

Perhaps you don't think the genetic fallacy is that serious a fallacy after all.

John Powell

[John Powell]

SOCRATES:
Note that there are two ways to refute an argument: show that a premise is false, or show that the argument is invalid (i.e. a true conclusion wouldn't even follow from a true premise). So my point was to show the copycat argument had a flaw in the logic.


POWELL:
This method refutes an argument as being sound, but does not refute an argument in general.

Are you saying, Socrates, that if an argument is invalid then one is not justified in believing the conclusion to be true? What about inductive / statistical arguments and appeals to authority, don't you use those more often than sound arguments?

John Powell

[John Powell]

JPHOLDING:
The only other connection I have seen attempted is to connect the idea of a "sunrise service" with the pagan welcoming of the sun, but clearly the Resurrection had to occur at some time of day, and from the Gospel records it seems that it took place before the sun was up, which makes for a less than adequate match.


POWELL:
Does this mean you favor a pre-dawn resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning?

John Powell

[John Powell]

JIMBO:
I am going to see if I can find some quotes from these early Christian apologists.

KINGDAVID8:
I doubt you'll find them. I'm about 95% sure those statements were completely created by skeptics in an attempt to discredit Christianity. I've debated people about them before (over E-mail or in chat rooms) and none of them have been able to find the quotes, though I can't say how hard they looked. If you can find them, it'll certainly clear things up. If you can't find them, I think that'll clear things up, too.


POWELL:
I seem to have easily found one by Justin Martyr in an article by Farrell Till.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3front94.html


TILL:
So widespread was belief in virgin-born, resurrected saviors that Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, used the familiarity of the story as an argument designed to convince non-Christians that it was logical to believe Jesus was the virgin-born son of God:


JUSTIN MARTYR:
By declaring the Logos, the first-begotten of God, our Master, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin, without any human mixture, we (Christians) say no more in this than what you (pagans) say of those whom you style the sons of Jove. For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign to Jove....

As to the son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be nothing more than man, yet the title of "the son of God" is very justifiable, upon the account of his wisdom, considering that you (pagans) have your Mercury in worship under the title of the word, a messenger of God.... As to his (Jesus Christ's) being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that (First Apology, vol. 1, chapter 22).


TILL:
Christians, of course, will dismiss the tales of these pagan saviors as mythology while adamantly insisting that it is rational to believe that the story of Jesus's virgin birth and resurrection is factual. They can offer no reasonable explanation for their inconsistency, but until they do, skeptics will have to insist that they are worshiping a counterfeit savior.


POWELL:
However, I should confirm his quotation.

Here's an Internet translation of both Chapter 21 and 22. Evidently, Farrell incorrectly suggested that the first half of the quote comes from Chapter 22 rather than Chapter 21. I've boldfaced the part that best matches his quotation.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3706_663120


CCEL:
Chapter XXI.-Analogies to the History of Christ.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth^45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement^46 of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

Chapter XXII.-Analogies to the Sonship of Christ.

Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior-or rather have already proved Him to be so-for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.


Notes:
45 i.e., first-born.

46 diaforan kai protrophn. The irony here is so obvious as to make the proposed reading (diafqoran kai paratrophn, corruption and depravation) unnecessary. Otto prefers the reading adopted above. Trollope, on the other hand, inclines to the latter reading, mainly on the score of the former expressions being unusual. See his very sensible note in loc.


POWELL:
Here's another Internet site at

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/EARLYF/jm1.shtml


GOSPELCOM:
Look at What You Give Credence to
We say the Word, the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union. We say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven. We are propounding nothing different from what you believe regarding those that you esteem to be sons of Jupiter. You know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter. (For example there was) Mercury the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius a great physician who was struck by a thunderbolt and so ascended into heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb. . . . And what about the emperors who die in your midst that you deem worthy of deification? You brought forth one who swore that he saw the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre.

And what kind of deeds are reported of these reputed sons of Jupiter? I do not need to tell those who already know. I'll only say that the reports are written for the benefit and encouragement of young scholars. For all consider it an honorable thing to imitate the gods. But far be it from every well conditioned soul to believe concerning the gods that Jupiter himself-the governor and creator of all things-was both a parricide and the son of a parricide. Or to believe that Jupiter was overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures and came in to Ganymede and those many women he had violated, and that his sons did the same actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue. And we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

We Alone are Hated
Moreover, the son of God called Jesus, even if he were only man from normal human reproduction, because of his wisdom is worthy to be called the Son of God. All the writers call God the father of men and gods. If we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a special way different from normal human reproduction then this is not anything extraordinary to you who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if one objects that Jesus was crucified, even here he is on a par with your reputed sons of Jupiter who suffered as we have now enumerated. . . . And if we affirm that He (Jesus) was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to be speaking of deeds similar to those that are attributed to Aesculapius.


POWELL:
There were others I could check, but perhaps this is enough.

Farrell seems to have done a sloppy job of quoting, but got the important ideas correct. Perhaps he should have given the translation he used, especially if it was his own.

JOHN POWELL.

[jpholding]

John Powell:

The quotes from Justin are not exactly what Jimbo had in mind. I don't see Justin indicating derivation as much as he is pointing out the inconsistency of his critics.

Does this mean you favor a pre-dawn resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning?

How do we define "dawn"? Light but no sun over the horizon? Bit of sun peeking up? Whole sun up? :smile:

[jimbo]

Greetings,

I was referring to the quote John P provided, and a couple of others. I will post those later, when I have more time. The quotes show that some early Christian apologists knew that their religion had similarities to earlier and already existing religions.

Jennifer

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96303#post96303)
jimbo:

Greetings,

I was referring to the quote John P provided, and a couple of others. I will post those later, when I have more time. The quotes show that some early Christian apologists knew that their religion had similarities to earlier and already existing religions.

Jennifer

Gosh Jennifer, you're right.

Christians worship in buildings. So do Muslims.
Christians worship one God. So do Muslims.
Christians believe in Jesus. So do Muslims.
Christians hearken back to Abraham for their tradition. So do Muslims.

All those similarities! I guess Christianity and Islam are really the same religion. :eww:

No one cares about similarities, Brooks. You need to show derivation, not just similarities.

[Sheepdog]

Pro-Copycat:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm

heh. about a year or so ago, i wrote in to religioustolerance.org, questioning their use of questionable authorities (i.e. Acharya S? puleeez!). i challenged them to find first hand evidence from the pagan sources themselves of a belief that is parallel to some aspect of Christianity. then, show some evidence of a real coorelation (otherwise, they are commiting the cause and effect fallacy).

i have never heard back from them. what's up with that?

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96303#post96303)
jimbo:

Greetings,

I was referring to the quote John P provided, and a couple of others. I will post those later, when I have more time. The quotes show that some early Christian apologists knew that their religion had similarities to earlier and already existing religions.

Jennifer

Even Miller and Holding agree that there are some similarities. But your statement was the similarities are so striking that the early apologists acknowledged that "mimicry" had to have happened, and tried claiming the mimicry was done in advance. But none of those quotes said anything about mimicry at all.

I can point out many similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. It doesn't mean I believe one was mimicking the other. It just means that if you compare any two stories, fictional or historical, you'll find similarities. Unless the parallels are truly striking, it doesn't mean much.

David

[John Powell]

JPHOLDING:
The quotes from Justin are not exactly what Jimbo had in mind. I don't see Justin indicating derivation as much as he is pointing out the inconsistency of his critics.


POWELL:
Then I'm sorry for giving Jimbo something that doesn't satisfy.

I just read Justin's first apology. Very interesting. This was not supposed to be an apology, rather an appeal for justice, but Justin ended up making an apology.

Yes, Justin does not believe Christianity derived from pagan religious beliefs, but that the similarities were due to counterfeiting by demons who knew something of what God would do. In other words, the Greek / Roman gods were real entities, demons trying to deceive people to not follow Jesus by copying what Jesus would do.

Also, yes, Justin is pointing out that the Romans allowed philosophers to believe different things, but not be killed for that, so they should give the same consideration to Christians. He bolsters this view by claiming that some Greek philosophical ideas were borrowed from people like Moses.

On another issue, it appears quite clear to me that Justin was not a trinitarian.

I think Justin's appeal for justice was severely hampered because he couldn't avoid preaching his religion while doing so. (And yes, I can't seem to avoid trying to sound like I know something enlightening about what I just read.) Perhaps Justin's words would not have been preserved by the Catholics otherwise.

It was good for his appeal that he mentioned that the non-Roman kingdom Christians were looking for was not of this world. It was good that he pointed out similarities between Christian and Roman religious practices. It was good that he said Christians supported paying taxes. It was even good that he made a play on a Greek word that sounds like Christian, xrhstoj, that means "good, worthy, excellent."

On the other hand, it was not good that he portrayed the Christians as happy to die for their religious beliefs. It was not good that he essentially claimed that the emperor would be seen as being evil and would go to the Christian hell if he didn't do what Justin suggested.

Justin should have stuck to points like that Christians should be punished for violating crimes, not for merely being called Christian.


POWELL:
Does this mean you favor a pre-dawn resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning?

JPHOLDING:
How do we define "dawn"? Light but no sun over the horizon? Bit of sun peeking up? Whole sun up?


POWELL:
Oops, my mistake. What I should have said was "pre-sunrise" rather than "pre-dawn" resurrection. The beginning of dawn is the brightening of the sky approaching sunrise.

Do you favor a pre-sunrise resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning, meaning before even a bit of the sun is observed to peek up above the flat horizon?

John Powell

[jpholding]

Hey J Powell,

Then I'm sorry for giving Jimbo something that doesn't satisfy.

He thought it did, but Jimbo is none too up on the scholarship department.

On another issue, it appears quite clear to me that Justin was not a trinitarian.

Not my department but a certain phantaz sunlyk here on TWeb would probably discuss that for you.

I think Justin's appeal for justice was severely hampered because he couldn't avoid preaching his religion while doing so.

Oh, in a way, I could agree; but I would add that you might need to read it as one would in the 2nd century. His methods were more in line with what was done then; today it does sound like preaching overmuch.

On the other hand, it was not good that he portrayed the Christians as happy to die for their religious beliefs.

To us, maybe not; for the ancients it was a sign of honor.

It was not good that he essentially claimed that the emperor would be seen as being evil and would go to the Christian hell if he didn't do what Justin suggested.

To us, probably not; to them, it was normal riposte-challenge. Justin would expect the emperor to reply with threats, too.

Do you favor a pre-sunrise resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning, meaning before even a bit of the sun is observed to peek up above the flat horizon?

For the rez itself, no. I imagine the sun was observable as a body at about the same time. But there's really no way to say -- obviously no one was there recording it.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Then I'm sorry for giving Jimbo something that doesn't satisfy.

JP HOLDING:
He thought it did, but Jimbo is none too up on the scholarship department.

POWELL:
On another issue, it appears quite clear to me that Justin was not a trinitarian.

JP HOLDING:
Not my department but a certain phantaz sunlyk here on TWeb would probably discuss that for you.

POWELL:
I think Justin's appeal for justice was severely hampered because he couldn't avoid preaching his religion while doing so.

JP HOLDING:
Oh, in a way, I could agree; but I would add that you might need to read it as one would in the 2nd century. His methods were more in line with what was done then; today it does sound like preaching overmuch.


POWELL:
Perhaps you're right, but I doubt that people have changed in 2000 years about such things as much as you seem to think. I'm no scholar on this so I need to do more reading to test this opinion.


POWELL:
On the other hand, it was not good that he portrayed the Christians as happy to die for their religious beliefs.

JP HOLDING:
To us, maybe not; for the ancients it was a sign of honor.


POWELL:
You might be right, but I don't think the Romans admired it. It's my impression that the Roman leaders thought this unusual resistance to accept the religion of the new rulers as worthy of extermination. Normal people accepted the new religious order. Why were the Jews and Christians so fanatical?

Here's what Pliny the younger wrote to Emperor Trajan about how he was handling the Christian problem.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/latin/pliny.html


PLINY:
In the meantime, this is the approach I have taken with everyone brought before me on the charge of being "Christ-niks": I have asked them in person if they are "Christ-niks"; and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time with a warning of the sanction awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution. For, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy should not go unpunished. Others as fanatical who are citizens of Rome I have listed to be remanded to "the City" for trial.


POWELL:
Perhaps in Pliny's mind, to refuse to bow to the religious power of the Romans was like refusing to bow to the political power of the Romans. That's a capital offense.

The Romans were certainly aware of the violent resistance the Jews expressed to being forced to change their religion. This was experienced by the former Greek rulers.

It appears to me that both the Greeks and the Romans expected conquered people to behave like conquered people. If they wouldn't do that then they deserved to be eliminated.


POWELL:
It was not good that he essentially claimed that the emperor would be seen as being evil and would go to the Christian hell if he didn't do what Justin suggested.

JP HOLDING:
To us, probably not; to them, it was normal riposte-challenge. Justin would expect the emperor to reply with threats, too.


POWELL:
I would think the emperor was more inclined to reply with solid action rather than mere threats. It's human nature then and now.


POWELL:
Do you favor a pre-sunrise resurrection of Jesus on Sunday morning, meaning before even a bit of the sun is observed to peek up above the flat horizon?

JP HOLDING:
For the rez itself, no. I imagine the sun was observable as a body at about the same time. But there's really no way to say -- obviously no one was there recording it.


POWELL:
Ok.

John Powell

[Socrates]

I said:


Historical fact of the Resurrection

WinAce whelps:Haha, good one Socrates. *High five*So can we count on this junior non-scientist to refute it? for example, Craig's article The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html).

The equally uninformed AtheistArchon addles:Of course, it doesn't help things that Christian beliefs are largely nonfalsifiable anyhow (and those that are are considered miracles... and only for the purposes of Christianity (i.e. the resurrection. Wrong. The Resurrection does fulfil the falsifiability criterion. All that was required was to produce the body -- that would have falsified Christianity right at the start. But no one could, and no one would have any motivation to steal the body.

[Joseph Alward]

SOCRATES
The Resurrection does fulfill the falsifiability criterion. All that was required was to produce the body -- that would have falsified Christianity right at the start. But no one could, and no one would have any motivation to steal the body.

JOE ALWARD
You're begging the question, Socrates. In other words, you are assuming to be true the one of the things that ultimately is at the heart of the skeptical challenge to Christianity: that folks in about 33 AD thought a man named Jesus had been resurrected. The only "evidence" that anyone of that time believed such a thing is in the Bible. If, in fact, nobody believed such a thing then, then of course no one would have had a need to produce a body to disprove a resurrection.

The events surrounding the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, including the visit of the dead saints to many in Jerusalem, were so astonishing, that surely the leading Jewish historian of that time, Josephus, would have mentioned them. The fact that he did not mention them is very good evidence that these stories were made up long after the time of the alleged event.

[jpholding]

John Powell:

Perhaps you're right, but I doubt that people have changed in 2000 years about such things as much as you seem to think. I'm no scholar on this so I need to do more reading to test this opinion.

If you're interested check for works by authors Malina, Pilch, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey. Actually most people have NOT changed much, but America and the West has.

You might be right, but I don't think the Romans admired it. It's my impression that the Roman leaders thought this unusual resistance to accept the religion of the new rulers as worthy of extermination.

They did, because they thought the system was false; if they thought it true, then the honorable death would have been admired. So Justin's portrayal of martydom is not the core issue. Really, if YOU thought Christianity was true, you might just admire him instead, you think?

I would think the emperor was more inclined to reply with solid action rather than mere threats. It's human nature then and now.

Solid action would come against Justin as a lawbreaker, but not because he issued threats. Indeed the one who responded to threats with physical violence was considered dishonorable.

Doc Alward:

Gotta disagree. Josephus was under the patronage of Vespasian, who he was pluggiung as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. If he gave any hint of credence to any of those events, it would mean losing his anatomy.

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98191#post98191)
Socrates:

I said:

WinAce whelps:Haha, good one Socrates. *High five*So can we count on this junior non-scientist to refute it? for example, Craig's article The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.

What does that have to with anything here? I'm not an adherent of the spiritual resurrection hypothesis.



Wrong. The Resurrection does fulfil the falsifiability criterion. All that was required was to produce the body -- that would have falsified Christianity right at the start.

Because, as well all know, ancient Palestine was filled with James Randis running around attempting to debunk every 2 bit cult. </sarcasm>

I'm curious: is there a single case from antiquity where a debunking, even if attempted, was met with the death of the claim? Or was it like modern-day young-earth creationism, with its adherents maintaining, with a straight face, that "we all have the same evidence but I interpret it differently"?

Furthermore, I seem to recall that the modus operandi for dealing with a hostile religion's miracles in ancient times was ascribing them to magic and/or Da Debbil, not really debunking as we would do now.


But no one could, and no one would have any motivation to steal the body.

Using a double argument from silence, I see? How do you do know (A) that no one debunked Christianity and (B) that no one had any motivation to steal the body?

Socrates never ceases to blow my irony meters to smithereens.

[jpholding]

In rides WinAce on his Wabbit:

What does that have to with anything here? I'm not an adherent of the spiritual resurrection hypothesis.

Praise Zeus for small favors! :lol:

Because, as well all know, ancient Palestine was filled with James Randis running around attempting to debunk every 2 bit cult.

Yes, actually, it was. Any excessive claim to honor ("This man was raised!" "This man was Messiah!") would be questioned, scrutinized, and put down if possible.

I'm curious: is there a single case from antiquity where a debunking, even if attempted, was met with the death of the claim?

You can count the dead religions and social movements on more than two hands.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that the modus operandi for dealing with a hostile religion's miracles in ancient times was ascribing them to magic and/or Da Debbil, not really debunking as we would do now.

If you couldn't beat them any other way, certainly. Debbil Dawg. With the cream filling. Like a Ho Ho.


Using a double argument from silence, I see? How do you do know (A) that no one debunked Christianity and (B) that no one had any motivation to steal the body?

Check your mirror for a double dose of irony after that statement. :huh: (A) Because it would have spread rapidly as the establishment in Judaea and later elsewhere would be eager to debunk a cult that made excessive honor claims and overturbned social and political mores. (B) Like who? Grave robbers?

Get with the program. No sound bites, please.

[WinAce]

Today @ 07:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99037#post99037)
jpholding:

Yes, actually, it was. Any excessive claim to honor (&quot;This man was raised!&quot; &quot;This man was Messiah!&quot;) would be questioned, scrutinized, and put down if possible.

I'm sure. Now, let's see all those miracle claims that were debunked by the skeptics. You may start with the cow giving birth to a lamb and temple gate opening by itself in Josephus.


You can count the dead religions and social movements on more than two hands.

Were those religions dead after their miracle claims were shown to be false, or did they die out natural deaths like Hellenistic paganism?


If you couldn't beat them any other way, certainly. Debbil Dawg. With the cream filling. Like a Ho Ho.

I prefer twinkies. Anyway, since you provided no specifics as to how people "beat them any other way", I think it's safe to say attributing alleged miracles to the devil was the default polemic.


Check your mirror for a double dose of irony after that statement.

Right back at you and every Christian apologist who ever knocked the argument from silence. =)


(A) Because it would have spread rapidly as the establishment in Judaea and later elsewhere would be eager to debunk a cult that made excessive honor claims and overturbned social and political mores.

And I suppose you have evidence that this wasn't actually done? Let's have the relevant quotes, preferably bolded and highlighted in red, from "The Pharisees Illustrated Guide to Debunking Christianity, 33 AD Edition" or another document demonstrating that people were running around looking to debunk Christian claims during the time frame where they remained falsifiable.


(B) Like who? Grave robbers?

Relying on an argument from silence to imply there was no one who could have stolen the body, are we? :teeth:

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The events surrounding the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, including the visit of the dead saints to many in Jerusalem, were so astonishing, that surely the leading Jewish historian of that time, Josephus, would have mentioned them. The fact that he did not mention them is very good evidence that these stories were made up long after the time of the alleged event.

JP HOLDING
Gotta disagree. Josephus was under the patronage of Vespasian, who he was pluggiung as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. If he gave any hint of credence to any of those events, it would mean losing his anatomy.

JOE ALWARD
To whom? Josephus' major work, The Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in AD 93, fourteen years after Vespasian had died.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

On the question of falsifiability of the resurrection:

It is often argued that the resurrection must have occurred because the disciples and other folks who allegedly were there that Easter week would have denied the story of Jesus' resurrection if it was false, and thus the resurrection story would have died a quick death.

However, the only record we have of the Easter week is found in the gospels, the truth of which is the very thing the skeptic disputes. If someone were to write today that twenty years ago a man in our town walked on water, raised the dead, and himself was raised from the dead, what proof could anyone offer that it never happened? It was the same with the gospels written twenty or more years after the alleged crucifixion, in my opinion. They were fiction, and no one could prove they weren't true.

[jpholding]

In rides that wabbit, his buck teeth showing,

I'm sure.

No, you're not. :teeth: I know you don't know anything about honor and shame societies; otherwise you would have said something more direct rather than simply make jokes about Pharisee manuals. Mr. Wall, how are you today?

Now, let's see all those miracle claims that were debunked by the skeptics. You may start with the cow giving birth to a lamb and temple gate opening by itself in Josephus.

Begging the question there as well, I see. :rofl: Of course that involved no serious claim of honor, now, did it? Maybe for the cow...

Were those religions dead after their miracle claims were shown to be false, or did they die out natural deaths like Hellenistic paganism?

Pick one and ask. You're the expert. :lol: Mithraism for example made no miracle claims. Neither did the cult of Attis as far as I know. And on we go....

Anyway, since you provided no specifics as to how people &quot;beat them any other way&quot;, I think it's safe to say attributing alleged miracles to the devil was the default polemic.

Nah, it isn't, you're just jumping the gun to avoid discussion. How can I provide specifics when you didn't either? Name some movements and then we can ride that wabbit into the sunset. If you don't know of any (or many) you are obviously not equipped to have this conversation.

And I suppose you have evidence that this wasn't actually done? Let's have the relevant quotes, preferably bolded and highlighted in red, from &quot;The Pharisees Illustrated Guide to Debunking Christianity

Like I said, you need to do your homework in terms of what was done in an honor and shame society. Debunking serious honor claims was as natural as going to the bathroom. Your excessive demand for documentation is a strawman of desperation. Nice try though.

Relying on an argument from silence to imply there was no one who could have stolen the body, are we? :teeth:

Trying to get a slippery greased rabbit to get out of Sound Bite Haven and provide specifics of his own to test, yes. :brow:

[jpholding]

Today @ 07:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99212#post99212)
Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
To whom? Josephus' major work, The Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in AD 93, fourteen years after Vespasian had died.


How about the Emperors who came after him? It was Domitian in 93 AD, was it not? Titus' brother as I recall, of the same family, and not himself a happy camper.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The events surrounding the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, including the visit of the dead saints to many in Jerusalem, were so astonishing, that surely the leading Jewish historian of that time, Josephus, would have mentioned them. The fact that he did not mention them is very good evidence that these stories were made up long after the time of the alleged event.

JP HOLDING
Gotta disagree. Josephus was under the patronage of Vespasian, who he was pluggiung as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. If he gave any hint of credence to any of those events, it would mean losing his anatomy.

JOE ALWARD
To whom? Josephus' major work, The Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in AD 93, fourteen years after Vespasian had died.

JP HOLDING
How about the Emperors who came after him? It was Domitian in 93 AD, was it not? Titus' brother as I recall, of the same family, and not himself a happy camper.

JOE ALWARD
Let's pursue your suggestion that Josephus would have angered Emperor Domitian if he had shown support for Christianity.

Josephus showed in his Antiquities of the Jews with his comment that Jesus was the "so-called" Christ that he was not loathe to show his contempt for Jesus and Christianity. So, if he had known that people were saying more about Jesus than merely that he was the Christ, he surely would have shown contempt for those other beliefs, too.

If Josephus had known that some people thought that Jesus was the virgin born, water walking, dead-raising, resurrected son of the Almighty God, he almost certainly would have gone to the effort to ridicule those beliefs. Failing to do so in the face of such stories, and to say only that Jesus was "the so-called Christ," would have amounted to indicting himself as a Christian supporter by his faint criticism of Christianity. The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time.

[WinAce]

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99289#post99289)
jpholding:

No, you're not. :teeth: I know you don't know anything about honor and shame societies; otherwise you would have said something more direct rather than simply make jokes about Pharisee manuals.

Given that nothing in this topic has been serious enough to reply to, making jokes is about the only thing left to do until your side actually presents an argument.


Begging the question there as well, I see. :rofl: Of course that involved no serious claim of honor, now, did it? Maybe for the cow...

Shifting the goalposts again, are we? But alright, let's have your evidence that alleged miracles involving claims of honor were a target of the James Randis running around the ancient world with nothing better to do than refuting bizarre superstitions.


Mithraism for example made no miracle claims.

Arguing from silence again, are we?


Nah, it isn't, you're just jumping the gun to avoid discussion. How can I provide specifics when you didn't either? Name some movements and then we can ride that wabbit into the sunset. If you don't know of any (or many) you are obviously not equipped to have this conversation.

I'll admit right out that I don't know of any miracles from the ancient world that were successfully debunked. I remember that Lucian wrote of the scam artist Peregrinus, but his expose didn't really have much of an effect on the credulous followers, so it wouldn't count as a debunking.

But then, I don't remember many miracle claims that were successfully debunked, period. Come to think of it, I don't remember many people going out to debunk miracle claims at all. You're the one arguing for that position, not me, so the burden of proof is squarely on you to present evidence that (A) someone would care about finding naturalistic explanations for Christian claims, as opposed to attributing them to demonic activity or some such, (B) the people capable of doing so would know of Christian claims in the time frame in which they remained falsifiable, and (C) they actually tried to debunk the religion but failed. Good luck on the last one in particular.


Like I said, you need to do your homework in terms of what was done in an honor and shame society. Debunking serious honor claims was as natural as going to the bathroom.

OK. I might be wrong, so I'll just ask a few questions. Do these honor claims extend to miraculous phenomena? If they do, I'm sure you can produce some miraculous claims that were successfully debunked.


Trying to get a slippery greased rabbit to get out of Sound Bite Haven and provide specifics of his own to test, yes. :brow:

I'll take that as a "no, I won't use any more arguments from silence" then.

[skepticbud]

First, Holding and Miller committ the "no true scottsman" fallacy in their insistence that very specific and precise parallels must be established. I have read Miller's copycat rebuttal work, and he acknowledged general parallels, but excused them under the "cultural" phenomenon. His list of criteria are as follows:

Similarity of general motifs is not enough to "prove anything"; we must have "complex structures" (e.g., 'system of deities', 'narrative structure'). -- Are the concepts "blood atonement", "human sacrifce", "coming back to life" too general to prove borrowing? I don't think so. Holding already admitted Christianity derived from Judaism. So Christianity's doctrine of sacrifice to appease a god is a case of proven borrowing. Worse, sacrificing to appease the gods occured long before Christianity, so we have to ask ourselves why does Christianity follow suit? Conicidence? Bad luck? No. Placating the gods through sacrifice was what everybody believed back then, and Christianity simply saw the blue-light special sale and hopped in while the gettin' was good.

Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings. -- men who died and came back to life were a dime a dozen before Jesus existed. The mere fact that they didn't come back to life in the exact way Jesus is alleged to have came back to life, doesnt' disguise the fact that this Christian belief is a derived parallel from earlier dying and rising gods. Admittedly while Osirius came back to life when somebody put his body back together, Jesus was said to have risen from the dead with a whole body. Are they exact parallels? No. The apologist says "no connection whatsoever, Christianity is unique!" Your car's hubcaps, radio and color aren't the same as for my car, so obviously the two cars cannot possibly be from the same manufacturer. Like I said, the no-true-scottsman fallacy.

Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are 'too numerous' and 'too striking'. -- too numerous and too striking are subjective judgements (would 6 parallels be "numerous"? I think so.) Also, the fact that there are many more generalized parallels Christianity shares with the culture it grew up in, ties it to that culture. By Holding's and Miller's logic, the monster gods of the Romans and Greeks must have developed without influence from one to the other, because the monster gods aren't exactly alike. if Holding think's it's stupid to say the Romans didn't have a god named Zeus, therefore the Roman gods were not derived from other concepts pre-dating them, then we atheists also think it ridiculous to say that because nobody in the ancient world was say to come back from the dead in the specific way Jesus is alleged to have done it, that therefore, the charge of deriviation and parallel is unfounded.

Parallels must be 'striking' (i.e., unexpected, 'odd', difficult to account for). -- Justin Martyr thought the parallels between Jesus and the earlier pagans were so striking that he was forced to use the time-dishonored and flimsy excuse that the devil introduced such concepts before Jesus' birth, so later generations would note the parallels and say Jesus was nothing unique...

Chapter XXI.-Analogies to the History of Christ.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?...But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things....

Chapter XXII.-Analogies to the Sonship of Christ.
And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior-or rather have already proved Him to be so-for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

It should be noted that Justin was employing these parallels only to form part of his argument that Jesus was superior to these other gods. This fact, however, doesn't make the parallels go away. Just because Justin thought Jesus, who did all the same things as earlier human gods, but believed Jesus was the true god and the others were inferior to him, doesn't mean the parallels aren't there.

"Chapter XXIII.-The Argument.
And that this may now become evident to you-(firstly47 ) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions..."

(From Justin Martyr's book "First Apology of Justin" (THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to a.d. 325 The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. T&T CLARK Edinburgh Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company Grand Rapids, Michigan.)

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho
Chapter LXIX.-The Devil, Since He Emulates the Truth, Has Invented Fables About Bacchus, Hercules, and Aesculapius.
"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days.0 For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, `strong as a giant to run his race, 'has been in like manner imitated? And when the devil brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?

Just as a check, Justin also credits the retroactive work of the devil in other instances:

Chapter LXX.-So Also the Mysteries of Mithras are Distorted from the Prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah.
"Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho," said I, "that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

Justin is so sure that Perseus was born from a virgin that he invokes the retroactive work of the devil to justify this pre-Christian belief. he would hardly resort to such a desperate and flimsy excuse, unless of course, it was undeniable that the pagan parallels themselves pre-dated Christianity.


Chapter LXXVIII.-He Proves that This Prophecy Harmonizes with Christ Alone, from What is Afterwards Written
Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him.

In The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian acknowledges the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, in their use of baptism, a mark upon the forehead, the resurrection, the crown, etc. Like Martyr, of course, he blames these similarities on the retroactive counterfieting of the devil, rather than admitting that Christianity took them from Mithraism:

Chapter XL.-No Difference in the Spirit of Idolatry and of Heresy. In the Rites of Idolatry, Satan Imitated and Distorted the Divine Institutions of the Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures Corrupted by Him in the Perversions of the Various Heretics.
The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius [legendary king of Rome, 8th-7th century BCE], and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has sown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints…

Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and 'prove nothing'. -- Coming back to life after one has died, regardless of how it was accomplished, is a common theme of ancient near-east religions. But why do theological parallels exist at all? Clearly, the later relgions are just plagurizing from the earlier ones. Indeed, what was acceptable before is a pretty good choice for what could be sold today.

Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous. -- Again, subjective judgement on "numerous", is six parallels "numerous"? Don't answer that, Holding, I don't care what you think, because, as I said, this is a subjective judgement. You will naturally insist that "numerous" means not less than 50 different parallels, requiring more parallels than even the skeptics admit to, so you can then show how Christianity "wasn't a copy" from the pagan religions. By your logic, NONE of the ancient near-east religions borrowed concepts from each other, after all, there are SOME parallels, but not enough that a Christian apologist, with the copycat Jesus thesis on his brain, would admit are "numerous".


Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships). --- Tertullian admits the Christian sacraments existed in the Mithra religion, which everybody agrees was before Christianity, and in the middle of this discourse he brings up another parallel to a pre-Christian king. This criteria is consistently abused by apologists who committ the no true scottsman fallacy whenever they decide that an alleged parallel isn't complex enough.

Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed. See above.

[/i] The details in alleged parallels must have the same "conceptual usage" reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning). [/i] --- This criteria throws christianity right out the window in light of mithra parallels admitted by Tertullian.

Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing --- I was totally caught off guard when, as a christian, I discovered that other religions in the near east, both before and after the time of Jesus, spoke of their dead men coming back to like, using blood to cleanse of sin, acceptance of human sacrifice, and appearences of the gods upon earth in human form, and especially pre-Christian Mithra followers breaking bread representative of Mithra's body, and his putting a mark on their foreheads. Does Holding think these are unexpected? He will have to prove that "unexpected" isn't a subjective word before i will start caring.

Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing --- The remark of Mithras putting a mark on their foreheads from Tertuallian. The mention of this same activity in the book of Revelation is almost completely irrelevant to Christianity (it is not a major nor even minor doctrine), yet this little detail is found in both religions. Sure, having the mark on your forehead in Revelation means the plagues could not hurt you, but, ask yourself, why were Mithras and followers putting marks on their forehead? To pass the time? The other certain parallels indicate that they did this activity for the same reason Revelation ascribes to it, divine protection in the time of divine wrath.

There is no doubting the precise parallels of breaking of bread, resurrection, blood atonement, mark upon the forehead.

There is also no doubting of the less precise but equally eyebrow-lifting parallels such as blood atonement, human sacrifice, coming back to life after dying, gods appearing on earth in human form, messengers of the gods able to heal sickness and ascending to heaven. Any Christian who would say that these are too generalized and don't prove deriviation needs to ask himself why exactly do the parallels exist in the first place

Do the apologists have a better explanation?

Now the first Christians, who lived back in that time and culture, were so conviced of the parallels proving deriviation that they invoked the flimsy excuse that the devil introduced these concepts before Jesus existed, so that after he was born, those who noticed the same concepts would suspect borrowing.

First let today's apologists acknowledge how utterly retarded Christianity's first apologists were for attempting to explain the parallels with that excuse, and then let them give us a better explanation for why Christianity has concepts in it that are found in pagan pre-Christian religions.

But either way, the apologists have already freely admitted that Christianity is largely a steal from Judaism. They just couch it in the less precise language "Christianity came out of Judaism..."

skepticbud

[skepticbud]

Glenn Miller cites approvingly a scholar who admits that Celsus, the early critic of Christianity, was accurate in his understanding of what exactly Christianity claimed for itself:



A great example of this pagan-clarity would be the brilliant skeptic Celsus, who saw the unique Christian content very clearly:

"Celsus obviously knew Christianity at first hand, and as a skilled polemicist his portrait of the Christian movement is detailed and concrete. He has a keen eye for Christianity's most vulnerable points and the wit to exploit them for a laugh" [CRST:95]

Let's now have a look at some parallels to Christianity that Celsus pointed as as proof to support his copycat thesis:

"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth." (Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, page 57)

"After all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind- and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers." (page 59)

"Many of the ideas of the christians have been expressed better-- and earlier-- by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity-- like a flash frpm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point (as do so many others), nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes." (92-93).

"You christians have a saying that goes something like this: 'Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer your other cheek as well.' This is nothing new, and its been better said by others, especially by Plato, who ascribes the following to Socrates in the Crito...'ts never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil for evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even...'" (113)."

"As for satan being cast down to earth, "Homer writes as follows of the words spoken by Hephaestus to Hera: 'Once when I was ready to defend you, he took my by the foot and cast me down from the heavenly places.' Zeus speaks to Hera as follows, 'Do you remember when you were hanging on high, when I attached anvils to his legs and cast unbroken chains of gold about your arms? You were hanging high in the ether of clouds. Then the gods struck...but I, seizing him, pitched him from the threshold of heaven, and he fell helplessly to earth.'" (100)."

Compare this last quote with the famous passage in Isaiah 14 about satan being cast from heaven to earth.

Now although Holding's most cited apologist, Glenn Miller, admitted through scholarly citation that Celsus knew perfectly well the Christianity he was criticizing, we all surely expect Holding to now back track, and trivilize Celsus' knowledge wherever expediency dicates.

[Piebald]

Multiple/posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed.

If anyone has any concerns, feel completely free to Private Message Me

[wienerdog]

I have to agree with what Socrates said earlier. Parallels to the life of Jesus should certainly put us on our guard that something fishy (joke) might be going on, but ultimately the truth or falsity of any proposed historical personage or series of events is determined by the historical evidence. If there were mythological parallels to Abraham Lincoln, it wouldn't mean that therefore the events of his life never actually happened. All it could mean is that the accounts of his life were affected by non-historical influences. But theoretically, historical investigation could determine whether this was the case or whether the events actually happened.

By the way, does it only count as significant if the event in question is miraculous? There are plenty of myths regarding battles and sea voyages, but we don't reject historical claims of similar events occurring just because myths have them too.

[jpholding]

05-17-2003 @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99621#post99621)
Joseph Alward:
Josephus showed in his Antiquities of the Jews with his comment that Jesus was the &quot;so-called&quot; Christ that he was not loathe to show his contempt for Jesus and Christianity. So, if he had known that people were saying more about Jesus than merely that he was the Christ, he surely would have shown contempt for those other beliefs, too.

Lost that. How does "so-called" indicate contempt? It is the same verbiage also used by Matthew. The term CAN be derogatory but it is not always.


If Josephus had known that some people thought that Jesus was the virgin born, water walking, dead-raising, resurrected son of the Almighty God, he almost certainly would have gone to the effort to ridicule those beliefs.

If your assumption is based on the above, then your foundation is questionable; but even so, I don't see this at all.

1) Can you point to an area where Josephus ridicules the beliefs of others he disagrees with?

2) Can you also explain why contempt is not equitably shown by not mentioning such persons or beliefs at all?


The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time.

That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

[jpholding]

[i]Yesterday @ 01:12 AM
Given that nothing in this topic has been serious enough to reply to, making jokes is about the only thing left to do until your side actually presents an argument.

In short, you don't have enough knowledge in this area to know an argument when you see it.


But alright, let's have your evidence that alleged miracles involving claims of honor were a target of the James Randis running around the ancient world with nothing better to do than refuting bizarre superstitions.

Spin doctoring as usual. I gave you the evidence, but you don't understand it, though I gove you credit for asking. So let's try again:

1) Any claim to be able to do miracles, WAS a claim of personal honor.
2) Honor was perceived as a limited commodity in the ancient world. Any honor you took, took from someone else's honor.
3) Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected (here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -- see John 9 as a good example).

ancient world that were successfully debunked. I remember that Lucian wrote of the scam artist Peregrinus, but his exposedidn't really have much of an effect on the credulous followers, so it wouldn't count as a debunking.

Peregrinis didn't have much of a demand for belief ratio, now, did he? What am I begging silence over re Mithra? The record on him is considered complete enough for conclusions.

(A) someone would care about finding naturalistic explanations for Christian claims, as opposed to attributing them to demonic activity or some such, (B) the people capable of doing so would know of Christian claims in the time frame in which they remained falsifiable, and (C) they actually tried to debunk the religion but failed. Good luck on the last one in particular.

The social evidence is all the evidence that is needed to establish this. That you do not recognize it is your difficulty and not mine; but John 9 would be a good example.

Do these honor claims extend to miraculous phenomena? If they do, I'm sure you can produce some miraculous claims that were successfully debunked.

Yes, they would extend especially to the miraculous. In terms of debunking, most such claimants debunked themselves -- like the failed revolutionaries recorded by Josephus.

[jimbo]

Mr "Holding,"

Are you actually trying to argue that people back in ancient times ran around critically examining every outrageous claim that was made and quickly discovered which ones were false and which ones were true through rigorous, critical examination? Are you trying to claim that people back then were somehow less superstitious than people today and did not believe in falsehoods?


3) Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected (here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -- see John 9 as a good example).

No contemporary historian makes any mention of Jesus. By all appearances, no one knew about him when he was alive-if he was ever alive. The stories about Jesus came out long after he was supposed to have died. People who heard these stories and became Christians probably did not and could not do rigorous critical examination of the claims about him.

Hank

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101266#post101266)
jpholding:

1) Any claim to be able to do miracles, WAS a claim of personal honor.

OK. Were "miracles" only those from God, or did even sorcery and parlor tricks qualify as the type that claimed honor?


Thus when a Jesus did or said something that gave him honor, others would AUTOMATICALLY seek to challenge that stake to honor, especially those whose honor was most affected

That would explain the crucifixion quite handily.


(here, the religious establishment, who also happened to have all the power, money, and education needed to investigate and refute such claims -

1. What form did "refutations" of miracle claims in that time take? Attribution to demons, sorcery or parlor tricks instead of God, naturalistic explanations...?
2. How easy would it be to refute some of the claims circulated by Christians by finding naturalistic explanations?
3. How wide would those refutations circulate? Would the Pharisees get together and disseminate polemic against every startup cult throughout Judea, and carefully police outbreaks of it wherever they occured such as the World Health Organization does?


see John 9 as a good example).

Is there any reason to accept the latter part of John 9 as a real account, as opposed to a later embellishment intended to reassure the reader that the faith healing was legitimate? As far as I recall from your writings, you're not even averse to John being written after the sacking of Jerusalem, which would have made verifying a faith healing years before rather difficult.


Peregrinis didn't have much of a demand for belief ratio, now, did he?

So miracle claims weren't always a claim of honor that the establishment would seek to refute? ;)


What am I begging silence over re Mithra? The record on him is considered complete enough for conclusions.

I was under the impression that we had little to no sources on Mithraism aside from artwork and inscriptions. Have written doctrines of the cult been discovered in the past several years?

But regardless, I've taken the liberty of starting a new, as yet unreplied to thread, Ancient Miracle Claims that were Debunked? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4718).

The replies to that topic will likely affect how I and others view the claim that the stories involving Jesus would be refuted by anyone if they weren't true.


Do these honor claims extend to miraculous phenomena? If they do, I'm sure you can produce some miraculous claims that were successfully debunked.

Yes, they would extend especially to the miraculous. In terms of debunking, most such claimants debunked themselves -- like the failed revolutionaries recorded by Josephus.

I haven't read the entire tome of Josephus' writings, but I don't recall him debunking anyone's miracle claims. He did, however, point out how they got themselves killed and/or were partly responsible for deteriorating relations with the Romans.

So would getting yourself killed be considered a "debunking" in its own right?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
"The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time. ”

JP HOLDING
That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

JOE ALWARD
All right, assume that the stories were extant in Josephus' time. Recall that you suggested that Josephus dared not anger Domitian by furthering the notion that Jesus--not Vespasian--was the prophesied messiah. Now, if it's true that the Jesus miracle stories were well-known at that time, if would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the "so-called" Christ. Everyone was claiming Jesus was the messiah, not Vespasian, and Josephus says nothing to counter those claims? It seems quite implausible.

If, as you say, Josephus had reason to worry that giving credence to the Jesus stories would cost him part of his anatomy, then surely he would not have remained silent about the stories if they were in wide circulation. Saying virtually nothing would have amounted to Josephus damning himself by his faint criticism of Jesus, and indicting himself as a Christian supporter. How hard could it have been for Josephus to label as false the claims of the ones who would have Jesus be the messiah, rather than Domitian's father? The fact that he was silent shows that those stories were known only to a few, perhaps only to the ones who created them.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
"The fact that Josephus did not ridicule these stories is strong evidence that there were no stories to ridicule, for they had not yet been created in his time. ”

JP HOLDING
That would be a hard row to hoe, Doc, since even liberals agree that these stories were around by AD 93 when Josephus wrote, and had been a while.

JOE ALWARD
All right, assume that the stories were extant in Josephus' time. If these were in general circulation, then they represented a direct threat to the notion that Domitian's father, Vespasian, was the prophesied messiah. For Josephus to do no more to defend Domitian's father than to say that Jesus was the "so-called" Christ, which you indicate may not even have been a criticism, would have been tantamount to damning himself with his faint, or nonexistent, criticism of Jesus. If Josephus was worried, as you indicated, that Domitian might take part of his anatomy if he gave credence to the Jesus stories, would Josephus have remained virtually silent about the stories? Would not Josephus at least have said the stories about Jesus were false? Is the answer clearly not yes, assuming the stories actually were in circulation at that time? Thus, the fact that Josephus said nothing is strong evidence that the stories were not in circulation, and evidently were known only to the few who created them.

[jpholding]

In rides Bud, after a week of studying the Miller cans for clues,

First, Holding and Miller committ the "no true scottsman" fallacy in their insistence that very specific and precise parallels must be established.

No, Bud merely reads lists of logical fallacies online and tries to mention them whenever possible as a cheap way to impress the gullible.

Are the concepts "blood atonement", "human sacrifce", "coming back to life" too general to prove borrowing? I don't think so.

They are. What Bud thinks amounts to a hill of beans.

Holding already admitted Christianity derived from Judaism. So Christianity's doctrine of sacrifice to appease a god is a case of proven borrowing.

Uh, yeah... :huh: everyone agrees that there is a theological and historical continuity between Judaism and Christianity. Even the NT says as much as it appeals to the OT for verification. And the Christian movement seemed to consider itself a sect of Judaism (as did the Jews, and the Romans) for a signficant period.

Worse, sacrificing to appease the gods occured long before Christianity, so we have to ask ourselves why does Christianity follow suit?

Because if God or gods do exist, it makes sense that it's a good idea to do what they want you to do, and that if you offend it or them, you need to fix it?

Placating the gods through sacrifice was what everybody believed back then, and Christianity simply saw the blue-light special sale and hopped in while the gettin' was good.

Wow, look at that bald assertion. Looks like Mr. Clean on a bad hair day.So which is it, Bud? Did it come from Judaism, or from "everybody," or -- was it just a commonsense idea to have under an any-theistic paradigm?

men who died and came back to life were a dime a dozen before Jesus existed.

If you generalize that badly, they're a dime a dozen today. Just watch Boris Karloff movies, or Michael Jackson's Thriller. This proves, what?

The mere fact that they didn't come back to life in the exact way Jesus is alleged to have came back to life, doesnt' disguise the fact that this Christian belief is a derived parallel from earlier dying and rising gods.

Actually, as even religion specialists agree (like Smith, quoted by Miller, who I doubt you know better than), it makes a big difference in showing that it is not a "derived" parallel but a forced one, accomplished as you have by appealing to a lowest-common-denominator description. You may as well say beer is no different than Sprite because they both come in a can and are beverages. At your level of sobriety you may NOT know a difference.

Your car's hubcaps, radio and color aren't the same as for my car, so obviously the two cars cannot possibly be from the same manufacturer.

Nice try, but every car has a manufacturer's sticker on it or a symbol. No parallel.

too numerous and too striking are subjective judgements (would 6 parallels be "numerous"? I think so.)

What you mean is, you have neither the discipline nor the knowledge to make such a judgment objectively yourself, so you pretend that it is too obscure and difficult to decide objectively -- and your backup is conspicuously short on actual practical examples.

By Holding's and Miller's logic, the monster gods of the Romans and Greeks must have developed without influence from one to the other, because the monster gods aren't exactly alike. if Holding think's it's stupid to say the Romans didn't have a god named Zeus, therefore the Roman gods were not derived from other concepts pre-dating them

The problem with that, Bud, is that we have clear literary evidence that the Greeks and Romans identified Jupiter and Zeus with each other. In other words, testimony YOU lack for the case of Jesus. As for the rest, this talk of "monster gods" is vague claptrap. What likenesses are you talking about specifically?

Justin Martyr thought the parallels between Jesus and the earlier pagans were so striking that he was forced to use the time-dishonored and flimsy excuse that the devil introduced such concepts before Jesus' birth, so later generations would note the parallels and say Jesus was nothing unique...

Uh, no, sorry, Bud, that isn't what that first quote says. Did you miss our discussion on this? The critics, like you, criticized Christianity on general grounds; Justin in turn points out general similarities -- not evidence of derivation. And not even your quotes from 23 on are used to explain derivation -- they are used to explain the general similarities, but not derivation. Funny thing, too --

Chapter LXX.-So Also the Mysteries of Mithras are Distorted from the Prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah.
"Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho," said I, "that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

This roundly disagrees with consensus in Mithraic scholarship about Mithraic origins -- and you want us to take it at face value? Try another sucker punch with an actual sucker. Mithraic scholarship knows of no rite of baptism in Mithraism, or of belief in resurrection, or of a crown, until possibly WELL AFTER Christianity. News flash: Tertullian accuses Mithraism of imitation AFTER THE FACT.

Coming back to life after one has died, regardless of how it was accomplished, is a common theme of ancient near-east religions. But why do theological parallels exist at all? Clearly, the later relgions are just plagurizing (sic) from the earlier ones.

Clearly, defeating death was something a god was expected to do, real or imagined. Common sense.

You will naturally insist that "numerous" means not less than 50 different parallels, requiring more parallels than even the skeptics admit to, so you can then show how Christianity "wasn't a copy" from the pagan religions.

Six of quality may be fine, but you'll never come up with that many in any case. What I'd like for you to do is get into some actual figures who you think are parallels, but your only specifics so far are dismal failures (notably Mithra -- whose parallels you are ignorant about: "....especially pre-Christian Mithra followers breaking bread representative of Mithra's body, and his putting a mark on their foreheads." Hmm, sorry. According to Mithraic scholars, the closest thing that Mithraism had to a bread-breaking was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebreation of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull -- the bread was not identified with Mithra himself, and the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funereal societies. As for the mark on the head, see above, plus let's not forget:

Ezek. 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

...which is darned well pre-Mithraism. Your ignorance and resulting "surprise" doesn't rub off on informed persons.

:zzz:

Let's get down to specifics on Mithra. I look forward to mopping the floor with you on this, since my paper on Mithraism is regarded as one of my best.

[jpholding]

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space! :bow:

Are you actually trying to argue that people back in ancient times ran around critically examining every outrageous claim that was made and quickly discovered which ones were false and which ones were true through rigorous, critical examination?

Are you trying to say that they didn't have a rigid honor and shame code that caused them to carefully check and investigate claims of honor?

Are you trying to claim that people back then were somehow less superstitious than people today and did not believe in falsehoods?

Careful how you play that card, "Jimbo" Rook -- you'd better be sure that whatever you want to post in return is something they COULD check.

No contemporary historian makes any mention of Jesus.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they have to have been "contemporary" to be qualified. You never will, because all you do is parrot Thomas Paine like a good little slave. :thumb:

The stories about Jesus came out long after he was supposed to have died.

Nope, they were around in writing within 20-30 years, and orally before that. Of course you haven't a word to say since you didn't accept any denate challenges from me on the dates of the Gospels. Given the feathering Bud is getting, that was a wise choice on your part. :thumb:

People who heard these stories and became Christians probably did not and could not do rigorous critical examination of the claims about him.

Then they would not have converted. Period.

[jimbo]

Mr. "Holding,"


I'm still waiting for you to explain why they have to have been "contemporary" to be qualified. You never will, because all you do is parrot Thomas Paine like a good little slave.

That is not my point. My point is that no one who lived at the time seemed to notice that Jesus ever existed. That seems just a teensy bit odd, given what the NT says about his his preaching throughout the land and his various miracle-working exploits. But of course it is perfectly understandable if the stories about Jesus were simply made up at a later date.

It is kind of strange that what is supposed to have been the most important event in the history of the universe went unnoticed at the time that it happened.

Don't ya think?

Your Pal,

Jimbo

[jpholding]

Yo Ace,

OK. Were &quot;miracles&quot; only those from God, or did even sorcery and parlor tricks qualify as the type that claimed honor?

Yes, though of course in some settings you'd get shame rather than dishonor. A magician plying his trade in Judaea would be persecuted; but not so in Egypt. That would make sense of those who called Jesus a magician.

That would explain the crucifixion quite handily.

Correct. :thumb:

1. What form did &quot;refutations&quot; of miracle claims in that time take? Attribution to demons, sorcery or parlor tricks instead of God, naturalistic explanations...?

Attribution to another source (like Beelzebub or sorcery, with Jesus) was a quick and easy one, but that worked best in a riposte-challenge setting, an initial encounter. If that failed (i.e., if people still followed the guy) then more detailed exams like John 9 would be likely.

2. How easy would it be to refute some of the claims circulated by Christians by finding naturalistic explanations?

Depends what is it, of course. You'd have to ask for each case: How can you refute a man born blind healed; how can you refute a claim of a rezzed body....heavy questioning and public threat of dishonor and withdrawl from supporting social networks was the most available means and maybe all that was available in some cases.

3. How wide would those refutations circulate? Would the Pharisees get together and disseminate polemic against every startup cult throughout Judea, and carefully police outbreaks of it wherever they occured such as the World Health Organization does?

Probably, if it got enough reach. We do see them in the reaches of Galilee after all nitpicking about grain picking. :lol:


Is there any reason to accept the latter part of John 9 as a real account, as opposed to a later embellishment intended to reassure the reader that the faith healing was legitimate?

None I can think of. Yes, I can live with a late date for John, but unless the scene represented at least a plausible conception, it would hardly serve any purpose. You might think of persons in former Communist countries who would know what it would be like to be in trouble with the authorities. Even as late as 80-90 there are people who would remember that.

So miracle claims weren't always a claim of honor that the establishment would seek to refute? ;)

If he wasn't also threatening someone else, it would not be much of a claim to honor. Maybe you can refresh me on what Perry was out for. It's been a while since I have read it.

I was under the impression that we had little to no sources on Mithraism aside from artwork and inscriptions. Have written doctrines of the cult been discovered in the past several years?

They've been pretty well figured out in spite of not having written material, actually. Have you seen Ulansey's Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries?

So would getting yourself killed be considered a &quot;debunking&quot; in its own right?

Heck yeah. And Jesus would have been a failure, which is how Josephus and Tacitus did see him as non-believers.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc,

Domitian by furthering the notion that Jesus--not Vespasian--was the prophesied messiah.

Not exactly: that Vespy fulfilled some prophecies regarded as Messianic would be more the case, not that he WAS Messiah.

if would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the &quot;so-called&quot; Christ.

You think so? I think the bare bones we have is what he would need to have to explain the movement's origins (by then reaching even into the Roman aristrocracy) -- I also think he would do well to report Jesus as a teacher, precisely in order to make it clear that he was not Messiah in his view. I think Joe walked a tightrope here, saying just not too much, not too little. just the right amount to explain the burgeoning Christian movement while not upsetting his patrons.

[jpholding]

That is not my point.

Yes it was. Now you're trying to back out of it. :thumb: I know you too well to believe otherwise.

My point is that no one who lived at the time seemed to notice that Jesus ever existed.

I have asked others before, and probably you as well:

WHAT WRITER, WHOSE WORK IS NOW LEFT TO US, SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS, BUT DID NOT, and WHY?

How about an answer this time, Jim by the Brook? Don't just copy Remsberg's list -- I want full explanations. Just saying "it was amazing stuff" is not an explanation. The writer's work should be topical, and you should explain why any disbelief on their part would be overcome and compel them to report.

But of course it is perfectly understandable if the stories about Jesus were simply made up at a later date.

It's far more understandable if they heard the stories and didn't believe them or consider them worth their time. :dufus: Otherwise you are left explaining the origins of the movement -- which, I know you well enough to know, you can't, other than throwing out a few vague ideas about gullible people and superstition.

Don't ya think?

I do. More often that some present at any rate.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
it would have been foolish for Josephus to have said no more about Jesus than that he was the "so-called" Christ.

JP HOLDING
You think so? I think the bare bones we have is what he would need to have to explain the movement's origins (by then reaching even into the Roman aristocracy) -- I also think he would do well to report Jesus as a teacher, precisely in order to make it clear that he was not Messiah in his view. I think Joe walked a tightrope here, saying just not too much, not too little. just the right amount to explain the burgeoning Christian movement while not upsetting his patrons.

JOE ALWARD
I would think that if the Jesus miracle stories were extant in Josephus' and Domitian's time, each of them would have wished to explain that the Christian movement was burgeoning because people were believing false miracle stories about Jesus. If it is true that these stories were extant, then to ignore what everyone else allegedly was hearing about Jesus, and not to write propaganda against him, would seem to be very foolish, for silence on an issue everyone allegedly was talking about would be taken by the populace as a lack of an answer. Furthermore, in the honor-shame culture of that time, people of Domitian's stature are duty-bound to question honor claims as egregious as the ones being made on Jesus' behalf. The utter lack of silence of Josephus, Domitian's benefactor, speaks strongly against the notion that such claims were extant in Domitian's time.

Thus, I think we differ greatly on what would be the right amount for Josephus to say. If it is true that the miracle stories were widespread—and this is the point in dispute, and that the Christian movement was burgeoning in part because these stories were believed, do you not think that Domitian would have been quite upset with Josephus if the only thing he could find to say against Jesus was that he was the "so-called" Christ, which you noted wasn't even necessarily a criticism?

The situation you describe is one in which the miracle stories were extant, and the movement was burgeoning. Domitian would surely have been upset at this, and Josephus would have known it. Would Josephus not have known that he could curry favor with the emperor by speaking against Jesus and the movement? Of course, he would, in my opinion.

How could Josephus, who you imply was eager to please Domitian, not be clever enough to at least criticize Jesus in some manner? And, surely he would have known that not questioning the miracle stories just might be interpreted as his accepting them, which you've implied would cost him his life.

Given all of these considerations, how else do we understand Josephus' silence, other than that the miracle stories about Jesus were not extant at the time of Josephus, and therefore not in need of refutation?

[Woman]

The portrayal of "God" in the NT and the OT is quite different.

JR - Examples, please. You know better than that.

Surely you are not denying the many and obvious differences in nature of the God of Genesis (Christ) and the "real" Christ? Please...

One thing I find odd. We have tons of B.C. writings, many 2nd century A.D. wiritings and tons thereafter...but nothing extant of that particular century when it all happened. Why?

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101765#post101765)
Woman:

The portrayal of &quot;God&quot; in the NT and the OT is quite different.

JR - Examples, please. You know better than that.

Surely you are not denying the many and obvious differences in nature of the God of Genesis (Christ) and the &quot;real&quot; Christ? Please...

It was a fair question from JR, and you haven't answered it. In fact, right throughout the Bible, God is protrayed as Sovereign, perfectly loving and perfectly just. There are a huge number of examples of God's mercy, long-suffering and kindness in the OT; and plenty of very judgmental statements from Christ.


One thing I find odd. We have tons of B.C. writings, many 2nd century A.D. wiritings and tons thereafter...but nothing extant of that particular century when it all happened. Why?

Not sure what you mean. There are many authors from that period, e.g.: Titus Livius (Livy) (64 or 59 BC – AD 17).
Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid) 43 BC – AD 17 or 18)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (AD 75–160)
JP Holding has a far more extensive list at www.tektonics.org/remslist.html providing evidence for the few that mentioned Jesus, as well as pointing out that those who did not had no reason to.

[Joseph Alward]

SOCRATES
In fact, right throughout the Bible, God is protrayed as Sovereign, perfectly loving and perfectly just.

JOE ALWARD
In some places in the Bible, God is protrayed as not loving and just. In my opinion, Christians should reject those passages as false writings from fallible and misguided men. Examples of this are found in 1 Samuel and Ezekiel:

The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

"And the Lord said unto him, Go through...the midst of Jerusalem, and... smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women..." (Ezekiel 9:4-6)

Socrates, what possible justice is there in slaying the sucklings? They hadn't done anything, had they? Which is more likely, that the Lord really DID tell these men to slay the suckling babes, infants, and little children, or these writers were falsely blaming God for their own unjust actions?

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

I would think that if the Jesus miracle stories were extant in Josephus' and Domitian's time, each of them would have wished to explain that the Christian movement was burgeoning because people were believing false miracle stories about Jesus.

Is it Josephus' or Domitian's job to do this? It would seem to be rather a job for the Roman religious establishment and local authorities, not these high-level types who look down their nose at Eastern cults. You may as well ask why the high priests didn't mess with Jesus when he was pickin' grain with his disciples. :smile:

write propaganda against him, would seem to be very foolish, for silence on an issue everyone allegedly was talking about would be taken by the populace as a lack of an answer.

To whom? Josephus' audience was upper-crust Romans, not the populace at large. Would they need this kind of assurance from Josephus?

Furthermore, in the honor-shame culture of that time, people of Domitian's stature are duty-bound to question honor claims as egregious as the ones being made on Jesus' behalf.

You've been looking into honor-shame stuff? Doc, you make me proud. :smile: It does indeed behold him to do something about it, but hardly personally (as noted, local folks are better equipped to do the quashing -- besides that, Domitian spent the first few bits of his reign, according to Suetonius, squishing flies; he indeed would be one to pass the buck).

Would Josephus not have known that he could curry favor with the emperor by speaking against Jesus and the movement? Of course, he would, in my opinion.

Indeed, but I think he did all he needed to for that, based on the above.

How could Josephus, who you imply was eager to please Domitian, not be clever enough to at least criticize Jesus in some manner?

Actually some think he did -- some of the verbiage he uses can be interpreted two ways, even as a sort of subtle dig (such as, "...for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure." The word "wonderful"is the Greek word paradoxos, which can mean strange, surprising, or wonderful -- so it can be read any number of ways.)

And, surely he would have known that not questioning the miracle stories just might be interpreted as his accepting them, which you've implied would cost him his life.

Thing is, Doc, what if the miracle stories were NOT open to dispute? His resort would be to use an equivocal word like paradoxos -- if he had not been a Jew he might have done what Celsus did and attributed the miracles to sorcery.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Furthermore, in the honor-shame culture of that time, people of Domitian's stature are duty-bound to question honor claims as egregious as the ones being made on Jesus' behalf.

JP HOLDING
It does indeed behold him to do something about it, but hardly personally

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian was duty-bound to refute the honor claims, but not personally, then which person other than himself would he have do it, if not the respected historian, Josephus?

The fact that Josephus said virtually nothing critical about Jesus, and said absolutely nothing to refute the miracle claims, is strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time.

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102460#post102460)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian was duty-bound to refute the honor claims, but not personally, then which person other than himself would he have do it, if not the respected historian, Josephus?



The respected historian Josephus, whose work was mostly inaccessible to 95% of the population (being illiterate!)? Seems to me, Doc, it's a job rather for the local folks who know the people, know the local religious traditions, enforce the values of the society. A man in an ivory tower like Josephus isn't made to be an enforcer when Christians are making converts in places like Troas and Antioch.

[skepticbud]

05-19-2003 @ 09:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101399#post101399)
jpholding:

First, Holding and Miller committ the &quot;no true scottsman&quot; fallacy in their insistence that very specific and precise parallels must be established.

No, Bud merely reads lists of logical fallacies online and tries to mention them whenever possible as a cheap way to impress the gullible.


The no-true-scottsman error is a recognized fallacy of logical thought, please don't ad the fallacy of insulting the man for the way he does things (ad hoc fallacy) to your list. Please show us how your request that the parallels be exact, doesn't committ the no-true-scotsman fallacy.



Are the concepts &quot;blood atonement&quot;, &quot;human sacrifce&quot;, &quot;coming back to life&quot; too general to prove borrowing? I don't think so.

They are. What Bud thinks amounts to a hill of beans.


Ah, so if another cult in the US arises and they move themselves into a guarded fortress, they are NOT borrowing the concept from other US based militia-messiah freaks, because militant christians living in a guarded compound waiting for the end of the world is far too general.



Worse, sacrificing to appease the gods occured long before Christianity, so we have to ask ourselves why does Christianity follow suit?

Because if God or gods do exist, it makes sense that it's a good idea to do what they want you to do, and that if you offend it or them, you need to fix it?


Oh, I get it, follow suit just in case. And thanks for admitting that they followed suit.



Placating the gods through sacrifice was what everybody believed back then, and Christianity simply saw the blue-light special sale and hopped in while the gettin' was good.

Wow, look at that bald assertion. Looks like Mr. Clean on a bad hair day.So which is it, Bud? Did it come from Judaism, or from &quot;everybody,&quot; or -- was it just a commonsense idea to have under an any-theistic paradigm?


yeah, you again assert, this time by implication, that they utilized an idea that was common back then. Thanks. This means we don't have any reason to think Christian sacrifices appease god any more than the pagans one's that Christianity copied.



men who died and came back to life were a dime a dozen before Jesus existed.

If you generalize that badly, they're a dime a dozen today. Just watch Boris Karloff movies, or Michael Jackson's Thriller. This proves, what?


Well obviously, Karloff's movies and "thriller" use concepts that are already accepted as possessing entertainment value in the minds of most, so those productions certainly DO use older motiffs.

Unless you think the concepts in those two productions are brand new?



The mere fact that they didn't come back to life in the exact way Jesus is alleged to have came back to life, doesnt' disguise the fact that this Christian belief is a derived parallel from earlier dying and rising gods.

Actually, as even religion specialists agree (like Smith, quoted by Miller, who I doubt you know better than), it makes a big difference in showing that it is not a &quot;derived&quot; parallel but a forced one, accomplished as you have by appealing to a lowest-common-denominator description. You may as well say beer is no different than Sprite because they both come in a can and are beverages. At your level of sobriety you may NOT know a difference.


First, you are not precise, you say "as even religions specialists agree", as if the religion specialists that disagree are not religion specialists.

Second, please explain "forced" parallel. Did you or a skeptic write that? YOU are the one that says Christianity came up with unique concepts, so why do you think their concepts were forced in any way? A forced uniqueness?



Your car's hubcaps, radio and color aren't the same as for my car, so obviously the two cars cannot possibly be from the same manufacturer.

Nice try, but every car has a manufacturer's sticker on it or a symbol. No parallel.


Not the two from the chop-shop I was talking about.



too numerous and too striking are subjective judgements (would 6 parallels be &quot;numerous&quot;? I think so.)

What you mean is, you have neither the discipline nor the knowledge to make such a judgment objectively yourself, so you pretend that it is too obscure and difficult to decide objectively -- and your backup is conspicuously short on actual practical examples.


Again, thats a non-answer, because "numerous" wasn't defined, and therefore must be subjective.



By Holding's and Miller's logic, the monster gods of the Romans and Greeks must have developed without influence from one to the other, because the monster gods aren't exactly alike. if Holding think's it's stupid to say the Romans didn't have a god named Zeus, therefore the Roman gods were not derived from other concepts pre-dating them

The problem with that, Bud, is that we have clear literary evidence that the Greeks and Romans identified Jupiter and Zeus with each other. In other words, testimony YOU lack for the case of Jesus.


You are avoiding my point. Even if you suppose for the moment that the literary sources linking Jupiter and Zeus didn't exist, you could STILL see clearly that one had influenced the other, or both were based on earlier myth. You could never look at the similarities between them and say "well! the concepts of the most high god having sons is far too general, clearly these myths have no dependence upon each other or any earlier source!"

That would be totally stupid, and the absence of literary links wouldn't justify such willful ignorance. The similarlities certainly do imply some sort of relationship and dependency whether the literary links exist or not.



Justin Martyr thought the parallels between Jesus and the earlier pagans were so striking that he was forced to use the time-dishonored and flimsy excuse that the devil introduced such concepts before Jesus' birth, so later generations would note the parallels and say Jesus was nothing unique...

Uh, no, sorry, Bud, that isn't what that first quote says. Did you miss our discussion on this? The critics, like you, criticized Christianity on general grounds; Justin in turn points out general similarities -- not evidence of derivation.


Ha ha, Perseus was born of a virgin as told long before Christianity, Jesus is then said to be born of a virgin, and Justin tells his greek audience to accept it the same as with Perseus….how DO you explain the similarity of these two virgin birth assertions?



And not even your quotes from 23 on are used to explain derivation -- they are used to explain the general similarities, but not derivation. Funny thing, too --


Wait just a second, Justin appeals to the work of devils who put forth imitations of Christ BEFORE the time of Jesus. This places those parallels earlier than Jesus. Here is another quote from Justin to prove the point:

First Apology of Justin:
Chapter LIV.-Origin of Heathen Mythology.
But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in;

The italicized portions remove all doubt; Justin certainly did insist that the devils heard the prophets FORETELLING (so, before Jesus was born, obviously) of these things, and thus they put forth the imitations of Christ in the sons of Jupiter.

So that is an established parallel to Jesus that by Justin’s own words “prophets FORETELLING” places the pagan ones before Jesus was born.

Chapter LXX.-So Also the Mysteries of Mithras are Distorted from the Prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah.
&quot;Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,&quot; said I, &quot;that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.&quot;

This roundly disagrees with consensus in Mithraic scholarship about Mithraic origins -- and you want us to take it at face value? Try another sucker punch with an actual sucker.
[/QUOTE]

You ARE a sucker for assuming I was citing this about mithra when I never said anything about Daniel or Isaiah to make the connection. That is the name of the chapter heading, but the quotation I gave doesn’t concern that part of the chapter, but a different part.




Mithraic scholarship knows of no rite of baptism in Mithraism,


Then obviously you haven’t read any of Cumont’s work, because the Columbia Encyclopedia, which says baptism was part of the services, based their article on Cumont:

“The ethics of Mithraism were rigorous; fasting and continence were strongly prescribed. The rituals, highly secret and restricted to men only, included many of the sacramental forms common to the mystery religions (e.g., baptism and the sacred banquet). Mithraism, which bore many similarities to Christianity, declined rapidly in the late 3d cent. A.D.” (parenthesis original) See F. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (reissued, 1956) and M. J. Vumaseren, Mithras, the Secret God (1963).

Also, that’s just tough, the church fathers would have no reason to make up the silly excuse that the devil was imitating them, unless those retroactive parallels were real.

Also, you didn’t really answer that point anyway. Saying modern scholarship on Mithra doesn’t know of any rite of baptism in that religion, is nothing but a generalizing broad-brush. Do you have a quotation from any Mithra scholar that says the pre-Christian form of it had no baptism?



Coming back to life after one has died, regardless of how it was accomplished, is a common theme of ancient near-east religions. But why do theological parallels exist at all? Clearly, the later relgions are just plagurizing (sic) from the earlier ones.

Clearly, defeating death was something a god was expected to do, real or imagined. Common sense.


So? Oh, ok , so Jesus says to himself “wow, the culture that I am in, expects a god to defeat death. If I want them to pay attention to me I better say something about that too!“ Just because that culture expected a god to do that doesn’t mean that’s what the god really does do. So Christianity following suit means they intended their god to dress appropriately for the occasion to attract converts who were already used to the same ol’ same ol’.



Mithra -- whose parallels you are ignorant about: &quot;....especially pre-Christian Mithra followers breaking bread representative of Mithra's body, and his putting a mark on their foreheads.&quot; Hmm, sorry. According to Mithraic scholars, the closest thing that Mithraism had to a bread-breaking was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebreation of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity.


Surely you know we don't take your word for it?

pre-Christian Mithraism certainly did have transubstantiation...

"He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved. (Mithraic Communion M J Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God. page 61)

Also, Tertullian was more informed than today’s scholars, whom you already admit work mostly from iconography to interpret Mithraic rites. Now then, Holding, should we give Tertullian the benefit of the doubt or not? You argued against me before saying Irenaeus knew the truth about Papias by being 100 years closer to him than Eusebius. Well! Tertullian is more than 1700 years closer to mithra activity than today’s scholars. Does your logic suck or what?



Let's get down to specifics on Mithra. I look forward to mopping the floor with you on this, since my paper on Mithraism is regarded as one of my best.
[/QUOTE]

Then you should have no problem addressing Tertullian’s comment. Also, I’m interested in the specific parallels to Jesus, not Mithra. I don’t say Jesus and Mithra were twin brothers, so watch out for that straw man, I only assert parallels that are impossible to deny.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Furthermore, in the honor-shame culture of that time, people of Domitian's stature are duty-bound to question honor claims as egregious as the ones being made on Jesus' behalf.

HOLDING
It does indeed behold him to do something about it, but hardly personally

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian was duty-bound to refute the honor claims, but not personally, then which person other than himself would he have do it, if not the respected historian, Josephus?

JP HOLDING
The respected historian Josephus, whose work was mostly inaccessible to 95% of the population (being illiterate!)? Seems to me, Doc, it's a job rather for the local folks who know the people, know the local religious traditions, enforce the values of the society. A man in an ivory tower like Josephus isn't made to be an enforcer when Christians are making converts in places like Troas and Antioch.

JOE ALWARD
Domitian would not have missed the opportunity to attack on two fronts. It certainly seems reasonable that Domitian might encourage the local and less intellectual types make challenges to the honor claims, as you've suggested, but it seems inconceivable that he would have ignored the chance to advance his case with the intellectuals who surely were literate and would read and respect what Josephus had to say.

If low literacy was reason to believe that Josephus would not have bothered to write about the Jesus miracles, then why did he bother writing his history of the Jews? Furthermore, five percent of the Hebrews, Romans, and Greeks of that time is still a great number of people--50,000 based on a population of, say, just one million. Even if only a fraction, say ten percent, of these literate folks would read Josephus, that's still 5,000 readers, so the word that Josephus believed that the miracle stories were false would surely quickly spread by word of mouth. After all, Josephus was widely respected, and his opinion would have been of interest to a great many people. Domitian would have realized this, and would have encouraged Josephus to state that the miracle stories were false, and Josephus would quickly have obliged Domitian.

If false stories about Jesus being the Hebrew's long-awaited messiah were responsible for what you've noted was a burgeoning Christian movement in Josephus' time, then how could these stories not have been an extremely important part of the history of the Jews? Because of their importance, it is virtually impossible to believe that the historian Josephus would have ignored them, especially given the fact that dismissing the miracle stories as false would have pleased Domitian.

It seems virtually certain that Domitian would have encouraged Josephus to criticize the miracles stories, and Josephus would have been very happy to oblige. The fact that Josephus did not do this is extremely strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and thus not in need of refutation.

[skepticbud]

It seems virtually certain that Domitian would have encouraged Josephus to criticize the miracles stories, and Josephus would have been very happy to oblige. The fact that Josephus did not do this is extremely strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and thus not in need of refutation.

I would agree, Josephus mentions a "Simon,", whom he says pretended to be a magician, a statement indicating desire to refute the idea that he really was a magician.

And all Josephus gives him is ONE sentence! Clearly if Josephus had the time to refute something that was circulating about this obscure personage, he would surely have said more about Jesus, if the gospels, which inflate Jesus saying whole countrysides and cities sought after him, were true.

but no, Eusebius interpolated Josephus' work with that little yarn about Jesus. Josephus the Pharisee, writing words of praise about a man whom the gospels say had nothing but scorn for most pharisees? nah. the Testamonium reads more like pro-Christian religious propganda than it does the work of a non-Christian pharisee.

[jpholding]

About time you put up your real picture in place of that fake one, Bud.

The no-true-scottsman error is a recognized fallacy of logical thought, please don't ad the fallacy of insulting the man for the way he does things (ad hoc fallacy) to your list.

I didn't say it wasn't recognized. What I said was that you just rummage through lists of fallacies, throwing them around like confetti to impress the ignorant.

Please show us how your request that the parallels be exact, doesn't committ the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

I don't request "exact" -- I request "sufficient" and "plausible".

Ah, so if another cult in the US arises and they move themselves into a guarded fortress, they are NOT borrowing the concept from other US based militia-messiah freaks, because militant christians living in a guarded compound waiting for the end of the world is far too general.

Probably not, Bud, because if you have an apocalyptic end-times scenario that desperate, moving yourself into a fortress of some kind (whether it be your own house ringed by razor wire, or a whole compound) is just a natural effect. It's not like they would have these end-time ideas, then go looking around at other end-time groups to see what's they're doing. Your whinging here reminds me of claims that Soviet plane design was stolen from the US -- hardly. They both had to meet the same problem of flight aerodymanics, so a similar design is a natural result, not immediately assumeable to be a case of copying. Your paranoia overwhelms you.

Oh, I get it, follow suit just in case. And thanks for admitting that they followed suit.

"Just in case"? So you deny that this would be a natural reaction to any deity that is believed in? Sorry, but "followed suit" was not admitted in the least -- the words imply direct copying. Not natural results of similar situations.

This means we don't have any reason to think Christian sacrifices appease god any more than the pagans one's that Christianity copied.

Bud just leapt into the pit of fallacy with that one. Since the result is the same whether the deity is real or not, it gives no such reason -- you are playing games and using this as an excuse to evade a critical evaluation of claims.

Well obviously, Karloff's movies and "thriller" use concepts that are already accepted as possessing entertainment value in the minds of most, so those productions certainly DO use older motiffs.

In other words you admit it proves nothing here, so it proves nothing in the past either. 1000 years from now Skepticbud the XIII will look at modern medical accounts of people revived after several minutes under ice, or by CPR, then watch Boris Karloff movies and say, "Ha, obviously these accounts are stolen from Boris Karloff movies."

First, you are not precise, you say "as even religions specialists agree", as if the religion specialists that disagree are not religion specialists.

As if you know the names of any who disagree that are not badly outdated, like Frazer.

Second, please explain "forced" parallel. Did you or a skeptic write that? YOU are the one that says Christianity came up with unique concepts, so why do you think their concepts were forced in any way? A forced uniqueness?

I am the one that does what? Quote me and show the relevance. No, you won't: You're just erecting a distractive straw man to save your lame argument. "Forced" parallel means you make it work by playing verbal equivocation games. "There's no difference between Buddhism and Islam. Both are religions. Both had great leaders. Both have moral standards." Pffft! Your last sentence is a case of you reading and posting while drunk -- I said nothing about concepts being forced.

Not the two from the chop-shop I was talking about.

Good parallel in that to the sort of "forced" parallel you try to make.

Again, thats a non-answer, because "numerous" wasn't defined, and therefore must be subjective.

A non-question deserves a non-answer. Mere numbers don't tell us dip. The nature of the claimed critera is also important, as is the nature of the data. 2 quality parallels are better than 20 contrived ones.

You are avoiding my point. Even if you suppose for the moment that the literary sources linking Jupiter and Zeus didn't exist, you could STILL see clearly that one had influenced the other, or both were based on earlier myth.

Your point is invalid because your analogy is invalid, hence there is nothing to avoid. We also have clear evidence of Roman absorption of GR culture. Without that any alleged link would be speculative. Let's see you prove that Jupiter was influenced by Zeus, WITHOUT literary evidence and without cultural evidence.

You could never look at the similarities between them and say "well! the concepts of the most high god having sons is far too general, clearly these myths have no dependence upon each other or any earlier source!"

Yes, actually, I could and would do that, because it makes Zeus/Jupiter no different than say Quetzalcoatl or Chinese or native African deities.High gods with sons are all over the world in cultures as disparate as the globe is round. Care to argue for co-dependency for all of these? Didn't think so.

Ha ha, Perseus was born of a virgin as told long before Christianity, Jesus is then said to be born of a virgin, and Justin tells his greek audience to accept it the same as with Perseus….how DO you explain the similarity of these two virgin birth assertions?

Gee, Bud, if you want a miraculous birth, isn't one sans intercourse a logical alternative? It proves zip about whether one actually happened. But I decided to check out this claim about Perseus, and you know what? No virgin birth. Here's the story:
When Danae's father King Acrisius of Argos once questioned the oracle, it replied that Danae would give birth to a son who would kill him. Fearing that, he built a brazen chamber under ground where he guarded Danae. But Zeus.had intercourse with her in the shape of a stream of gold which poured through the roof into the girl's lap. When her father afterwards learned that she had got a child, he would not believe that she had been seduced by Zeus, and putting her with the child in a chest, he cast it into the sea. However, mother and child did not perish; for the chest was washed ashore on the island of Seriphus, which is one of the islands called Cyclades, where Polydectes 1 was king.

Wait just a second, Justin appeals to the work of devils who put forth imitations of Christ BEFORE the time of Jesus. This places those parallels earlier than Jesus. Here is another quote from Justin to prove the point:

You're missing the point. None of this points in the least to derivation. I rather doubt you would agree that demons supernaturally inspired the alleged parallels.

You ARE a sucker for assuming I was citing this about mithra when I never said anything about Daniel or Isaiah to make the connection. That is the name of the chapter heading, but the quotation I gave doesn’t concern that part of the chapter, but a different part.

Gee, yeah, I was a sucker for assuming you stood behind what you quoted. :ahem:

Then obviously you haven’t read any of Cumont’s work, because the Columbia Encyclopedia, which says baptism was part of the services, based their article on Cumont:

I have read Cumont. I have also read that Cumont is out of date. Even so his quote you use doesn't say dip about Mithraic "baptism" preceding Christian baptism; modern Mithraic scholars (like Ulansey) know of no such rite. Christian baptism may well have followed the model of riutal baths in Judaism (based on the model of water as a symbol of cleansing in Judaism) but sorry, Mithraism as a source is not acceptable or accepted.

Also, you didn’t really answer that point anyway. Saying modern scholarship on Mithra doesn’t know of any rite of baptism in that religion, is nothing but a generalizing broad-brush

I.e., I have done my homework, and you have not, and you won't take blame for being uneducated.

. Do you have a quotation from any Mithra scholar that says the pre-Christian form of it had no baptism?

If it had no baptism, they're hardly going to mention one and anticipate dumb objections like yours, now, are they? Ulansey's book on Mithraic origins, and the readings from the Mithraic congress, are the top sources these days and neither breathes a word about baptism. Get up to date.

So? Oh, ok , so Jesus says to himself “wow, the culture that I am in, expects a god to defeat death. If I want them to pay attention to me I better say something about that too!“

Yes, and what's the problem with that?

Just because that culture expected a god to do that doesn’t mean that’s what the god really does do.

Of course not, Goofy. :dufus: No one is arguing that cultural expectation has such a specific causal relationship.

So Christianity following suit means they intended their god to dress appropriately for the occasion to attract converts who were already used to the same ol’ same ol’.

So you merely beg the question.

Surely you know we don't take your word for it?

You wouldn't, being grossly miseducated. For example:

pre-Christian Mithraism certainly did have transubstantiation..."He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved. (Mithraic Communion M J Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God. page 61)

Oops, sorry, that's one I have debunked badly. Check your Vermaseren, p 103, if you aren't jusy copying this uncritically from some website. He admits that the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra! There is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text.

Also, Tertullian was more informed than today’s scholars, whom you already admit work mostly from iconography to interpret Mithraic rites. Now then, Holding, should we give Tertullian the benefit of the doubt or not? You argued against me before saying Irenaeus knew the truth about Papias by being 100 years closer to him than Eusebius. Well! Tertullian is more than 1700 years closer to mithra activity than today’s scholars. Does your logic suck or what?

Your knowledge sucks, actually. There's a vast difference between someone knowing facts about their "ingroup" and knowing facts about their outgroup. How do you suppose Tertullian got inside those Mithraic ceremonies? And you're still oblivious to the fact that Tertullian is reporting Mithraic practices 200 years too late for his points to be of use to you.

I don’t say Jesus and Mithra were twin brothers, so watch out for that straw man, I only assert parallels that are impossible to deny.

Then let's have 'em, Lily-liver. :rofl:

[jpholding]

Doc:

Domitian would not have missed the opportunity to attack on two fronts. It certainly seems reasonable that Domitian might encourage the local and less intellectual types make challenges to the honor claims, as you've suggested, but it seems inconceivable that he would have ignored the chance to advance his case with the intellectuals who surely were literate and would read and respect what Josephus had to say.

Doesn't seem inconceivable to me -- as I said, this was a guy who spent his first few days in office catching flies and stabbing them with a pen. A real "pass the buck" kind of guy. I agree he'd take the chance to make challenges -- by assigning people to do it who could get a grip on the matter. LOTS of them.

If low literacy was reason to believe that Josephus would not have bothered to write about the Jesus miracles, then why did he bother writing his history of the Jews?

It was written for his sophisticated Roman audience. Who, by the way, had no interest or need amongst themselves for detaled refutations of backwards Palestinian superstitions, which would be assumed false on their face, and as long as they had local do-boys to take care of business. Do high-level politicians today soil their hands? Would George W. personally take the field to capture Saddam and shoot Iraqi soldiers?

If false stories about Jesus being the Hebrew's long-awaited messiah were responsible for what you've noted was a burgeoning Christian movement in Josephus' time, then how could these stories not have been an extremely important part of the history of the Jews?

If Jesus was not the Messiah, then they would be seen as no more important and deserving of attention than any of the stalled political-religious movements Josephus also reports. If anything Josephus would want to distance such things from Jewish history, lest Judaism receive an unfavorable association -- and he is after all trying to make Judaism look as good as possible.

I remain saying that Josephus' words are what we would expect if 1) he had a tightrope to walk; 2) no one had been able to refute the claims of the Christian movement.

Bud:

I would agree, Josephus mentions a "Simon,", whom he says pretended to be a magician, a statement indicating desire to refute the idea that he really was a magician.

Citation, please? Hypocrite. :rofl:

And all Josephus gives him is ONE sentence! Clearly if Josephus had the time to refute something that was circulating about this obscure personage, he would surely have said more about Jesus, if the gospels, which inflate Jesus saying whole countrysides and cities sought after him, were true.

That assumes that he COULD refute it. If he couldn't, then his treatment makes perfect sense: Equivocal.

but no, Eusebius interpolated Josephus' work with that little yarn about Jesus.

:zzz: That old canard? Sorry, Bud, Josephan scholars don't buy that little gas-pack about Eusebius.

Josephus the Pharisee, writing words of praise about a man whom the gospels say had nothing but scorn for most pharisees?

What did he write that seems excessive, hmmm? Go ahead -- I have plenty of scholarship to dump on your pointed and oblivious head.

[Joseph Alward]

Delegating Responsibility

JOE ALWARD
If low literacy was reason to believe that Josephus would not have bothered to write about the Jesus miracles, then why did he bother writing his history of the Jews?

JP HOLDING
It was written for his sophisticated Roman audience. Who, by the way, had no interest or need amongst themselves for detailed refutations of backwards Palestinian superstitions, which would be assumed false on their face, and as long as they had local do-boys to take care of business. Do high-level politicians today soil their hands? Would George W. personally take the field to capture Saddam and shoot Iraqi soldiers?

JOE ALWARD
While Domitian surely wouldn't need to do the dirty work himself, he, like politicians today, would certainly have been clever enough to delegate that responsibility to a type of "press secretary," in this case, Josephus. While lower-level types were out in the field working against Christianity, it seems impossible to believe that Domitian would not have at least asked Josephus to make a statement to the effect that the miracle stories were fabrications created by Jesus' lying supporters. No detailed refutation would have been necessary, just a blunt denial. This is something Josephus would have done to please Domitian, even if it were true that he would have wished to distance Judaism from Jesus, for as you've implied, failing to please the emperor could cost him his life.

They Didn't Think Jesus Was the Messiah?

JOE ALWARD
If false stories about Jesus being the Hebrew's long-awaited messiah were responsible for what you've noted was a burgeoning Christian movement in Josephus' time, then how could these stories not have been an extremely important part of the history of the Jews?

JP HOLDING
If Jesus was not the Messiah, then they [the miracle stories] would be seen as no more important and deserving of attention than any of the stalled political-religious movements Josephus also reports.

JOE ALWARD
But the movement was not stalled, was it? You've noted that conversions were taking place, and the movement was burgeoning.

Thus, whether they believed Jesus was the Messiah or not, they still had to deal with the facts on the ground, namely, apparent success of the movement. If the miracle stories were extant, they would have been seen as partly responsible for this movement, so it would have been inconceivable that they would ignore them. They wouldn't pretend that Christianity was not succeeding, would they, when everyone around them could see that it was? If not, then would they not have taken all steps possible to see that it was stamped out? If the answer to this question is yes, then doesn't it seem to be almost a certainty that Josephus, the historian, would have been called upon by his benefactor to do his small part in the fight against Christianity? At the very least, Domitian would have expected Josephus to say something against Jesus. Josephus would have done it, even if he might have preferred that Jesus' name never be associated with Judaism, for Josephus, as you implied, had reason to fear that he might lose his life if he displeased Domitian, and he would have known that criticizing the miracle stories would have greatly pleased Domitian.

[jpholding]

Doc,

While Domitian surely wouldn't need to do the dirty work himself, he, like politicians today, would certainly have been clever enough to delegate that responsibility to a type of &quot;press secretary,&quot; in this case, Josephus.

Why a press secretary and how do you get Josephus with that sort of function for the Roman Empire? Josephus' job it seems to me was to make Judaisn intelligible for his sophisticated Roman readers -- not debunk movements particularly.

While lower-level types were out in the field working against Christianity, it seems impossible to believe that Domitian would not have at least asked Josephus to make a statement to the effect that the miracle stories were fabrications created by Jesus' lying supporters.

But you assume again that they were able to make such a statement honestly. What if they couldn't? Then perhaps a cover-up and "say as little as possible" is likely? What if they could not deny it? I think making Jesus a harmless teacher, and highlighting his shameful death, would be their best bet.

But the movement was not stalled, was it? You've noted that conversions were taking place, and the movement was burgeoning.

It was not, no, but my hypothetical is if Jesus was NOT Messiah and could be shown not to have been definitively. As noted above, what if they couldn't disprove it? Is it not a good idea then to keep it as quiet as possible?

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103254#post103254)
jpholding:

Bud:

I would agree, Josephus mentions a &quot;Simon,&quot;, whom he says pretended to be a magician, a statement indicating desire to refute the idea that he really was a magician.

Citation, please? Hypocrite. :rofl:


Ha ha ha, would the great collector of Josephus scholarship also ask me to provided a citation if i alleged that Josephus mentioned the word "Jerusalem"? If I quoted "I am the way the truth and the life" from Jesus without citation, would you also ask for a citation? You talk with Alward as if you are already familier with the subject, and then suddenly, you act like absence of a cited reference is a roadblock to communication?

Clearly you are talking out of the top of your hat, because if you were the least bit familier with Josephus, you would have known he certainly did say that. If you need the reference before further debate, i am confident you don't know SQUAT about Josephus' miracle debunking in spite of your confident assertions of knowledge and of having enough scholarship to dump in my lap against me.

But because my hypothesis about your ignorance is true, then yes, you certainly DO need that citation, so here it is, Mr. "I'm-so-well-read-on-Josephus.... "Ant." xx. 7, § 2 9whoops, sorry for not explaining..."Ant" means "Antiquities of the Jews" :rofl:

And all Josephus gives him is ONE sentence! Clearly if Josephus had the time to refute something that was circulating about this obscure personage, he would surely have said more about Jesus, if the gospels, which inflate Jesus saying whole countrysides and cities sought after him, were true.

That assumes that he COULD refute it. If he couldn't, then his treatment makes perfect sense: Equivocal. it also assumes the Testimonium is authentical Josephus' writing, and since Josephus takes a clear Jewish Pharisee stance throughout his work, we have no reason to assume that Josephus changed his outlook since the time Origen said Josephus didn't accept Jesus' messiahship. There is is sufficient ambiguity to at least refute neo-fundamentalists who think finding that half the scholars agree with them suddenly means the other half which disagree must be wrong. If the issue was settled, scholars wouldn't disagree on it as much as they do, so now you have to assume that every scholar that says the Testimonium is an interpolation, has a skeptical agenda to grind, as if the scholars who accept it as genuine don't have equal bias going the other way. Nope, every scholar that disagrees with Holding is unfairly biased and doesn't know anything, but all scholars that agree with him don't have the same about of bias affecting the objectivity of their conclusions. You must be prone to infectious diseases, beacuse you obviously live in a bubble :rofl:



That assumes he didn't refute it because he knew it to be true, equivical. The problems with the Testimonium itself are sufficient to justify extreme caution before we insist that "agreement with Holding" equals "issue settled. Do you prefer to be called Holding? Wouldn't "Constantine" or "Stalin" be a better pseudonym?

but no, Eusebius interpolated Josephus' work with that little yarn about Jesus.

:zzz: That old canard? Sorry, Bud, Josephan scholars don't buy that little gas-pack about Eusebius.


yeah, and unqualified "Josephan scholars..." as if none of them say Eusebius probably did it...i'm gonna formally challenge you on the authenticity of the Testimonium now in the Coach's Quarters, 5 rounds?

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
As noted above, what if they couldn't disprove it? Is it not a good idea then to keep it as quiet as possible?

JOE ALWARD

First of all, everyone knew then, as they know now, that miracle claims are impossible to disprove. How, for example, would you ever be able to prove that a story about a man in your town who walked on water fifty years ago was false? Thus, if one followed the rule that one remains quiet if one can not disprove a miracle claim, then all manner of crackpot claims would go unchallenged.


Domitian would have dealt with miracle claims he could not prove were false the same way we deal with such claims today: We label them as without foundation, or ridiculous, or the fabrications of those who are seeking publicity for their cause. All those people who didn't directly observe what they thought were miracles might just believe you. Domitian would have had the sense to realize this, and so he would at the very least have had Josephus label the miracles stories as false, if they were in circulation in his time.

Second, what sense would it make for Domitian to remain quiet if everyone else had already heard the miracle claims and were witnessing the burgeoning movement you mentioned? The word was already on the street and the people were rallying to the side of Christianity, if your description is correct. Would Domitian want to make it worse by saying nothing about the miracle stories underlying the burgeoning movement? It's impossible to believe so, for if Domitian doesn't deny the miracle claims, people would think that he had nothing to say against them, and that he must believe them, too.

At the very least, Domitian would have asked Josephus to flatly state the the miracle stories are based on tricks by magicians, or are lies fabricated by Jesus' supporters, even if it were true that some might say that Domitian was denying the undeniable. The majority of people would not have been witness to any of the alleged miracles, and these are the ones whose opinions Domitian would have known he had a chance of swaying. The only thing which plausibly explains Domitian's silence is the fact that the miracle stories were not extant in his time.

[jpholding]

In burps Bud, his legs still missing and his beak blunted from pecking a tree,

Ha ha ha, would the great collector of Josephus scholarship also ask me to provided [sic] a citation if i alleged that Josephus mentioned the word &quot;Jerusalem&quot;?

What would you claim Jerusalem did that would require a specific reference? :dufus:

If I quoted &quot;I am the way the truth and the life&quot; from Jesus without citation, would you also ask for a citation?

No, because I have a Bible CD-ROM I can search on. I don't have one for Josephus, little man.

You talk with Alward as if you are already familier with the subject, and then suddenly, you act like absence of a cited reference is a roadblock to communication?

Just blowing your own crack smoke in your face. :brow:

Clearly you are talking out of the top of your hat, because if you were the least bit familier with Josephus, you would have known he certainly did say that. If you need the reference before blah blah blah blah

Yes, Bud, we know. You feel bad about yourself. I am well read on many works, actually, but unlike you, the rest of my reading is not restricted to beer cartons. That said, your cite of &quot;Ant.&quot; xx. 7, § 2 9 doesn't make sense -- not with my newer edition of Josephus edited by Maier. The 9 seems extraneous. I see Josephus says he "pretended to be a magician" and he gives him two sentences, not one, tied in with Drusilla -- sounds like he was more into giving lovelorn advice than magic and that he sire as heck wasn't leading a movement. So what's your point?

it also assumes the Testimonium is authentical Josephus' writing, and since Josephus takes a clear Jewish Pharisee stance throughout his work, we have no reason to assume that Josephus changed his outlook since the time Origen said Josephus didn't accept Jesus' messiahship.

Oh, is this the cause of your debate challenge? I'll save it -- it should be fun to toast your ignorance on this subject as well. Let me guess, your main soruce will be Nathanial Lardner, c 1838?

If the issue was settled, scholars wouldn't disagree on it as much as they do, so now you have to assume that every scholar that says the Testimonium is an interpolation, has a skeptical agenda to grind

:zzz: Save it for the debate. I can hardly wait (licking chops).

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

(Switching between Bud and Doc is like switching between Albert Einstein and Fred Flintstone...)

First of all, everyone knew then, as they know now, that miracle claims are impossible to disprove. How, for example, would you ever be able to prove that a story about a man in your town who walked on water fifty years ago was false?

Other than checking with persons who lived 50 years ago (there would not be many, but there would be a few) who would know whether such an event happened or was reported, and other than the village oral lore, you can't to any extent, but you're talking one miracle out of dozens by the same person. You have a record of claims to deal with, not just one. And not all are of the sort that leave no evidence behind other than possibly simple eyewitness testimony ("I saw it"). Someone cured of blindness leaves behind people who remember them being blind, for example.

Domitian would have dealt with miracle claims he could not prove were false the same way we deal with such claims today: We label them as without foundation, or ridiculous, or the fabrications of those who are seeking publicity for their cause.

Since he was in an ivory tower killing flies, I do agree that that is how HE would handle it. You've more or less supported my point that local folks would be called on to do the job. :thumb:

the sense to realize this, and so he would at the very least have had Josephus label the miracles stories as false, if they were in circulation in his time.

But what again if someone looked into them, and found that they could not be proven false, and indeed seemed to be true?

Second, what sense would it make for Domitian to remain quiet if everyone else had already heard the miracle claims and were witnessing the burgeoning movement you mentioned?

You may be assuming too much to assume Domitian the Fly Murderer would do something sensible. :smile: But quiet is an oft-used (if not always successful) strategy for covering things up. Even better is understating what really happened -- today we call it "spin".

Would Domitian want to make it worse by saying nothing about the miracle stories underlying the burgeoning movement?

If that was his only alternative...it seems to me that Nero tried persecution already with no luck.

miracle claims, people would think that he had nothing to say against them, and that he must believe them, too.

I'm saying more like, he (or people under him, rather) could find no way to explain them away.

At the very least, Domitian would have asked Josephus to flatly state the the miracle stories are based on tricks by magicians,

Wouldn't hold for someone from Palestine, where magic was outlawed. It would indeed suggest Rome was off their job to let someone like that run around.

or are lies fabricated by Jesus' supporters, even if it were true that some might say that Domitian was denying the undeniable.

So he calls them lies; but what happens whem someone else finds out that they were not?

The only thing which plausibly explains Domitian's silence is the fact that the miracle stories were not extant in his time.

I need calrification here from you, what dates do you think the stories WERE extant, at all? Or do you just mean not accessible to Domitian?

[Joseph Alward]

What If They Found Out?

JOE ALWARD
[Domitian] would at the very least have had Josephus label the miracles stories as false, if they were in circulation in his time.

JP HOLDING
But what again if someone looked into them, and found that they could not be proven false, and indeed seemed to be true?

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian was not worried about the consequences of crucifying those who believed the miracle stories, he would not have been worried about the consequences of lying about the miracles stories. If Domitian would kill to weaken the power of the miracle stories, he surely wouldn't hesitate to tell lies to weaken their power, too.

Was Domitian Sensible, Or Not?

JOE ALWARD
Second, what sense would it make for Domitian to remain quiet if everyone else had already heard the miracle claims and were witnessing the burgeoning movement you mentioned?

JP HOLDING
You may be assuming too much to assume Domitian the Fly Murderer would do something sensible.

JOE ALWARD
I assumed that you thought Domitian was acting sensibly, because you seemed to have argued that Domitian would have been sensible enough to know that he shouldn't have Josephus brand the miracle stories as fabrications, lest the people find out he was lying. But, now you seem to be suggesting that Domitian might be unable to do something sensible. You can't have Domitian be sensible, and not sensible, can you?

The Magician

JOE ALWARD
At the very least, Domitian would have asked Josephus to flatly state the miracle stories are based on tricks by magicians

JP HOLDING
Wouldn't hold for someone from Palestine, where magic was outlawed. It would indeed suggest Rome was off their job to let someone like that run around.

JOE ALWARD
But, Domitian was not letting Jesus run around; Jesus allegedly had been killed by the Romans almost fifty years before Domitian became emperor in 81 AD.

Domitian's Silence

JOE ALWARD
The only thing which plausibly explains Domitian's silence is the fact that the miracle stories were not extant in his time.

JP HOLDING
I need clarification here from you, what dates do you think the stories WERE extant, at all? Or do you just mean not accessible to Domitian?

JOE ALWARD
I believe the Markan gospel was written before the time of Domitian, but was so little known that few—including Domitian and Josephus—took notice. Exactly when the stories entered the consciousness of the general public is not clear. Sometime between about the end of the first and fourth centuries, I believe.

[skepticbud]

[QUOTE]Yesterday @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105811#post105811)
jpholding:

In burps Bud, his legs still missing and his beak blunted from pecking a tree,

Oh, is this the cause of your debate challenge? I'll save it -- it should be fun to toast your ignorance on this subject as well. Let me guess, your main soruce will be Nathanial Lardner, c 1838?

Who? I have a clipping from the Enquiror entitled "JP Holding too scared to take on Earl Doherty and G.A. Wells" that will be the scholarly basis upon which I will tear down the Testimonium and prove Pliny the Younger actually stuck it in there.

[ollie]

05-12-2003 @ 09:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94834#post94834)
WinAce:

&quot;Historical fact of the Resurrection&quot;

Haha, good one Socrates. *High five*
Man's faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God and shed His blood for all who would believe and obey. That is what is historical fact. Faith. It continues on after thousands of years.

[Richard Romano]

Yesterday @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106288#post106288)
ollie:


Man's faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God and shed His blood for all who would believe and obey. That is what is historical fact. Faith. It continues on after thousands of years.



Ollie,

Careful though, which faith are you speaking of? The "faith" that liberal theologians propose? This kind of faith forces upon the evidence a necessary dichotomy between the "Christ of faith" and the "Christ of history." This is done so that they can still claim to believe in the Christ of faith, while rejecting the Resurrection in the Christ of history by redefining what Resurrection means.

The Resurrection is a fact of history because secondary evidences corroborate the events in the Gospel narratives. So, regardless if we have faith or not, the Resurrection is true because, as Simon Greenleaf discovered, it is based on testimonial and circumstantial evidences that argue in favour of Jesus rising from the dead. All other alternatives have failed the test of authenticity or legitimacy.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The only thing which plausibly explains Domitian's silence is the fact that the miracle stories were not extant in his time.

JP HOLDING
I need clarification here from you, what dates do you think the stories WERE extant, at all? Or do you just mean not accessible to Domitian?

JOE ALWARD
I'm bumping this thread because I think you may have overlooked my previous post. It contains the answer to your question, as well as responses to other comments.

[jpholding]

Starting with Bud:

I have already done up Wells and Doherty on Josephus. Nice try.

Doc:

If Domitian was not worried about the consequences of crucifying those who believed the miracle stories, he would not have been worried about the consequences of lying about the miracles stories.

So you're saying he would have been glad to take the trouble to kill off anyone who converted if they found out the truth here? Or do I misunderstand?

If Domitian would kill to weaken the power of the miracle stories, he surely wouldn't hesitate to tell lies to weaken their power, too.

Pragmatics suggests that the long run result would be the opposite. He tells lies NOW, weakens things a bit, but then when the truth is uncovered, he's in a worse state than before.

I assumed that you thought Domitian was acting sensibly, because you seemed to have argued that Domitian would have been sensible enough to know that he shouldn't have Josephus brand the miracle stories as fabrications, lest the people find out he was lying.

If it came to that, yes. Overall I don't think (from his profile in Suey) that Domitian would have cared much about anything beyond his front door. He WOULD care about anything which would include what Josephus said that might affect his family's honor and status.

But, Domitian was not letting Jesus run around;

He wasn't, no, but the record would suggest that Rome did, and only out a stop to it later than they should have. But the main thing is, no magic allowed in Palestine one way or the other. Even Celsus had to say Jesus learned his trade in Egypt, not Palestine.

[Joseph Alward]

What If They Found Out?

JOE ALWARD
[Domitian] would at the very least have had Josephus label the miracles stories as false, if they were in circulation in his time.

JP HOLDING
But what again if someone looked into them, and found that they could not be proven false, and indeed seemed to be true?

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian was not worried about the consequences of crucifying those who believed the miracle stories, he would not have been worried about the consequences of lying about the miracles stories. If Domitian would kill to weaken the power of the miracle stories, he surely wouldn't hesitate to tell lies to weaken their power, too.

JP HOLDING
So you're saying he would have been glad to take the trouble to kill off anyone who converted if they found out the truth here? Or do I misunderstand?

JOE ALWARD
You suggested that Domitian might not have had Josephus say the stories were false because Domitian might have found out that he couldn't prove they were false, and I responded by noting that Domitian clearly could not have been reluctant to brand the stories as false, no matter what people thought, because he was killing those who believed the stories. If Domitian did not worry about what people thought when he had Christians killed because they believed the stories, he certainly wouldn't worry about people thinking he was lying about the stories. Furthermore, if he would go to the trouble of having Christians killed, he certainly would go to the trouble of asking Josephus to say the stories were false. The fact that he didn't do so shows that the stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time.

[Joseph Alward]

Was Domitian Sensible, Or Not?

JOE ALWARD
Second, what sense would it make for Domitian to remain quiet if everyone else had already heard the miracle claims and were witnessing the burgeoning movement you mentioned?

JP HOLDING
You may be assuming too much to assume Domitian the Fly Murderer would do something sensible.

JOE ALWARD
I assumed that you thought Domitian was acting sensibly, because you seemed to have argued that Domitian would have been sensible enough to know that he shouldn't have Josephus brand the miracle stories as fabrications, lest the people find out he was lying.

JP HOLDING
If it came to that, yes. Overall I don't think (from his profile in Suey) that Domitian would have cared much about anything beyond his front door. He WOULD care about anything which would include what Josephus said that might affect his family's honor and status.

JOE ALWARD
If was true that Domitian didn't care much about anything beyond his front door, why did he order the execution of Christians far from his door?

Now, in regard to his family honor: If Domitian was ordering people be killed because as Christians they allegedly believed the miracle stories, then he wouldn't hesitate to order Josephus to say that the miracles stories were false. In other words, if he wasn't worried about being labeled a murderer, he wouldn't have worried about being called a liar.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

You suggested that Domitian might not have had Josephus say the stories were false because Domitian might have found out that he couldn't prove they were false,

Er, no -- not Domitian might have found out, but ANY people reading Josephus' work -- whoever that may have been. If that's what you thought I said, maybe I didn't make myself clear.

If was true that Domitian didn't care much about anything beyond his front door, why did he order the execution of Christians far from his door?

Actually, Doc, I understand there is considerable doubt about whether Dommy ordered any persecution of Christians on any real scale. I looked into this once for other reasons, and it seems he was not out for Christians as he was out for anyone who bugged him, which sometimes happened to be Christians near him -- there is no evidence of a general persecution across the board. So I have to take issue with any conclusions you make based on this idea.

wasn't worried about being labeled a murderer, he wouldn't have worried about being called a liar.

I'm saying it was not the label he was concerned with but that seeing his desperation would have caused people to believe all the more.

[Joseph Alward]

Was Domitian Sensible Or Not?

JOE ALWARD
If was true that Domitian didn't care much about anything beyond his front door, why did he order the execution of Christians far from his door?

Actually, Doc, I understand there is considerable doubt about whether Dommy ordered any persecution of Christians on any real scale. I looked into this once for other reasons, and it seems he was not out for Christians as he was out for anyone who bugged him, which sometimes happened to be Christians near him -- there is no evidence of a general persecution across the board. So I have to take issue with any conclusions you make based on this idea.

JOE ALWARD
if Domitian wasn't worried about being labeled a murderer, he wouldn't have worried about being called a liar.

JP HOLDING
I'm saying it was not the label he was concerned with but that seeing his desperation would have caused people to believe all the more

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian wasn't concerned about people believing he was desparate when he had Christians executed, why would he be concerned that people would think he was desperate if Josephus wrote that the miracle stories were false? The executions would have been far more dramatic examples of his desperation than the few words from Josephus would have been, in my opinion, so if he would do the one, he certainly would have had no qualms about doing the other. Unless, of course, you think it's unlikely that any Christians were executed by the Romans because of their beliefs during Domitian's rule (81-96 AD)?

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,


If Domitian wasn't concerned about people believing he was desparate when he had Christians executed, why would he be concerned that people would think he was desperate if Josephus wrote that the miracle stories were false? The executions would have been far more dramatic examples of his desperation than the few words from Josephus would have been, in my opinion, so if he would do the one, he certainly would have had no qualms about doing the other. Unless, of course, you think it's unlikely that any Christians were executed by the Romans because of their beliefs during Domitian's rule (81-96 AD)?


You're missing my point here. Dommy wasn't worried in my view about people thinking he was desperate, but would have seen that lying would have been uncovered as a desperate solution, and that that would drive more people towards Christianity. Executions on the other hand at least kept people from spreading their faith (if in a rather permanent way!) but my point is more that Dommy wasn't after Christians particularly. Here's a list of some stuff from Suey:

1) executing a boy because he looked and performed like an actor Domitian disliked
2) had an author executed, and his secretarial slaves crucified, for putting some allusions into a literary work
3) put Senators to death for conspiracy
4) put another person to death for wanting to celebrate a previous Emperor's birthday.

I can imagine he'd get on Christians who got on his nerves, but nothing suggests he was out to persecute them particularly as a group.

As an aside, one of his later projects, as he grew bald, was a book on caring for one's hair. :rofl:


Allegedly, Rome put a stop to Jesus later than they should have, as you say, so after fifty years of a burgeoning movement, this failure would have been known to everone. Why, then, would Domitian be loathe to imply that the Romans were off their job fifty years earlier allowing one man to get away with performing magic tricks, if everyone already knew Roman officials were culpable in a vastly greater malfeasance in that time?

I'm saying this only in the context of the idea that Jesus was an evil magician of some sort -- not (in their more likely view) an offbeat preacher who supposedly multiplied loaves and fishes. That, they would not see any reason to stop, unless someone claimed that he was multiplying spears and arrows.

[Joseph Alward]

The Magician

JOE ALWARD
At the very least, Domitian would have asked Josephus to flatly state the miracle stories are based on tricks by magicians

JP HOLDING
Wouldn't hold for someone from Palestine, where magic was outlawed. It would indeed suggest Rome was off their job to let someone like that run around.

JOE ALWARD
But, Domitian was not letting Jesus run around

JP HOLDING
He wasn't, no, but the record would suggest that Rome did, and only out a stop to it later than they should have. But the main thing is, no magic allowed in Palestine one way or the other. Even Celsus had to say Jesus learned his trade in Egypt, not Palestine.

JOE ALWARD
Allegedly, Rome put a stop to Jesus later than they should have, as you say, so after fifty years of a burgeoning movement, this failure would have been known to everone. Why, then, would Domitian be loathe to imply that the Romans were off their job fifty years earlier in allowing one man to get away with performing magic tricks, if everyone already knew Roman officials were culpable in a vastly greater malfeasance in that time?

[Joseph Alward]

Was Domitian Sensible Or Not?

JOE ALWARD
If was true that Domitian didn't care much about anything beyond his front door, why did he order the execution of Christians far from his door?

Actually, Doc, I understand there is considerable doubt about whether Dommy ordered any persecution of Christians on any real scale. I looked into this once for other reasons, and it seems he was not out for Christians as he was out for anyone who bugged him, which sometimes happened to be Christians near him -- there is no evidence of a general persecution across the board. So I have to take issue with any conclusions you make based on this idea.

JOE ALWARD
if Domitian wasn't worried about being labeled a murderer, he wouldn't have worried about being called a liar.

JP HOLDING
I'm saying it was not the label he was concerned with but that seeing his desperation would have caused people to believe all the more

JOE ALWARD
If Domitian wasn't concerned about people believing he was desparate when he had Christians executed, why would he be concerned that people would think he was desperate if Josephus wrote that the miracle stories were false? The executions would have been far more dramatic examples of his desperation than the few words from Josephus would have been, in my opinion, so if he would do the one, he certainly would have had no qualms about doing the other. Unless, of course, you think it's unlikely that any Christians were executed by the Romans because of their beliefs during Domitian's rule (81-96 AD)?

JP HOLDING
Dommy wasn't worried in my view about people thinking he was desperate, but would have seen that lying would have been uncovered as a desperate solution, and that that would drive more people towards Christianity.

JOE ALWARD
Wouldn't his killing of Christians have been uncovered as an even more desperate solution to the problem than lying? Again, unless you believe it is unlikely that the Romans under Domitian's rule didn't kill Christians because of their beliefs? I need a little clarification here, because my assumption that persecutions and killings of Christians took place from 81-96 AD is an important part of my argument. Do you believe it is unlikely that such killings by Roman officials took place?

[Joseph Alward]

The Magician

JOE ALWARD
At the very least, Domitian would have asked Josephus to flatly state the miracle stories are based on tricks by magicians

JP HOLDING
Wouldn't hold for someone from Palestine, where magic was outlawed. It would indeed suggest Rome was off their job to let someone like that run around.

JOE ALWARD
But, Domitian was not letting Jesus run around

JP HOLDING
He wasn't, no, but the record would suggest that Rome did, and only out a stop to it later than they should have. But the main thing is, no magic allowed in Palestine one way or the other. Even Celsus had to say Jesus learned his trade in Egypt, not Palestine.

JOE ALWARD
Allegedly, Rome put a stop to Jesus later than they should have, as you say, so after fifty years of a burgeoning movement, this failure would have been known to everone. Why, then, would Domitian be loathe to imply that the Romans were off their job fifty years earlier in allowing one man to get away with performing magic tricks, if everyone already knew Roman officials were culpable in a vastly greater malfeasance in that time?

JP HOLDING
I'm saying this only in the context of the idea that Jesus was an evil magician of some sort -- not (in their more likely view) an offbeat preacher who supposedly multiplied loaves and fishes. That, they would not see any reason to stop, unless someone claimed that he was multiplying spears and arrows.

JOE ALWARD
Okay, multiplying bread wouldn't have concerned them, but stories about Jesus being the son of God would. If everyone fifty years later, and in the midst of a burgeoning movement, already knew that Rome was guilty of failing to put a stop to Jesus, why would Domitian be loathe to state that those same Romans had been guilty of failing to stop the magician from convincing the people through tricks that he was the son of God? Everyone already knew--allegedly--that Rome was guilty of a far greater malfeasance in letting the movement grow under Jesus and his disciples, so why would Domitian worry about admitting that Rome fifty years earlier was also guilty of this much smaller failure?

[chsalvia]

Hmm...these comments exhibit such varying levels of intelligence - from utterly cliche and stupid to insightful and interesting.

[jpholding]

Welcome, chsalvia. Dare I ask which comments are from whom? :smile:

Doc:

I think the rules would have you compress all of this into one post. But in terms of answers:

1) You seem again to miss my point about the theoretical idea of Jesus as a magician, a practitioner of evil, as opposed to a charismatic and harmless miracle worker.

2) While Dommy certainly killed some Christians, he was not out for them particularly, no more than he was out for anyone else. To put it one way, any execution of Christians was incidental to Dommy's larger programme of killing anyone he just didn't like.

Okay, multiplying bread wouldn't have concerned them, but stories about Jesus being the son of God would.
Maybe not. "Son of God" was a little vague and was often applied to divine men in the Greco-Roman world. Actually most of Jesus' claims and those about him would have been obscure to the average Roman. An apostle or a Jew would have to explain them. I just don't see a threat here from a Roman perspective -- not until the movement spread out of Palestine. Remember Rome saw Christianity as a Jewish sect for quite a while.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
While Dommy certainly killed some Christians, he was not out for them particularly, no more than he was out for anyone else.

JOE ALWARD
You earlier suggested that Domitian would not have had Josephus state that the miracle stories were lies because Domitian would have feared that the Josephus lie would be uncovered itself as a lie, and this would be seen as an act of desperation by Domitian, and this would have driven all the more people to Christianity. Now, if it's true, as you say, that Domitian killed Christians, wouldn't he have worried that people would think that he was killing them in a desperate attempt to suppress Christianity? If the answer is no, he would not have worried about the killings having this unwanted effect, then why would he worry about Josephus's lies having this effect? Killing Christians is certainly a much more dramatic statement against Christianity than lying about the Christians' miracle stories, in my opinion, so if he would to the one, he certainly would have no qualms about doing the other.

Now, let me address the notion that Domitian was not out for the Christians. You earlier noted that the movement was burgeoning. Wouldn't the Romans have viewed this movement as a threat, especially if indeed it was growing? If it was a threat, then wouldn't we expect that Domitian would be out for the Christians?

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109933#post109933)
chsalvia:

Hmm...these comments exhibit such varying levels of intelligence - from utterly cliche and stupid to insightful and interesting.

Dear Chsalvia,

Your comments are, well, interesting. Really think about what you have said here: you accuse the writers of heralding "stupid" statements, while at other times they operate at a level of "insight" . The amazing thing is that you remain unspecific of what is either, essentially reversing the indictment onto yourself! What could be more "stupid" than making a statement that is itself lacking in meaning? Perhaps it is best that you refrain from interjecting, unless, of course, you have something meaningful to add.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc,

Now, if it's true, as you say, that Domitian killed Christians, wouldn't he have worried that people would think that he was killing them in a desperate attempt to suppress Christianity?

Not if he wasn't after them PARTICULARLY.

Wouldn't the Romans have viewed this movement as a threat, especially if indeed it was growing? If it was a threat, then wouldn't we expect that Domitian would be out for the Christians?

If you mean Christians PARTICULARLY, then there were ways to persecute long before you killed people. But I expect again the Dommy the Fly Murderer would put this as much on local yokels as he could.

[chsalvia]

Dear Chsalvia,

Your comments are, well, interesting. Really think about what you have said here: you accuse the writers of heralding &quot;stupid&quot; statements, while at other times they operate at a level of &quot;insight&quot; . The amazing thing is that you remain unspecific of what is either, essentially reversing the indictment onto yourself! What could be more &quot;stupid&quot; than making a statement that is itself lacking in meaning? Perhaps it is best that you refrain from interjecting, unless, of course, you have something meaningful to add.

regards,

Richard Romano.

That certainly IS interesting. Next time, before I submit anything to a casual internet forum I'll thoroughly analyze all the logical and linguistic ramifications inherent in my submission to avoid further potential offenses and/or ironically observant rejoinders. That way, I'll prevent any future catastrophic blunders like my last post.

Once again, my full apologies.

-C. Salvia

[chsalvia]

Welcome, chsalvia. Dare I ask which comments are from whom? :smile:



Well...I can tell you one thing, the comment I made about other people's comments was utterly stupid.

Anyway, here now commences my first non-ridiculous post on Theology Web. I can't see this line of argumentation about Josephus's activities under Domitian really getting anywhere.

But I do sympathize with the idea that Jesus might have been a purely fictitious "copy-cat savior." However, in the end I really can't buy it.

It is of course tempting to believe that Jesus never existed. Paul's letters are strangely lacking any references to Jesus's important sayings or earthly ministry. (Except for the reference to Pilate.) Christians, of course, easily dismiss this by complaining about arguments from silence, or asking why Paul would make such references - but it would sure make me happy if just once a Christian would admit it does seem just a LITTLE strange. Come on.

But on the other hand, the skeptic must be asked, if Jesus never existed then who was this great figure or community who created such wonderful material as the Sermon on the Mount, or the other various collections of sayings? The very fact that they are "collections" of sayings, (and they must be collections because they are artificially arranged in the Gospels) seems to me like they originated from disciples recording the preaching of their master.

So who was this master then? If not Jesus then who? It does no good to say Jesus never existed, or was a creation of a later Christian community. Perhaps if the Gospels were merely fantastical miracle stories emphasizing Jesus's divine side then I might believe Jesus never existed. But the Gospels are filled with collections of sayings, teachings, parables, that obviously originated somewhere. And you get the feeling that such things did not originate from a mind like Paul's. These sayings come from someone well acquainted with farming life, someone rustic, someone who lived in the country-side of Palestine who was not very influenced by Greek ideas.

There was obviously a figure of some importance behind these sayings, so why not just accept that figure to be a man named Jesus?

Now, I do consider it likely that the later Gospel writers, who incorporated these sayings into their work, might have easily added a lot of extra material to emphasize the divinity of Christ, such as the virgin birth and other things. But to say Jesus himself never existed is to totally dismiss the origin of much of the Gospel material.

So do I think Christianity was influenced by the various other dying and rising saviors floating around in the form of Hellenistic mystery religions? Well...maybe. But probably not very much. I find it almost impossible to equate the various dying and rising fertility gods, which originally just represented the agricultural cycle, to the resurrection of Jesus. The origin of the resurrection must be found elsewhere, and I think the line of thought that led to the idea of a resurrection had more Jewish ideas in mind than it did pagan. (Or you could just believe Jesus really was resurrected. That would simplify things a bit.)

Anyway, from what I've learned so far, these are the conclusions I've come to.

[jpholding]

Hey chsalvia,

It is of course tempting to believe that Jesus never existed. Paul's letters are strangely lacking any references to Jesus's important sayings or earthly ministry. (Except for the reference to Pilate.) Christians, of course, easily dismiss this by complaining about arguments from silence, or asking why Paul would make such references - but it would sure make me happy if just once a Christian would admit it does seem just a LITTLE strange. Come on.

Doc Alward and I debated on this way back. It should be in the archives. For me seeing this as any sort of problem totally dissolved (it was already on the critical list after I refuted Earl Doherty!) when I read the material in Malina and Rohrbaugh's commentary about high and low context societies. Doc didn't say anything about that, but we didn't have a lot of space.

So who was this master then? If not Jesus then who?

Funny, that's more or less what one of my English profs said about those who claimed Shakespeare never existed.

Again, welcome aboard.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111594#post111594)
chsalvia:

Anyway, here now commences my first non-ridiculous post on Theology Web. I can't see this line of argumentation about Josephus's activities under Domitian really getting anywhere.

But I do sympathize with the idea that Jesus might have been a purely fictitious &quot;copy-cat savior.&quot; However, in the end I really can't buy it.



Chsalvia,

I just wanted to say that I loved your post. It was incredibly insightful and reasonable. That really is one of the best explanations I've ever heard for the idea that Jesus was a historical figure. Good job!

David

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Now, if it's true, as you say, that Domitian killed Christians, wouldn't he have worried that people would think that he was killing them in a desperate attempt to suppress Christianity?

JP HOLDING
Not if he wasn't after them PARTICULARLY.

JOE ALWARD
Wouldn't the Romans have viewed this movement as a threat, especially if indeed it was growing? If it was a threat, then wouldn't we expect that Domitian would be out for the Christians?

JP HOLDING
If you mean Christians PARTICULARLY, then there were ways to persecute long before you killed people. But I expect again the Dommy the Fly Murderer would put this as much on local yokels as he could.

JOE ALWARD
I mean the Christian leadership. If it's true that the movement was burgeoning, then the Roman government would be out for the leadership in general. In a matter of such transcendent importance as this, surely the government, not the local yokels, would be the ones to stamp out the movement. The movement, if it was as successful as you say, would have been a threat to the empire. Why would Domitian rely on yokels to get the job done when he has a very powerful governmental and military apparatus to do it instead?

Now, in regard to Domitian having Christians killed but not being out for Christians in particular, as you say, then how would those persecuted know that he was not out for Christianity in general? How would they know that Domitian wasn't killing Christians because he wanted to stamp out Christianity?

Domitian would have known that people would have no way of knowing what was in his heart, and that his enemies would be inclined to believe the worst of him and just assume that he was killing Christians because he wanted to curb Christianity. Domitian was surely clever enough to know that this is what people might have thought, so because Domitian proceeded with the killings anyway, he must not have cared whether they thought he was killing to stamp out Christianity, or not.

Now, if he would not have worried about his killing of Christians driving more people to Christianity, why would he have worried about people thinking he had Josephus lie about the miracle stories being false? The acts of killing would have been far more egregious examples of Domitian's fears about Christianity than the act of having Josephus lie, so Domitian surely would not have hesitated in having Josephus lie, while he, Domitian, was killing Christians.

The fact that Domitian, Josephus's benefactor, did not have Josephus say the miracle stories were false is good evidence that they were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and thus not in need of refutation.

[Richard Romano]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111533#post111533)
chsalvia:



That certainly IS interesting. Next time, before I submit anything to a casual internet forum I'll thoroughly analyze all the logical and linguistic ramifications inherent in my submission to avoid further potential offenses and/or ironically observant rejoinders. That way, I'll prevent any future catastrophic blunders like my last post.

Once again, my full apologies.

-C. Salvia


Your apology is accepted, C. Salvia. (even though there is a possible, or very likely, a tongue in cheek nuance). Thanks for your next post, it was interesting and informative.

Blessings,

Richard.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

I mean the Christian leadership. If it's true that the movement was burgeoning, then the Roman government would be out for the leadership in general.

Not necessarily, Doc. Back in those days there was less of an idea that you "kill the head to destroy the body" because movements and people were more collectivist in orientation. In that light anytime you killed a leader all you did was make it easier for someone to slide into his place. Kind of like US Presidents and the chain of command. Besides which:

In a matter of such transcendent importance as this, surely the government, not the local yokels, would be the ones to stamp out the movement.

You seem to assume that there was one place of leadership, but I don't think even Catholics assume that Rome was that prominent yet. The locals are better for such a job because each congregation would have its own measure of independence and networking was done by long distance means.

to get the job done when he has a very powerful governmental and military apparatus to do it instead?

Other than that he had flies to kill, I wonder whether in measured terms the Christians would be as much a threat as the Parthians, Germans, etc. I don't see any Emperor wanting to waste national resources on a group that is not armed or as organized. Locals are the ones who seem better suited for that.

How would they know that Domitian wasn't killing Christians because he wanted to stamp out Christianity?

They probably wouldn't care, being dead, but WE know he wasn't out for them in particular because the records don't say he was. :smile: Maybe he did have a secret longing, but if you say that, your theory runs the facts, not vice versa.

Like the new picture of yourself (ha ha). Is that you on a Saturday morning before shaving? (That's a joke.)

[Joseph Alward]

Going After the Leaders
JOE ALWARD
I mean the Christian leadership. If it's true that the movement was burgeoning, then the Roman government would be out for the leadership in general.

JP HOLDING
Not necessarily, Doc. Back in those days there was less of an idea that you "kill the head to destroy the body" because movements and people were more collectivist in orientation. In that light anytime you killed a leader all you did was make it easier for someone to slide into his place

JOE ALWARD
The notion that striking the head of a movement or organization was out of vogue in the first century seems to be flatly contradicted by history. Jesus Christ, after all, was killed because he was the leader of a movement which threatened not only the Jews, but the Romans as well. And the very emperor under discussion, Domitian, was assassinated in 96 AD.

Thus, if Domitian felt that his empire was threatened by the Christian movement, he surely would have struck out at the leaders of the movement—not just the most prominent leader, but ALL of the leaders or potential leaders the Romans could identify. Why would the Romans care if others dared to slide into the leadership positions? The Romans were surely powerful enough to repeat the procedure.

So, if Domitian would have been striking out against the Christians if the movement was as successful as you've suggested, then surely Domitian would have had no qualms about having Josephus state in his Antiquities of the Jews that the miracle stories were false. The fact that Domitian didn't bother to do this strongly implies that the miracles stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and therefore not in need of refutation. If the stories were not in circulation, but should have been, given the allegedly miraculous nature of the events, then the events probably never occurred in the first place, which means that the Jesus stories are fictional.

One Place of Leadership?

JOE ALWARD
In a matter of such transcendent importance as this, surely the government, not the local yokels, would be the ones to stamp out the movement.

JP HOLDING
You seem to assume that there was one place of leadership, but I don't think even Catholics assume that Rome was that prominent yet. The locals are better for such a job because each congregation would have its own measure of independence and networking was done by long distance means.

JOE ALWARD
Actually, I don't assume there would have been one place of leadership. However many places of leadership there were, then that's how many potential targets the Romans would have had. Perhaps they couldn't have struck all of them down, but they surely could have made considerable headway, given that the Romans were the most powerful force on earth at that time. The Romans leaving the important task of stamping out Christianity in the hand of yokels of uncertain skill would seem to be the height of irresponsibility.

Thus, it seems completely sensible that Domitian would have had his people actively seek out and destroy the movement, if it indeed had been flourishing, as you've suggested it was. Given that Domitian would have been actively working to destroy the movement, he certainly would not have hesitated to ask Josephus to state the miracle stories were false.

[Joseph Alward]

CH SALVIA
Perhaps if the Gospels were merely fantastical miracle stories emphasizing Jesus's divine side then I might believe Jesus never existed. But the Gospels are filled with collections of sayings, teachings, parables, that obviously originated somewhere.

JOE ALWARD
The gospels, sayings, teachings, and parables seem to have been created in the late first century out of the hopeful expectations of those who believed that the messiah had already come. Now, the tellers of the tales sincerely believed that a person named Jesus was this messiah, and they furthermore evidently believed that the coming of the messiah was prefigured, or foreshadowed, or prophesied, in events involving divine figures of Scripture. Thus, the faithful seemed to have scoured scripture looking for those foreshadowings, and then they retold those stories with Jesus Christ as the central figure, again, sincerely believing that Jesus MUST have done these things if he was indeed the messiah they believed Scripture prophesied. There are too many of these stories to recount here, but you will find most of them elsewhere. On my web page (see the address in the signature line), you will see descriptions of the remarkable parallels between events in the life of Jesus and events in the lives of the divine figures of Scripture. Few things about the New Testament are clearer, in my opinion, than that the stories about Jesus are fictional remakes of the stories from the Old Testament.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

The notion that striking the head of a movement or organization was out of vogue in the first century seems to be flatly contradicted by history. Jesus Christ, after all, was killed because he was the leader of a movement which threatened not only the Jews, but the Romans as well.

Er, no -- he wasn't killed because he was a leader particularly but because (so the charge went) he was seditious. It would have been the same had be been seditious by himself. Note that :he's a leader" was not one of the charges recorded.

And the very emperor under discussion, Domitian, was assassinated in 96 AD.

Yeah, but from Suey it looks like the killng was personal -- not to kill off a movement behind him.

Why would the Romans care if others dared to slide into the leadership positions? The Romans were surely powerful enough to repeat the procedure.

I'm not saying they cared particularly, just that the social methods of the day meant "kill the head" was not a normal procedure to stop a movement.

However many places of leadership there were, then that's how many potential targets the Romans would have had.

And that means that local yokels are the ones who would be in the best position to respond to the movement.

Perhaps they couldn't have struck all of them down, but they surely could have made considerable headway, given that the Romans were the most powerful force on earth at that time.

As it happens, Doc, when Rome tried that later, it backfired -- the comments about the blood of the martyrs being the seed of the church didn't come from nowheres. :smile: Indeed I'd say wholesale slaughter would only be pursued by a nut...like Nero. Otherwise you create sympathy among the masses. An attack on such a movement would require more subtle methods, which was indeed what was pursued.

The Romans leaving the important task of stamping out Christianity in the hand of yokels of uncertain skill would seem to be the height of irresponsibility.

Whoa now -- "uncertain skill"? The people I'm talking about would be prefects, procurators, ethnarchs, local politicos.

[Robyn Banks]

chsalvia:
So who was this master then? If not Jesus then who?

'JP Holding':
Funny, that's more or less what one of my English profs said about those who claimed Shakespeare never existed.
"English profs." Sure. As if they exist.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Joe Alward:
Now, if it's true, as you say, that Domitian killed Christians, wouldn't he have worried that people would think that he was killing them in a desperate attempt to suppress Christianity?

'JP Holding'
Not if he wasn't after them PARTICULARLY.

Joe Alward:
Wouldn't the Romans have viewed this movement as a threat, especially if indeed it was growing? If it was a threat, then wouldn't we expect that Domitian would be out for the Christians?
As Rodney Stark argues, the number of Christians in the first 2 centuries of the Common Era were not sufficient to be considered as any threat at all. Up until 150CE Christians were still meeting in private homes. There was certainly no "threat" under Domitian.

The 'threat' to the pax deorum was only in respect of "impiety." That is the reason for conflict with the state in the first 150 years of Christianity. In The Christians and the Roman Empire Marta Sordi notes that there were two types of threat perceived to the pax deorum:
1. A religion's capacty to offend the gods and bring wrath on the nation, and
2. An organization which was prejudicial to public well-being, who intended to undermine society, incite civil disobedience, or deny the sovereignty of the emperor.

Only during the Montanist period under Marcus Aurelius was Christianity see as a threat of the second kind. And only under Valerian and Diocletian were there large-scale persecutions. Before that, persecutions of Christians were limited, usually localized and relatively small.

So it is highly unlikely that first century Romans saw Christianity as any kind of real threat. It was merely something to be kept in check.




Joe Alward:
I mean the Christian leadership. If it's true that the movement was burgeoning, then the Roman government would be out for the leadership in general. In a matter of such transcendent importance as this, surely the government, not the local yokels, would be the ones to stamp out the movement. The movement, if it was as successful as you say, would have been a threat to the empire. Why would Domitian rely on yokels to get the job done when he has a very powerful governmental and military apparatus to do it instead?
There is no sign of Christianity being particularly successful in the first century.




Joe Alward:
Now, in regard to Domitian having Christians killed but not being out for Christians in particular, as you say, then how would those persecuted know that he was not out for Christianity in general? How would they know that Domitian wasn't killing Christians because he wanted to stamp out Christianity?
They probably discussed these things at the fish-market.




Joe Alward:
The fact that Domitian, Josephus's benefactor, did not have Josephus say the miracle stories were false is good evidence that they were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and thus not in need of refutation.
Nonsense. It is a very poor argument from silence. Why would Domitian have cared about what this silly little cult were saying? Christianity was just too small at this time for an emperor to bother countering.

Robyn

[chsalvia]

JOE ALWARD
The gospels, sayings, teachings, and parables seem to have been created in the late first century out of the hopeful expectations of those who believed that the messiah had already come. Now, the tellers of the tales sincerely believed that a person named Jesus was this messiah, and they furthermore evidently believed that the coming of the messiah was prefigured, or foreshadowed, or prophesied, in events involving divine figures of Scripture. Thus, the faithful seemed to have scoured scripture looking for those foreshadowings, and then they retold those stories with Jesus Christ as the central figure, again, sincerely believing that Jesus MUST have done these things if he was indeed the messiah they believed Scripture prophesied. There are too many of these stories to recount here, but you will find most of them elsewhere. On my web page (see the address in the signature line), you will see descriptions of the remarkable parallels between events in the life of Jesus and events in the lives of the divine figures of Scripture. Few things about the New Testament are clearer, in my opinion, than that the stories about Jesus are fictional remakes of the stories from the Old Testament.

Yes...I'm aware of this idea, but as I said, I just don't buy it. I've already stated in my previous post that I am sure that much of the Gospel material was added later by the evangelists, and I realize that many incidents in the Gospels can be derived from Old Testament verses. An obvious example of this is the triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the donkey, or the casting of lots for Jesus's clothing. Of course, you could argue the entire program of Isaiah's suffering servant is the basis for the passion of Christ. Again, Herod's massacre of the children is another obvious Old Testament derivation, and many of Jesus's miracles are strikingly similar to Elisha's miracles.

But I think you, and others who believe Christ never existed, take it a step too far. You say that the "gospels, sayings, teachings, and parables seem to have been created in the late first century out of the hopeful expectations of those who believed that the messiah had already come." What is your basis for this? The Gospel of Mark is dated at around 70 A.D., but it seems obvious that the various pericopes were floating around in oral form for who knows how long before this?

If Christ's life and sayings are purely a composite collection of what would be expected of the Messiah through Old Testament prophecy, then how do you explain a lot of the Gospel material, especially some of the "Q" material? The "Q" material is mostly teaching, mostly moral, ethical and reformative, and much of it is quite amazing. Although all of the ethical or behavioral teaching given in the Synoptic Gospels could theoretically be derived from Old Testament scripture, it sounds more to me like the actual sayings of a very creative and insightful individual who was annoyed with the bankrupt state of Pharisaic Judaism. Again, this ethical teaching is not necessary for the Messianic program. Why bother to include such material unless it really was the words of the historical Jesus preserved through oral transmission?

This is so blatantly obvious to me when you compare the various pericopes of the Gospels with later Christian writings, such as Paul's letters. The material in the Gospels is artificially arranged from pre-made, ready-to-use primitive chunks of material - not in a well thought-out treatise on the life and times of the Messiah. This tells me that these various chunks, or pericopes, were not the creation of an organized community or individual who needed to create a Messianic biography, but rather the teachings of an actual man which were haphazardly recorded by this man's disciples.

And of course, if the Synoptic Gospel teachings were actually the creation of later Christians desperately trying to construct a life for their Messiah, we would expect a lot more emphasis on issues relevant to the current Christian community. We would expect a more developed Christology and more concern over ecclesiastical issues if this material post-dated Paul's letters. While the Synoptic Gospels can be said to touch upon such things, they are not the emphasis. The emphasis is more like "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees!"

This brings me to another huge problem with the idea of Christ as a myth. Historically, Christianity began among Jews and then slowly moved away from Jews into the Gentile world - and yet your beliefs would have Christianity begin presumably with Jews, then move more exclusively into the Gentile world, only to have the later evangelists focus on Judaism again by writing the Gospels. While the Christianity of Paul's time always looked back to it's Jewish roots in such important issues as faith and the law, or circumcision and uncircumcision, the Christianity of the Gospels is extraordinarly more concerned with Jews and Jewish beliefs, than it is with Gentile issues. Thus we have so many episodes which center around Jewish ritual, e.g. the Sabbath contraversies. These often read more like a reformative movement for Judaism than something that is supposed to spread to the Gentiles.

In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I must say that I am not suggesting that the Gospels were not written for Gentiles. Obviously Luke's Gospel is aimed at non-Jewish readers, and Jesus and his disciples often attempted evangelical activity in the Decapolis, Tyre and Sidon. What I am saying is that it seems obvious that the source material for all the Gospels is not primarily concerned with issues relevant to the later Christian community but rather more with Jews and Jewish issues.

And so I find it hard to imagine that a group of Jews around 80 A.D., in a Gentile world and after the destruction of Jerusalem, realized they had to build a life for their completely blank Messiah, and yet focused so much on Jewish issues and debates with Pharisees and Saducees. To me, it is far more likely that they already had independent pericopes from oral tradition, which actually came from the historical Jesus, and they combined these with what would be expected of the Messiah through the Old Testament scriptures. Your view of a completely mythical Christ based on the Old Testament seems rather simplistic, and does not take into account all the material we have.

We will probably never know to what extent the Gospels use actual teaching from the historical Jesus and to what extent they drew from the Old Testament based on later Christian expectations, but it seems obvious there is at least an authentic kernel of real sayings from a real man named Jesus who was both an ethical teacher and a man who saw through the hypocrisy of Rabbinic Judaism.


As a final note, remember to keep in mind that the common Messianic expectation did NOT involve crucifixion. Although, technically, the idea of a dying Messiah could be derived from Isaiah's Suffering Servant, or perhaps some verses in Zechariah and Psalms, it's seems more likely that the Jews would interpret that as referring to Israel, (since they were always suffering), and the Suffering Servant was only reinterpreted by the Christian community to refer to Christ because he actually WAS crucified. That makes a lot more sense to me.

Again, for me the doctrine of the Atonement, based on the Crucifixion, is either too brilliant or too absurd to have been thought up purely through Old Testament scriptures without the impetus of an actual crucifixion which needed explaining.

[chsalvia]

Robyn,

Just curious...did Assyria even exist in 2800 B.C.?

[Robyn Banks]

chsalvia:
Just curious...did Assyria even exist in 2800 B.C.?
Ha. I was joking about the English Profs existing of course. But "Assyria" is an anachronism in 2800BC - Ninevah existed, but I'm not so sure about Ashur. So, you might have a problem with Assyria existing just on these grounds, before even getting to scepticism.

Robyn

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
An attack on such a movement would require more subtle methods, which was indeed what was pursued.

JOE ALWARD
Okay, if you believe that a subtle attack against the movement was employed, then surely the sublety of innuendo would not have been ruled out as inappropriate. The fact that Domitian did not have Josephus write things which would subtly undermine the movement and its miracle stories, even if only in a small way, shows that the miracles stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time and thus not in need of refutation.

[Robyn Banks]

chsalvia:
If Christ's life and sayings are purely a composite collection of what would be expected of the Messiah through Old Testament prophecy, then how do you explain a lot of the Gospel material, especially some of the &quot;Q&quot; material? The &quot;Q&quot; material is mostly teaching, mostly moral, ethical and reformative, and much of it is quite amazing. Although all of the ethical or behavioral teaching given in the Synoptic Gospels could theoretically be derived from Old Testament scripture, it sounds more to me like the actual sayings of a very creative and insightful individual who was annoyed with the bankrupt state of Pharisaic Judaism. Again, this ethical teaching is not necessary for the Messianic program. Why bother to include such material unless it really was the words of the historical Jesus preserved through oral transmission?
That is a compelling argument. The Gospel material contains too much material that can best be explained as material it is trying to assimilate. There is no second-best explanation for such material that is anywhere near as convincing.

There are other such examples where the Gospel-writers are clearly dealing with an historical tradition that they are having to assimilate into their stories. The way the Gospel-writers deal with Jesus' family is a weighty example here.



chsalvia:
The material in the Gospels is artificially arranged from pre-made, ready-to-use primitive chunks of material - not in a well thought-out treatise on the life and times of the Messiah.
Exactly.



chsalvia:
And of course, if the Synoptic Gospel teachings were actually the creation of later Christians desperately trying to construct a life for their Messiah, we would expect a lot more emphasis on issues relevant to the current Christian community. We would expect a more developed Christology and more concern over ecclesiastical issues if this material post-dated Paul's letters. While the Synoptic Gospels can be said to touch upon such things, they are not the emphasis. The emphasis is more like &quot;Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees!&quot;
That is another good reason to consider there was an historical Jesus behind the traditions.




chsalvia:
This brings me to another huge problem with the idea of Christ as a myth. Historically, Christianity began among Jews and then slowly moved away from Jews into the Gentile world - and yet your beliefs would have Christianity begin presumably with Jews, then move more exclusively into the Gentile world, only to have the later evangelists focus on Judaism again by writing the Gospels. While the Christianity of Paul's time always looked back to it's Jewish roots in such important issues as faith and the law, or circumcision and uncircumcision, the Christianity of the Gospels is extraordinarly more concerned with Jews and Jewish beliefs, than it is with Gentile issues. Thus we have so many episodes which center around Jewish ritual, e.g. the Sabbath contraversies. These often read more like a reformative movement for Judaism than something that is supposed to spread to the Gentiles...
it seems obvious that the source material for all the Gospels is not primarily concerned with issues relevant to the later Christian community but rather more with Jews and Jewish issues.
Another very good point. The counter-arguments start to look quite fanciful.




chsalvia:
Your view of a completely mythical Christ based on the Old Testament seems rather simplistic, and does not take into account all the material we have.
Those currently arguing for a purely mythical Jesus are relying on scholarship from over 100 years ago. Their assumptions are more than a century out of date, and their conclusions mythical.





chsalvia:
As a final note, remember to keep in mind that the common Messianic expectation did NOT involve crucifixion.
Hmmmm. There was no such thing as "the common Messianic expectation." Instead, there were "Messianic expectations" - each of them quite different from other Jewish ideas of the Messiah. The Messiah was only assigned a temporary role in some literature. He does not reign forever, but plays a part in ushering in a new age. In 4 Ezra 7:28-29 the Messiah is prophesised to appear, to inaugurate the Messianic period, and then to die (with no further role for the Messiah). In 4 Ezra 7, the Messiah is simply sandwiched between 2 eras, functionless, but with God's role in judgment affirmed.

It would be better to point out that the Messiah was usually expected to have some involvement in the judgment of mankind. The Messiah is the eschatological (i.e. "end-times") judge in most sources (eg Ps Sol 17:21-33, 4 Ezra 12:13-30; 2 Bar 40:1-2). However, the Judgment commences only after the Messiah dies in 4 Ezra 7:31-44. The Messiah's role in judgment is limited only to reproaching the Romans with Torah and denouncing them in the heavenly court (4 Ezra 11-13).

But after Jesus' death the idea of the imminent 'second coming' in the Gospels is a device to explain why Jesus never judged the earth during his lifetime (i.e. he soon would be doing that).

So if you change your argument from crucifixion to judgment, you will be on stronger grounds concerning popular expectations of the Messiah. And the shifting of the judgment to a future 'second coming' of Jesus could be seen as an apologetic device - and evidence that the historical Jesus never 'judged', contrary to expectations.




chsalvia:
Although, technically, the idea of a dying Messiah could be derived from Isaiah's Suffering Servant, or perhaps some verses in Zechariah and Psalms, it's seems more likely that the Jews would interpret that as referring to Israel, (since they were always suffering),
The servant is primarily Israel in Isa 53. And there is little evidence of even early Christian NT use of Isa 53 to interpret the life of Jesus.



chsalvia:
Again, for me the doctrine of the Atonement, based on the Crucifixion, is either too brilliant or too absurd to have been thought up purely through Old Testament scriptures without the impetus of an actual crucifixion which needed explaining.
Even wider, the way that incarnation theology is expressed is hard to explain without an historical figure.

Good points.

One piece of external evidence is that the head of the Christian church in Jerusalem went to Jesus' brothers after his death: James, then Simon. If there was a dynasty, it fits in well with a charismatic figure who began the dynasty.


Robyn

[Joseph Alward]

ROBYN BANKS
There is no sign of Christianity being particularly successful in the first century.

JOE ALWARD
Oh, I completely agree, and that's the main argument against the truth of the miracle stories. If the miracles associated with Jesus had actually occurred-- the raising of the dead, curing of the blind, miraculous feeding of five thousand with a handful of food, then another four thousand, the crucifixion and resurrection, then the word about Jesus would have spread like wildfire. The fact that this evidently did not happen, is strong evidence that these events did not occur.

You see, Robyn, I've been assuming for the sake of argument that the movement was "burgeoning," as JP alleged. It could not have been, in my opinion, else Domitian would have reacted to it more strongly than he did, and at the very least would have had Josephus speak against the miracles stories.

I think we're in agreement, Robyn.

[Robyn Banks]

Joseph Alward:
Oh, I completely agree, and that's the main argument against the truth of the miracle stories. If the miracles associated with Jesus had actually occurred-- the raising of the dead, curing of the blind, miraculous feeding of five thousand with a handful of food, then another four thousand, the crucifixion and resurrection, then the word about Jesus would have spread like wildfire. The fact that this evidently did not happen, is strong evidence that these events did not occur.
Well, the death of the movement's leader would have slowed any initial popularity, anyway. That was more than enough to neutralize any stories about miracles.




Joseph Alward:
You see, Robyn, I've been assuming for the sake of argument that the movement was &quot;burgeoning,&quot; as JP alleged. It could not have been, in my opinion, else Domitian would have reacted to it more strongly than he did, and at the very least would have had Josephus speak against the miracles stories.

I think we're in agreement, Robyn.
I agree that the movement was still very minor in the first century. But even if it were increasing in numbers very quickly, there is no evidence of Christianity being viewed as any threat to the empire before Marcus Aurelius. Trajan obviously found Christians a huge bore. So I can't see what you can read into Domitian's failure to make Josephus speak out against Christians.

Robyn

[Joseph Alward]

ROBYN BANKS
Those currently arguing for a purely mythical Jesus

JOE ALWARD
For the record, I do not argue for a purely mythical Jesus. The evidence shows that there quite likely was a "Jesus" who was a teacher of remarkable things, as you and CH Salvia made clear. Nevertheless, too many of the gospel stories have extremely strong links to antecedent stories in Scripture to believe that they were actual events in Jesus' life. Furthermore, as you've made clear, the movement was not flourishing in the first century. In an earlier post, I explained why this should be taken as strong evidence that the miracles stories were false. None of this shows, of course, that Jesus was purely mythical; it shows only that the gospel stories are not literally true.

[Joseph Alward]

ROBYN BANKS
Well, the death of the movement's leader would have slowed any initial popularity, anyway. That was more than enough to neutralize any stories about miracles.

JOE ALWARD
Martyred heroes generally increase the movement's following, especially if the followers believe the death of its leader was preordained by God and necessary to further the movement. I would think the story of martyrdom of the movement's hero and his ascendency to God, if it indeed had been circulating in the first century, would have increased the movement's popularity, not slowed it down, as you suggest.

[Robyn Banks]

Joseph Alward:
For the record, I do not argue for a purely mythical Jesus. The evidence shows that there quite likely was a &quot;Jesus&quot; who was a teacher of remarkable things, as you and CH Salvia made clear.
We seem to be in agreement here.




Joseph Alward:
Nevertheless, too many of the gospel stories have extremely strong links to antecedent stories in Scripture to believe that they were actual events in Jesus' life.
I agree here, too. Which gospel stories are you referring to? I would think of the nativity stories as ones mostly manufactured from OT traditions.




Joseph Alward:
Furthermore, as you've made clear, the movement was not flourishing in the first century. In an earlier post, I explained why this should be taken as strong evidence that the miracles stories were false. None of this shows, of course, that Jesus was purely mythical; it shows only that the gospel stories are not literally true.
There were a lot of miracle-workers in those days. Jesus was competing with stories from a number of other miracle-workers. The whole world was readily teeming with demons and spiritual phenomenon. Jesus may not have stood out greatly in this regard.

And given that Jesus died, whether his miracle-stories are true or not, it could have stopped the impetus of the movement.

All this is very speculative, not 'strong evidence' one way or the other.


Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Joseph Alward:
Martyred heroes generally increase the movement's following, especially if the followers believe the death of its leader was preordained by God and necessary to further the movement.
Really? What examples are you thinking of?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD:
Martyred heroes generally increase the movement's following, especially if the followers believe the death of its leader was preordained by God and necessary to further the movement. ”

ROBYN BANKS
Really? What examples are you thinking of?

JOE ALWARD
Jesus Christ. Osama bin Laden (if he's dead). The cult of martyrdom associated with the Shi'ites.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Nevertheless, too many of the gospel stories have extremely strong links to antecedent stories in Scripture to believe that they were actual events in Jesus' life. ”

ROBYN BANKS
I agree here, too. Which gospel stories are you referring to? I would think of the nativity stories as ones mostly manufactured from OT traditions.

JOE ALWARD

Here are a few examples.

1. The story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes has as its Old Testament parallel the story of Elisha multiplying the loaves.

2. Walking on water with the inexplicable intention to "pass by" the disciples imitates Yahweh displaying of his glory in passing by Moses.

3. Jesus' betrayal by Judas and his prayer at Gethsemane mirrors event in David's life.

4. The story of Jesus' triumphal entry with TWO animals is transparently a attempt by the originators of this story to have Jesus fulfill what they thought was a foreshadowing event in Scripture involving two animals, when there was actually only one animal.

5. The potter's field story.

A fuller explanation of the antecedence is provided in several articles linked-to on the web page in the signature line below.

[Steven Avery]

Yesterday @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113815#post113815)
Robyn Banks:

The servant is primarily Israel in Isa 53. And there is little evidence of even early Christian NT use of Isa 53 to interpret the life of Jesus.

Robyn

Hi Robyn,

We have one writing that gives a very clear early window on how the Jews looked at Isaiah 53 around the time of Jesus.. the Targum Jonathan, loose interpretative Aramaic translation

"Behold my servant Messiah will prosper"

And the Messiah is the subject throughout, this is clear by watching the singular and plural usages, and how Messiah interrelates to Israel.

Essentially, Messiah is the servant, Israel suffers from her sins, but can look to Messiah for deliverance.

Not the same as the later Chrisian understanding, or the current Jewish one... definitely, though, the Servant is Messiah.

Shalom,
Praxeus
www.messiahresearch.com

[Robyn Banks]

praxeus:
We have one writing that gives a very clear early window on how the Jews looked at Isaiah 53 around the time of Jesus.. the Targum Jonathan, loose interpretative Aramaic translation

&quot;Behold my servant Messiah will prosper&quot;
Actually, we have more than one writing that shows how Jews interpreted the servant of Deutero-Isaiah at the time of Jesus.

Even though Jonathan ben Uzziel lived in the first century BC, some portions of the Targum are in the Talmud assigned to Joseph ben Chija (c AD 300), so the text now extant is presumably the result of an editorial process. The comments cannot reliably be dated before the fourth century AD.

But in any case, I agree that Messianic reinterpretations of Isaiah 53 and other passages in the Tanach began as early as c100 BC. This being so, the fact remains that there is NO eschatological Messiah in the Old Testament itself, whatsoever. The idea of an end-times (eschatological) Messiah is a post-Tanach reinterpretation. All references to 'messiah' ('anointed one') in the Tanach refer to a specific king, priest or prophet, and always within the immediate time-frame of the relevant text. Never to any 'end-times' Davidic figure.

So the Jewish idea of a 'Messiah' is a result of a reinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

And the Messianic reinterpretation of Targum Jonathan may be compared with the earliest Jewish interpretation of the servant that we have: that of the LXX. The LXX interpreted the reference to the servant in Isa 42.1 as Jacob-Israel. Furthermore, in Origen's account of discussions with Jews about the identity of the servant, the Jewish opponents maintain that the servant is Israel (Contra Celsum, 1.55). So the Targum Jonathan should be understood as only one opinion within Judaism at this time (if indeed it can be dated to the first century).




praxeus:
And the Messiah is the subject throughout, this is clear by watching the singular and plural usages, and how Messiah interrelates to Israel.
The Targum Jonathan reinterpreted Isa 53 as applying to a Messiah, instead of Israel. But the way Isa 53 was reinterpreted in Targum Jonathan reveals how little attention was paid to the context of Isa 53. For, by "a strange exegetical perversity," although the servant is identified with the Messiah, all the sufferings of the servant are identified with Israel! This alone demonstrates how loose and non-exegetical the rabbinic targumizing was. It is hardly a basis for defending a Messianic reinterpretation of the text. Instead, it is a vivid demonstration of poor interpretation.

The fact remains that Isaiah 53 was written in a time before there was any notion of an eschatological 'Messiah' in Judaism. And, furthermore, when read in context and without reading Isa 53 through NT lens or later Messianic lens, it clearly refers to Israel.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[jpholding]

05-31-2003 @ 09:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113804#post113804)
Joseph Alward:



Okay, if you believe that a subtle attack against the movement was employed, then surely the sublety of innuendo would not have been ruled out as inappropriate. The fact that Domitian did not have Josephus write things which would subtly undermine the movement and its miracle stories, even if only in a small way, shows that the miracles stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time and thus not in need of refutation.

Guess what, Doc. Some think Josephus DID do this very thing. When he said, "For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual," he used the word paradoxos, which can mean strange, surprising, or wonderful. But Doc, either way, you still aren't showing why this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the stories were around, but couldn't be refuted -- leaving overall silence the best option.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
But Doc, either way, you still aren't showing why this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the stories were around, but couldn't be refuted -- leaving overall silence the best option.

JOE ALWARD
In my opinion, silence in this scenario would not have been Domitian's best option. If the stories were around and believed by some people, as they evidently were because the movement was allegedly burgeoning, Domitian would have known that they were not believed by everyone. Domitian would have known that if he had remained silent about the stories, those who did not yet believe the stories would wonder why he didn't speak against them, and they might be inclined to wonder whether the stories were true, and this would have made things even worse.

It wouldn't have been necessary for Domitian to PROVE to the non-believers that the stories were false; all he would have had to do is to reassure them by stating that the stories were exaggerated, or fabricated, or based on the fanciful imaginations of the followers of Jesus. Sure, Jesus' followers would probably not have believed Domitian, but no harm would have been done, since they were going to believe in Jesus no matter what Domitian said about him. But, for those who were not inclined to believe the stories, Domitian's silence about them would have given them reason to wonder whether Domitian believed the stories. Since Domitian would have known that this is how some of the non-believers would have interpreted his silence, at the very least he would have had Josephus write that the stories were exaggerations, or fabrications. The fact that Domitian did not do this is good evidence that the stories were not in circulation in the time of Domitian, and thus not in need of refutation.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

In my opinion, silence in this scenario would not have been Domitian's best option. If the stories were around and believed by some people, as they evidently were because the movement was allegedly burgeoning, Domitian would have known that they were not believed by everyone. Domitian would have known that if he had remained silent about the stories, those who did not yet believe the stories would wonder why he didn't speak against them, and they might be inclined to wonder whether the stories were true, and this would have made things even worse.

Hmm, all you're telling me then is that he was danged if he did, and danged if he didn't, and he had to choose between the best dang. But the problem here is that silence was a known method of dishonoring people in this time. You dishonored persons by ignoring them, so if anything Dommy's silence would NOT have caused such an inclination as you suggest, but rather sent the message that this Jesus was a dishonorable person. In fact, Doc, under this social paradigm actually saying outright that the stories were lies (even if they were) would have been WORSE because it would have left an impression that Jesus deserved the honor of that level of attention.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
You dishonored persons by ignoring them, so if anything Dommy's silence would NOT have caused such an inclination as you suggest, but rather sent the message that this Jesus was a dishonorable person. In fact, Doc, under this social paradigm actually saying outright that the stories were lies (even if they were) would have been WORSE because it would have left an impression that Jesus deserved the honor of that level of attention.

JOE ALWARD
It's hard to believe that powerful Romans of that era ignored their enemies, especially if they are behind a movement which was burgeoning and had the potential for threatening their power. As I've noted before, men as powerful as Roman emperors are honor-bound to refute false honor claims, or to have them refuted by others. Not to do so would lead to a proliferation of unchallenged honor claims, and with virtually everyone making honor claims with impunity, the "legitimate" honor claims by emperors would be paled against the background of near-universal honor. The emperor's honor claim would be just one of thousands, and thus essentially without value. Thus, it is unthinkable that Domitian would ignore honor claims made on Jesus' behalf by his followers. There can be almost no doubt that at the very least Domitian would have labeled the miracle stories as false, especially given that the stories attach to Jesus a glory far greater than that which Domitian could attach to himself. If Domitian himself didn't do it, he would have had others, such as Josephus, refute the honor claims. The fact that Domitian did nothing of the kind is strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and therefore not in need of being refuted.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era. A search of the internet turns up no reference by any writer or historian of that era to the practice you describe, nor have any contemporary writers made reference to this practice. It is possible that my search for evidence of the paradigm you describe overlooked comments by writers or historians of that time, or by contemporary writers. Do you have a particular author in mind who made reference to the practice of dishonoring by silence?

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

It's hard to believe that powerful Romans of that era ignored their enemies

Is it hard to believe they did so in LITERARY terms? I would agree they would not ignore them in practical terms, but when it came to history writing, that's another matter. Consider how attempts were made to erase Akhenaten from the record.

As I've noted before, men as powerful as Roman emperors are honor-bound to refute false honor claims, or to have them refuted by others.

If they can do so, of course. :smile:

Not to do so would lead to a proliferation of unchallenged honor claims, and with virtually everyone making honor claims with impunity

But again, what if the claims are true? I know you exclude that as a posssibility, but what if that were so? Also I can't go with you on the claim of impunity -- the mores were too ingrained for that. Plus remember that EVERYONE resented people who made excessive honor claims, because honor was perceived as a "limited good". So there were controls on that kind of thing.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era.

Doc, I can give you a bibliography on this if you are interested. You won't find this sort of thing on the Internet. It's not something writers would refer to but we see actions of that sort in honor-shame societies even today (such as, if we were in one, I would put on Ignore anyone who I considered unworthy of response).

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
But again, what if the claims are true?

JOE ALWARD
Even if they were true, not everyone would have believed the stories. Domitian would have known that the ones who did not believe the stories would be reassured by statements from the emperor, or from Josephus, that the stories were false. Not stating that the stories were false would lead at least some of these nonbelievers to suspect that perhaps Domitian himself believed them, and this would only make things worse. The doubt that silence would create in the minds of those who disbelieved the stories illustrates what I think is a big problem with your suggestion that there existed at that time the social paradigm within which one fought false honor claims with silence: How would anyone know which was which? Are you silent because you have no defense against the honor claim, or are you silent because you DO have a defense but don't wish to honor that person by mentioning his name? Nobody would be able to tell which was which, and for that reason I think that using silence as a weapon would have been completely impractical, and thus it did not exist in that time. I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.


JOE ALWARD
Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era.

JP HOLDING
Doc, I can give you a bibliography on this if you are interested. You won't find this sort of thing on the Internet. It's not something writers would refer to but we see actions of that sort in honor-shame societies even today (such as, if we were in one, I would put on Ignore anyone who I considered unworthy of response).

JOE ALWARD
Yes, I definitely am interested in seeing if any writer then, or now, believed there was such a social paradigm. You need not present a bibliography. If you have a particular quote in mind, along with the name of the book or article, from either an ancient author, or a current one, that would be sufficient.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

Even if they were true, not everyone would have believed the stories. Domitian would have known that the ones who did not believe the stories would be reassured by statements from the emperor, or from Josephus, that the stories were false.

But Doc, if they WERE true, then Dommy sets himself up for a big shamefest if he issues such statements and he's in worse straits than ever. Again, the only way this tightrope could be walked is to say as little as possible.

The doubt that silence would create in the minds of those who disbelieved the stories illustrates what I think is a big problem with your suggestion that there existed at that time the social paradigm within which one fought false honor claims with silence: How would anyone know which was which?

Because in this day, keeping silent was a way to shame your opposition. The relative silence would not have anyone thinking anything but, "Obviously, these people aren't worth any attention."

Are you silent because you have no defense against the honor claim, or are you silent because you DO have a defense but don't wish to honor that person by mentioning his name?

You are silent because you want to leave the impression that your enemies are not worth the time of day. Whether you have a defense or not would not make a difference. But it would be the only option if the claims were true and he didn't want any more publicity on them.

I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.

I think it's more because not many people have studied deeply into this stuff. :smile:


If you have a particular quote in mind, along with the name of the book or article, from either an ancient author, or a current one, that would be sufficient.

No particular quote, no -- it would take a few paragraphs of explanation, which is why I'd rather give you titles, like Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentaries and Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.

JP HOLDING
I think it's more because not many people have studied deeply into this stuff.

JOE ALWARD
If not many, then some? Could you give me an example of someone who mentioned the dishonoring by silence social paradigm? Maybe provide a particular quote?

[jpholding]

Doc,


JOE ALWARD
If not many, then some? Could you give me an example of someone who mentioned the dishonoring by silence social paradigm? Maybe provide a particular quote?

One reason I can't is that I don't own the books that speak of this. I'd have to get to the library next week (or maybe this week) and bring it home. That's why I wanted to give you titles.

The most recent example I read of was in Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God in which Jesus' accusers, when he healed the man with a withered hand, were said to speak amongst themselves while ignoring Jesus as a sign of rebuffing him.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
The most recent example I read of was in Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God in which Jesus' accusers, when he healed the man with a withered hand, were said to speak amongst themselves while ignoring Jesus as a sign of rebuffing him.

JOE ALWARD
I would have a few problems with this, if this is all there is. First, I don't know how the commentator could have known that the ones speaking among themselves were not merely trying to keep private their comments. Speaking among themselves is not silence. On what evidence did Herzog's source reach the conclusion that the speaking privately constituted a silence that was meant to dishonor Jesus?

Second, I'm looking for evidence that there existed the social paradigm you mentioned, in which dishonoring by silence was a standard practice. Even if there was clear evidence that the accusers in the story you mention meant for their speaking among themselves somehow to be interpreted as silence meant to dishonor Jesus, that would not show that their behavior was so widespread as to be a social paradigm.

[wienerdog]

Here's a good article on Jesus as a "copycat" savior. It's a critique of a critique.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/fales.html

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Thanks for citing the article by Craig, Wienerdog. I'll quote below the passage which illustrates what I think is a logical failure by Craig. He writes,

"Josephus barely mentions Jesus at all–why would he relate the darkness at noon?"

Maybe he didn't relate the darkness at noon for the same reason he barely mentioned Jesus: Josephus did not know about any of the miracle stories associated with Jesus.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

I would have a few problems with this, if this is all there is. First, I don't know how the commentator could have known that the ones speaking among themselves were not merely trying to keep private their comments.

Herzog, Malina, Rohrbugh, and the other authors I would point to have been studying these issues for decades, Doc. As a scientist I'd expect you to give them a fair shake. They have studied honor-shame societies and anthropology as long as you have studied physics, if not longer. I think you wouldn't give much ear to someone who dismissed ideas you gave them about physics that cavalierly. Would you?

I'm looking for evidence that there existed the social paradigm you mentioned, in which dishonoring by silence was a standard practice.

Well, you'll have to do all the reading I did, or else wait until I get all my sources back together. The one concrete example I can give offhand is the way Akhenaten was scratched out of Egyptian records. Another is that the rabbis used circomlouctions like "that so and so" to avoid naming people they wanted to shame. Are you willing to meet me partway and do some reading?

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
Are you willing to meet me partway and do some reading?

JOE ALWARD
Of course. I will read any book or article very carefully, as long as you could assure me that the author specifically mentions the fact that dishonoring one's opponent by silence was a social paradigm. Otherwise, I would be afraid that I could read several books, and find that not one of them mentions that dishonoring by silence was a common practice.

I would also be extremely interested in seeing how any author deals with the obligation those in power have to question bogus honor claims. As I noted before, in honor-shame societies, those in positions of power or prestige were duty- and honor-bound to question bogus honor claims themselves, or at least see to it that others did the questioning for them. Otherwise, their own legitimate honor claims would pale beside so many fraudulent ones, and their power and prestige would thereby be weakened. How in the world dishonoring by silence could be compatible with the imperative to voice objections to false honor claims, I cannot begin to imagine, but I look forward to seeing how any historian might describe how this could have been done.

If you don't mind, I won't take on the task of reading through your bibliography, for I evidently won't know in advance whether the questions I am hoping to have answered will in fact be answered. Unless you have a specific book in mind in which dishonoring and silence are discussed, or, better yet, a quotation from an author who mentions "dishonoring by silence," or something similar, I will have to remain skeptical that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you mention ever existed among the first century Romans.

[WinAce]

Since Josephus wrote in the 90s, he wouldn't be able to ast doubt on Christian claims made 60 years earlier (before Jerusalem was sacked, what, twice?) even if he wanted to. Probably the best he could do is attribute the claims to sorcery or fraud without any evidence to back it up.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

Of course. I will read any book or article very carefully, as long as you could assure me that the author specifically mentions the fact that dishonoring one's opponent by silence was a social paradigm.

Then you can start with the Herzog one, though I think you'd do better to start with Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentaries, as well as DeSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity so that you don't wade in without prep work. Herzog assumes quite a bit of background knowledge by readers.

dishonoring and silence are discussed, or, better yet, a quotation from an author who mentions &quot;dishonoring by silence,&quot; or something similar, I will have to remain skeptical that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you mention ever existed among the first century Romans.

Your choice. :smile: I hope you won't mind if others return the favor.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I think you'd do better to start with Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentaries

JOE ALWARD
All right. I'll look into what they have to say. But, if Malina or Rohrbaugh DON'T agree with you that there existed in the first century the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence, will you withdraw your claim that such existed, and further concede that there is a problem with Domitian's silence, as well as with Josephus?

[jpholding]

Today @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120945#post120945)
Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
All right. I'll look into what they have to say. But, if Malina or Rohrbaugh DON'T agree with you that there existed in the first century the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence, will you withdraw your claim that such existed, and further concede that there is a problem with Domitian's silence, as well as with Josephus?

Heck no, Doc. I sure don't dump over years of reading and study just because someone doesn't find it in the first book they read. You have a lot of work to do before you get a big picture. :smile: M and R will lay groundwork for you; you'll still have more to learn after that.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
All right. I'll look into what they have to say. But, if Malina or Rohrbaugh DON'T agree with you that there existed in the first century the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence, will you withdraw your claim that such existed, and further concede that there is a problem with Domitian's silence, as well as with Josephus? ”

JP HOLDING

Heck no, Doc. I sure don't dump over years of reading and study just because someone doesn't find it in the first book they read. You have a lot of work to do before you get a big picture. M and R will lay groundwork for you; you'll still have more to learn after that.

JOE ALWARD
Do you believe that Malina and Rohrbaugh are well enough acquainted with Roman practices to know whether a social paradigm such as dishonoring by silence was in force in the first century? If not them, then who would have the definitive answer?

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,


Yesterday @ 05:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121246#post121246)
Joseph Alward:

Do you believe that Malina and Rohrbaugh are well enough acquainted with Roman practices to know whether a social paradigm such as dishonoring by silence was in force in the first century? If not them, then who would have the definitive answer?

Most likely they would be. I thought of another example, but in the negative, and I think I read it in Witherongton's Galatians commentary. It was noted that Paul and Peter when they had their little tiff, it was clear that Paul and Peter were social equals by Paul's challenge, and that Peter, had he been a social superior to Paul, would have been able to just ignore him.

BTW it is not a Roman practice per se but one of honor-shame societies. If you plan to write them, Rohrbaugh is fairly accessible; I would like to be cc'd on the results if you don't mind. :smile:

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I would like to be cc'd on the results if you don't mind.

JOE ALWARD
I don't think I would be violating collegial confidentiality if I showed you some excerpts from his response to me. Here they are:

JOE ALWARD (In post to Richard Rohrbaugh)
One of the questions that has come up...in an internet discussion forum, deals with the puzzling silence of Josephus on the miracle stories about Jesus.

A possible explanation offered to me [by a correspondent]...is based on what he calls a "social paradigm" in the first century Roman empire in which he believes one dishonored one's opponent by remaining silent in the face of honor claims made by them, or on their behalf.

Have you ever heard of this "social paradigm"?

RICHARD ROHRBAUGH
I am not familiar with this social paradigm as such. I suppose one could argue it as a plausible supposition, but one would like to see evidence. I know of none....I am not familiar with any ancient author explicitly doing what your colleague suggests.

(emphasis added)

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

Hey, he responded fast! Good!

I am not familiar with this social paradigm as such. I suppose one could argue it as a plausible supposition, but one would like to see evidence.

Well, I gave you Akhenaten for sure as an example, and one from Herzog and one (I think) from Witherington. So there's three. Could you maybe send him those as examples?

Also I have a parallel in modern times. Let's say you won some kind of award for physics, Doc, and it was to be presented at a dinner where all your colleagues were supposed to show up. Now wouldn't one way to insult you be for your colleagues to boycott the proceedings?

I also found some tangentially relevant stuff -- this is from Jerome Neyrey, who is part of the same group as Rohrbaugh. It only shows that silence has a role in the honor-shame process; none of the situations match this one, but it does at least show how silence was used in the paradigm:

For among the warrior elite, at least, the endurance of pain and suffering were marks of andreia or manly courage (e.g. Hercules' labors; Paul's hardship catalogues: e.g. 2 Cor 6:3-10; 11:23-33). Silence by the victim during torture was a mark of honor (see Isa 53:7; Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.162; Josephus, War 6.304).

Jesus now remains silent (19:9). He neither defends himself nor offers a riposte to the challenge. Silence in the face of accusation is very difficult to assess; but in an honor and shame context it would probably be read as a shameful thing (see Neh 6:8). To fail to give a riposte to a challenge is to accept defeat and so loss of honor.

The narrative suggests that Jesus' silence in fact challenges Pilate's power, who then responds with new questions: "Will you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" (19:10). "Power" (exousia), an expression of honor, is at stake. [/b]

As I said, this is not direct, but I think it would suggest by extension that by silencing an opponent's "voice" through writing about them and not saying much, one could shame them.

Now here's something from Malina himself that's interesting:

[i]Using this process for Level III, it would appear that Pilate was honoring Jesus by publicly acknowledging him as a king. Pilate is sending a positive message towards Jesus' honor by using the trial as the recognized channel.

It would seem to me that if this is true, then my NOT acknowledging something publicly, one would be at least withholding honor.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

JP, you implied that Richard Rohrbaugh would know about the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence if it existed. As you noted, he's been studying these issues for decades. About the evidence of its existence of the paradigm you described, he said, "I know of none." Unless you can convince him he's overlooked something, and also convince Malina, and Herzog, I think this should settle the matter.

[jpholding]

Today @ 03:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122612#post122612)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

JP, you implied that Richard Rohrbaugh would know about the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence if it existed. As you noted, he's been studying these issues for decades. About the evidence of its existence of the paradigm you described, he said, &quot;I know of none.&quot; Unless you can convince him he's overlooked something, and also convince Malina, and Herzog, I think this should settle the matter.

In other words, you don't want to bring what I used above to the fore? :smile: Hmm. Doc, I'm surprised at you settling on authority so quickly. Besides, he did call it a plausible supposition and all he said from what you gave is that he knew of no specific examples -- so why would you not want to present him with what I gave above as a suggestion?

I'll open up to say that I'd be satisified with the idea that Josephus was merely withholding honor rather than striking out for dishonor. Either way the silence makes sense.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
JP, you implied that Richard Rohrbaugh would know about the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence if it existed. As you noted, he's been studying these issues for decades. About the evidence of its existence of the paradigm you described, he said, "I know of none." Unless you can convince him he's overlooked something, and also convince Malina, and Herzog, I think this should settle the matter.

JP HOLDING
why would you not want to present him with what I gave above as a suggestion?

JOE ALWARD
You said that Rohrbaugh would be aware of the social paradigm you described if it existed, and in regard to evidence of it, he said, "I know of none." If you believe that the examples you have will make him change his mind, I think it would be better if you were the one to advance your argument. If Richard rejected your examples, one would always wonder whether I did a sufficiently objective job of presenting them.

I frankly don't think your examples show that the social paradigm you described existed in the first century Roman empire. Sure, one might be able to find examples where one person ignored or snubbed another person, but you need to show that such occurred to a greater extent in the first century than it does today. Otherwise, the behavior is nothing special, and certainly not worthy of the appellation, "social paradigm." I would go out on a limb and state that I am almost absolutely sure that Rohrbaugh will not see in your examples any evidence for the paradigm you describe. The same goes for Malina and Herzog.

I think you should write Rohrbaugh and show him your evidence, and let us know what he says. Otherwise, we should just assume that the silent treatment in the first century was no more prevalent then than in any other time, and thus one has no warrant to speak of the "social paradigm" you mentioned.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

You said that Rohrbaugh would be aware of the social paradigm you described if it existed

I said he likely would be, and he did call it plausible, so that seems to suggest he is favoring neither of us directly -- hence I gave you some other material.

If Richard rejected your examples, one would always wonder whether I did a sufficiently objective job of presenting them.

I wouldn't. I trust you, Doc. :smile: You've earned it.

Sure, one might be able to find examples where one person ignored or snubbed another person, but you need to show that such occurred to a greater extent in the first century than it does today.

Why do we need to show that it happened to a "greater extent" specifically? And do I catch that you'll allow that this is a possible explanation for Josephus' silence on the miracles?

Otherwise, the behavior is nothing special, and certainly not worthy of the appellation, &quot;social paradigm.&quot;

Well, for me it would be. :smile: To me that just means a way people often behave in a particular society.

I think you should write Rohrbaugh and show him your evidence, and let us know what he says.

I suppose I can do that. Can you forward me a copy of your whole letter to him and the response so that I can use it for reference?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
You said that Rohrbaugh would be aware of the social paradigm you described if it existed

JP HOLDING
I said he likely would be, and he did call it plausible, so that seems to suggest he is favoring neither of us directly

JOE ALWARD
My position was that I found no evidence on the internet that ANY author, either ancient or modern, who ever mentioned anything like what you described, and you said that if I would read Malina and Rohrbaugh's social commentaries I would be in a better position to evaluate the truth of your claim that there was a social paradigm in the first century in which one dishonored one's opponent by silence. They had been studying social order and practices for decades, you noted, and if anyone would know about the practice you mentioned, they would. So, I contacted Rohrbaugh directly, and asked him directly if he had ever heard anything like what you described, and he said he had not.

In regard to any evidence whatsoever of such a paradigm, Rohrbaugh said, "I know of none," and further said, "I suppose one could argue it as a plausible supposition, but one would like to see evidence."

Thus, Rohrbaugh's statement supported my position 100%: There is no evidence that he is aware of, and you strongly implied that if anyone would know, he would. He didn't know, and he said so, so he DOES support my view that there is no evidence of this social paradigmn existing in the first century.


I don't think it would be appropriate for me to act as an intermediary between you and Rohrbaugh as you present what you believe is evidence of the paradigm. One could quite easily contemplate the need for a second, then a third and fourth correspondence as the two of you attempt to convey your feelings back and forth. This is something I am sure would be better handled by you, directly. I will say this, however. Before you send your evidence to Rohrbaugh, I would strongly urge you to take a second look at what you believe is a statement in Herzog's work regarding Jesus' accusers in the matter of healing the withered hand. There seems to be no question that what was happening was that the accusers went off by themselves to speak privately among themselves NOT for the purpose of shunning, snubbing, rebuffing, or ignoring Jesus, or for the intention of dishonoring him by holding their tongues in his presence, but instead because they wished to have privacy as they plotted in secrecy their future moves against him. This seems clear as a bell, to me. Now, if you will take a second look at what Herzog wrote, I think you will find that he in no way meant to convey to the reader what you think was conveyed. I could be wrong, because I have not yet heard back from him, but I find it unimaginable that he expected his readers to believe that there was any silence meant as a rebuff. I predict a disaster for you if you present this to Rohrbaugh, but I could be wrong, of course. I am again going out on a limb here, just using common sense to guess what Herzog must have meant, without even reading what he wrote. If you would quote to me the relevant passage, and show me where I'm wrong, I would be most appreciative.

I regret that I cannot give too much more time to the issue of Josephus' silence, or to the question of the existence of the paradigm you mentioned. I feel I have had the opportunity to express all of my views fairly completely, and you have been most kind and helpful in facitilating this. I would, however, want to become more fully engaged with this if Rohrbaugh or Herzog respond in your favor.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

My position was that I found no evidence on the internet that ANY author, either ancient or modern, who ever mentioned anything like what you described,

Then what about what I found listed above? What search terms did you use?

So, I contacted Rohrbaugh directly, and asked him directly if he had ever heard anything like what you described, and he said he had not.

But he called in a "plausible supposition," Doc. :smile: And he asked for evidence. So I'd like to write him with the examples I found.

Thus, Rohrbaugh's statement supported my position 100%:

When he leaves it open for evidence and calls it plausible, how can it support any position? :huh:

I would strongly urge you to take a second look at what you believe is a statement in Herzog's work regarding Jesus' accusers in the matter of healing the withered hand.

I do plan on getting it again so I can quote it directly. I need to pick it up from the library next week. But he did speak of honor issues quite clearly as a motive.

. If you would quote to me the relevant passage, and show me where I'm wrong, I would be most appreciative.

Do you mind waiting until I get it next week? (From what you say further, I'm guessing you wouldn't. :smile:) Also I really do want a copy of the letters you exchanged, not because I don't trust you of course (you made my top 3 reasonable skeptic's list, did you know that?) but so I don't look stupid bringing up points already covered or repeating what you say. As an academic I am sure you can appreciate that. :smile:

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
When he leaves it open for evidence and calls it plausible, how can it support any position?

JOE ALWARD

You'll recall that I said that I found no evidence on the internet of any commentator ever writing about the paradigm you mentioned, and I said that I thought it was because no such paradigm existed. You thought my conclusion was based on my lack of a solid background in the social practices of that time, and suggested that I read Malina and Rohrbaugh's social commentaries. Rather than do that, I went straight to Rohrbaugh, and he said he was not aware of any evidence of the existence of this paradigm. THAT was the position I was defending--that there was no evidence, and he supported it 100%. He said there was no evidence that he was aware of. Since he has been in the field for decades, he would be aware of it if it existed, in my opinion..

When I get back to my office, I will find the letter from Rohrbaugh and send you all of his comments that relate to evidence of the existence of the paradigm. I do not recommend you send him the Herzog evidence, though.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
JP, here is is the question I put to Richard Rohrbaugh, and the comments in his letter which relate to the paradigm you described:

ALWARD TO ROHRBAUGH
One of the questions that has come up…recently in an internet discussion forum…deals with the puzzling silence of Josephus on the miracle stories about Jesus. A possible explanation offered to me [by a correspondent] is based on what he calls a "social paradigm" in the first century Roman empire in which he believes one dishonored one's opponent by remaining silent in the face of honor claims made by them… Thus…Domitian, who was Josephus's benefactor, would have urged him to write nothing about the miracles, hoping that the public would conclude that the Romans were dishonoring Jesus and devaluing the Christian movement by its silence. Have you ever heard of this "social paradigm"?

ROHRBAUGH TO ALWARD
I am not familiar with this social paradigm as such. I suppose one could argue it as a plausible supposition, but one would like to see evidence. I know of none. This is not say it does not exist, but if someone has explicit evidence it should be produced before one buys into the paradigm…I am not familiar with any ancient author explicitly doing what your colleague suggests.

[jpholding]

Thanks Doc! Back to working on this next week if Herzog's book is still on the shelf.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
Back to working on this next week if Herzog's book is still on the shelf.

JOE ALWARD
I'd be willing to bet my whole stack Herzog does not say or imply that Jesus' accusers were rebuffing Jesus--as you said--through their silence, or even that they were silent. Indeed, the Bible gives the impression that they spoke about Jesus in private, plotting against him. This is hardly silence, and certainly is not silence intended--according to your proposed paradigm--to dishonor. I look forward to seeing if I would win such a bet.

[jpholding]

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127139#post127139)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I'd be willing to bet my whole stack Herzog does not say or imply that Jesus' accusers were rebuffing Jesus--as you said--through their silence, or even that they were silent. Indeed, the Bible gives the impression that they spoke about Jesus in private, plotting against him. This is hardly silence, and certainly is not silence intended--according to your proposed paradigm--to dishonor. I look forward to seeing if I would win such a bet.

I'll give ya credit, at least you don't throw around dollar amounts like Farrell does! :smile: Rememeber though, it is silence TO Jesus, not just "silence" all around I am talking about. "Lack of response" or targeted silence is what I have been on about here.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
I'd be willing to bet my whole stack Herzog does not say or imply that Jesus' accusers were rebuffing Jesus--as you said--through their silence, or even that they were silent. Indeed, the Bible gives the impression that they spoke about Jesus in private, plotting against him. This is hardly silence, and certainly is not silence intended--according to your proposed paradigm--to dishonor. I look forward to seeing if I would win such a bet. ”


JP HOLDING
Remember though, it is silence TO Jesus, not just "silence" all around I am talking about. "Lack of response" or targeted silence is what I have been on about here.

JOE ALWARD
Either way, it didn't happen, in my opinion, and I'm still betting Herzog did not state or imply that Jesus' accusers were rebuffing (your word) Jesus by remaining silent in front of him, or by their "lack of response" to what he did. I base this judgment on what I hope is common sense. Herzog wouldn't make such a claim without evidence, and there is zero evidence of "rebuffing by silence" on the part of the accusers. Please let me know what you find out from his book, or from him, should he contact you. I am still waiting for a response from him.

[jpholding]

I should be able to get the book on Thursday next week.

[jpholding]

OK Doc, from the other thread you said,

What I will especially wish to see is evidence from Herzog that Jesus' accusers really did stand aloof from him and not interact with him in any way.

Well, the evidence for that he sees in Mark 2 itself. They either stayed silent as Mark says (speaking only in their hearts) or spoke only amongst themselves as Matthew says, as he reads it, and it is from that and his knowledge of the social background that he draws his conclusion. Some of it is also wrapped up in how he explains how Jesus was challenging the authority of the religious poobahs by healing the man. But the direct claim itself is below.

If Herzog does support your claim in this regard, then I would have lost the &quot;stack&quot; I said I would have bet.

I wouldn't take it from ya anyway. I'd beat up Till and take his. :wink:

If Herzog says otherwise, I believe he is quite wrong.

Well, OK, here's the quote, pages 129-130. Bear in mind, again, that my point is directed silence and not necessarily absolute silence:

"The scribes have heard the challenge (of Mark 2:5, which Herzog sees as a challenge to the temple/religious authority), but they attempt to shame Jesus by speaking only among themselves...(Herzog comments on Mark's intentions in writing this,and of the differences in Matthew's version)...In this case, the scribes would be talking to each other loudly enough to be heard by those gathered in the house, but without acknowledging Jesus' presence. It is an effort to shame Jesus that reflects the scribes' conviction that Jesus is too far below them socially to engage in a debate. Shaming by snubbing is their strategy."

Herzog goes on to talk about how the scribes used negative labelling, and how Jesus defends himself against them, but that's all he says about their use of directed silence/ignorance as a shaming tactic.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Could you give me an example of someone who mentioned the dishonoring by silence social paradigm? Maybe provide a particular quote?

JP HOLDING
The most recent example I read of was in Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God in which Jesus' accusers, when he healed the man with a withered hand, were said to speak amongst themselves while ignoring Jesus as a sign of rebuffing him?

JOE ALWARD
I'm still betting Herzog did not state or imply that Jesus' accusers were rebuffing (your word) Jesus by remaining silent in front of him, or by their "lack of response" to what he did. I base this judgment on what I hope is common sense. Herzog wouldn't make such a claim without evidence, and there is zero evidence of "rebuffing by silence" on the part of the accusers.


JOE ALWARD

JP, your comments in the previous post don't seem to be in support of your argument about the withered hand story. You will note from above I was specifically challenging your claim that Herzog concluded that the accusers were rebuffing Jesus with their silence in the healing of the withered hand incident. This was what I was betting my stack against. Can you show that Herzog holds this position?

[jpholding]

06-27-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134486#post134486)
Joseph Alward:




JOE ALWARD

JP, your comments in the previous post don't seem to be in support of your argument about the withered hand story. You will note from above I was specifically challenging your claim that Herzog concluded that the accusers were rebuffing Jesus with their silence in the healing of the withered hand incident. This was what I was betting my stack against. Can you show that Herzog holds this position?

Heya Doc,

I did mis-remember the Gospel incident Herzog cited. It was not the guy with the withered hand but the guy brought in through the roof on a stretcher. So I got the story wrong, but the principle I was after is supported by Herzog.

Like I said, keep the stack one way or the other. :brow:

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I did mis-remember the Gospel incident Herzog cited. It was not the guy with the withered hand but the guy brought in through the roof on a stretcher. So I got the story wrong, but the principle I was after is supported by Herzog.

JOE ALWARD
It is not at all supported by Herzog, in my opinion. Herzog makes a claim that the scribes were snubbing Jesus, but there seems to be zero evidence of that. I'll cite below the relevant passage, and the conclusion of Herzog:

MARK 2:4-8
Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking (or, saying, Matthew 9:3) to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things?

WILLIAM HERZOG (excerpted from Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God):
"The scribes…attempt to shame Jesus by speaking only among themselves…Shaming by snubbing is their strategy."

JOE ALWARD
I think Herzog is quite wrong. He seems to be engaging in pure speculation. How does he know what was in the minds of the scribes? Could they not have been shocked into silence by Jesus' apparent apostasy? Furthermore, how does Herzog know that the scribes did not respond to Jesus' question, "Why are you thinking these things?" Just because the Markan author does not say that the scribes responded, must we assume they did not? Of course not, in my opinion.

Thus, it seems to me that Herzog is forcing upon his readers an interpretation that is without much foundation. If he could show that in every other case where Jesus challenges the authority of the synagogue he is met with silence on the part of scribes, teachers of the law, and priests, then perhaps he might have a case. However, we know that the authorities did not ignore Jesus.

Consider, for example, the case of the disciples picking up grain on the sabbath. From the Matthean author we know that the Pharisees DID confront Jesus in the matter of working on the Sabbath "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath," they accused. (Matthew 12:1-2)

The Pharisees also interacted with Jesus in the matter of the healing of the withered hand: Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12:10)

If the Pharisees did not snub Jesus in the case of the disciples picking grain on the sabbath, or healing of the withered hand, why should we believe without evidence that they were snubbing him when he healed the paralytic?

Another example of the authorities not snubbing Jesus is found in the Pharisees sending the Herodians to question Jesus about taxes: "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" (Matthew 22:17)

If the Pharisees and Herodians did not snub Jesus in tjhe matter of the tax, and did not snub him in the matter of the gathering of the grain, and did not snub him in the healing of the withered hand, why should we believe Herzog when he claims without evidence that the scribes were snubbing Jesus in the case of the healing of the paralytic, especially since we don't even know whether the scribes WERE silent in that case?

From all of this I conclude, JP, that Herzog provides no credible evidence of the existence of the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence you described. This is consistent with Richard Rohrbaugh's statement that he is aware of no such evidence.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

It is not at all supported by Herzog, in my opinion. Herzog makes a claim that the scribes were snubbing Jesus, but there seems to be zero evidence of that.

Hey, you'll have to take that up with Herzog. :smile: Me, it seems clear. Jesus by healing the man was making an open challenge to the scribes, by stepping on their toes. In short, he invited response with his challenge.

Could they not have been shocked into silence by Jesus' apparent apostasy?

Doc, in this and what follows it seems to me you're doing some scraping of barrel bottom. No offense. :smile:

However, we know that the authorities did not ignore Jesus.

I would suggest that might be because they found out from the first incident recorded in Mark 2 that snubbing didn't work and that action was needed to keep people from following Jesus.

This is consistent with Richard Rohrbaugh's statement that he is aware of no such evidence.

Heh heh, Herzog vs. Rohrbaugh? One's assuredness versus the other's "I don't know"? Your call.

But at least you get to keep your stack on my generosity. :thumb:

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
It is not at all supported by Herzog, in my opinion. Herzog makes a claim that the scribes were snubbing Jesus, but there seems to be zero evidence of that.

JP HOLDING
Hey, you'll have to take that up with Herzog. Me, it seems clear. Jesus by healing the man was making an open challenge to the scribes, by stepping on their toes. In short, he invited response with his challenge.

JOE ALWARD
Yes, of course; Jesus invited response, but where is the evidence that the scribes did not respond?

As Richard Rohrbaugh said in his post, "One would like to see evidence." Without evidence that the scribes snubbed Jesus in the healing of the paralytic, we should not assume that they snubbed him, especially given all of the other examples of the authorities NOT snubbing Jesus. If you wish to propose that they didn't snub him this time because, as you suggest, they saw that snubbing didn't work in the other cases, where is your evidence of this? Where is the evidence that they gave up on what you believe was a failed earlier strategy, or even that they ever had such a strategy?

Given that there are many examples of the authorities not snubbing Jesus, and further that the Bible does NOT say that the scribes failed to respond to Jesus in the incident of the paralytic, why do you believe that the scribes snubbed Jesus?

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

Yes, of course; Jesus invited response, but where is the evidence that the scribes did not respond?

The simple fact that they didn't and that they talked amongst themselves instead of responding to the challenge. If you wanna say that they did respond but Mark and Matt left it unrecorded -- well, ya admit then that the data as it stands does support Herzog.

, as you suggest, they saw that snubbing didn't work in the other cases, where is your evidence of this? Where is the

Isn't this just common sense and historical detective work?

You can pit Herzog vs Rohrbaugh if ya like, but be careful. Herzog's book is endorsed on the back by Rohrbaugh's co-writer Malina.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Yes, of course; Jesus invited response, but where is the evidence that the scribes did not respond?

JP HOLDING
The simple fact that they didn't and that they talked amongst themselves instead of responding to the challenge. If you wanna say that they did respond but Mark and Matt left it unrecorded -- well, ya admit then that the data as it stands does support Herzog.

JOE ALWARD
The data as it stands does not support Herzog, does it? None of the authors say the scribes remained silent. Thus, the most one can say is that the Bible does not refute Herzog. However, if this were the standard for the acceptance of a claim by a historian, then another historian could claim that just as in all of the other examples where the authorities challenged Jesus, we may assume they did so in the case of the paralytic. If silence on the part of the gospel writers can be used to argue that perhaps the scribes were snubbing Jesus, then silence can equally well be used to argue that perhaps the scribes were vociferously arguing with Jesus, just as the authorities had done on other occasions.

Given that the biblical record shows that the authorities were quite willing to confront Jesus, and the fact that the Bible does not say the scribes were silent in the paralytic incident, we have no basis to conclude, as Herzog does, that the scribes snubbed Jesus.

As for Rohrbaugh's colleague, Bruce Malina, endorsing Herzog's book, we don't have to assume that Malina accepts every single one of Herzog's conclusions, do we?

In conclusion, it seems to me that Malina's conclusion that the scribes were attempting to shame Jesus by snubbing him is based on pure speculation. Where is his evidence? He cannot know what was in the minds of the scribes, and nowhere do the gospel writers say or imply that the scribes never spoke to Jesus. Since the authorities on at least three other occasions challenged Jesus, we should not be quick to assume without evidence that the scribes broke with the common practice and decided not to challenge Jesus.
.................................................................................................
Note added: JP, I have put a summary of my analysis of Herzog's conclusion on the web page at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Shaming_Jesus.htm
................................................................................................

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

One favor to ask first, would it break your heart if I combined responses on this thread and the other we were doing? It would help me manage my time better.

I should have Suey read fully by tomorrow.

The data as it stands does not support Herzog, does it? None of the authors say the scribes remained silent.

Now Doc, that's a bit of a strecth. The lack of response to Jesus, and that what they said (or thought) IS recorded, and that Jesus responds TO that, doesn't leave much room for conversation in between, does it?

As for Rohrbaugh's colleague, Bruce Malina, endorsing Herzog's book, we don't have to assume that Malina accepts every single one of Herzog's conclusions, do we?

Nope, but ya better have ducks in a row before assuming too much. :brow:

nowhere do the gospel writers say or imply that the scribes never spoke to Jesus.

They don't say they made animal balloons for him either. :brow: Or booed, or hissed, or threw tomatoes, or got up and walked up to the podium to bop him on the nose. You need a contextual reason for them to speak, Doc, and on that, you and Herzog are even on the surface, but he has advantage with the social sciences background and with the text itself in terms of what is explicitly stated.

Tell ya what.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

Can you insert a hypothetical conversation in where you think it happened?

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
You need a contextual reason for them to speak, Doc, and on that, you and Herzog are even on the surface, but he has advantage with the social sciences background and with the text itself in terms of what is explicitly stated.

JOE ALWARD

The text does not explicitly state the scribes were silent, and even if it did state that the scribes were silent, there is no explicit statement, or even an inference, that the silence was intended to shame Jesus.

The gospel stories provide the context for the scribes to speak. On multiple occasions, the authorities went out of their way to actively engage Jesus, to challenge him with their questions. Thus, the context within which we should view Jesus and the authorities is one in which there was active engagement between Jesus and the authorities: They challenged him with their questions, and he delivered his stunning ripostes. There's no room for silence in these situations, unless it is the silence caused by becoming dumbfounded by Jesus' brilliant ripostes.

Now, it is possible that the scribes in the incident of the paralytic never spoke to Jesus, even though the Markan and Matthean authors do not say so. However, it is equally well possible that because the scribes were amazed by Jesus' healing, and his apparent apostasy, and by his clever questions, that their stuttered and embarassed responses to Jesus went unrecorded by the authors because they were of no consequence. The gospel authors, after all, did not report every word people spoke to Jesus, as you pointed out before; stationary supplies were in short supply, you noted.

Now, the central question is whether the scribes were silent toward Jesus because they were trying to shame him. Assume for the moment that the scribes WERE silent. Is it really possible to know that they were silent not because they were dumbfounded and couldn't think of something clever to say, but because they wanted to shame Jesus? How does Herzog know it was not the former, but the latter? If it is his social science background that allows him to reach this conclusion, should he not at least explain how he ruled out the possibility that the scribes were struck dumb by Jesus' clever riposte?

Furthermore, Herzog's claim that the scribes were silent for the purpose of shaming Jesus goes against much evidence that silence for the purpose of shaming Jesus was simply not practiced. I pointed to three examples in a previous post where the authorities went out of their way to actively engage Jesus, to question him. Such active questioning could hardly be confused with silence. Given that the authors do not say that the scribes were attempting to shame Jesus by their silence, how can Herzog conclude that that is what they were doing? How can he conclude without evidence that the scribes were breaking with the standard practice of all the other authorities, which was to actively question Jesus?

Perhaps you will find in his text, or in the Bible, evidence that refutes my argument that the practice of that time was to actively question Jesus. Perhaps also there is evidence which shows that silence was used elsewhere to shame Jesus. But, if such evidence does not exist, why should we conclude that the scribes were attempting to shame Jesus with their silence?

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

I won't have Suey done until Monday. I had a request to fulfill a deadline for a magazine article when I came home today.

The text does not explicitly state the scribes were silent

But it DOES explicitly state that they were silent TOWARDS Jesus. They did not address him, in mind or in voice.

The gospel stories provide the context for the scribes to speak.

! -- now Doc, that's a stretch, too. You may as well say that the story of the healing of the leper provides a "context" whereby we can say Jesus also healed a leper when he healed the guy on the mat. I know if I said something like that, Till would lower a boom or two on me.

However, it is equally well possible that because the scribes were amazed by Jesus' healing, and his apparent apostasy, and by his clever questions, that their stuttered and embarassed

The tone of what they do say/think doesn't support that, does it?

The gospel authors, after all, did not report every word people spoke to Jesus, as you pointed out before; stationary supplies were in short supply, you noted.

And do you agree with me on that point? :smile: Even if you do, you're not giving me a contextual reason within the pericope to agree with your main point. Moreover, if what they said WAS of little consequence, then obviously Matt and Mark wanted to highlight what clearly IS a snub and considered that the key event in the whole panorama.

If it is his social science background that allows him to reach this conclusion, should he not at least explain how he ruled out the possibility that the scribes were struck dumb by Jesus' clever riposte?

Not by my book, but the indications are:

1) No sign they are amazed -- not until maybe v. 12, after the healing, if they are part of the "all".
2) The snub happened BEFORE the riposte Jesus put out but AFTER his implicit challenge to the temple authority by his offer to heal.

silence for the purpose of shaming Jesus was simply not practiced.

As I said, Doc, those are all later in the game. You were silent to someone beneath your dignity, but by the time of those later stories, Jesus had gained fame and honor that put him (in the people's eyes) at or above the level of his opponents. Silence (selective or otherwise) at that point was a non-option.

Have a good 4th.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The text does not explicitly state the scribes were silent

JP HOLDING
But it DOES explicitly state that they were silent TOWARDS Jesus.

JOE ALWARD
I believe you're mistaken. There's nothing even remotely like an explicit statement by the Matthean or the Markan authors that the scribes were silent toward Jesus.

Here is the text:

1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking (or, "saying," Matthew 9:3) to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

So, you see, all the authors report is that the scribes said or thought something to themselves. There is no statement to the effect that the scribes did not also say something to Jesus, too.

Thus, the conclusion that Herzog reaches seems to be based not on an explicit statement, but on pure speculation. There is zero evidence that the scribes said nothing to Jesus. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the scribes in their amazement might indeed have stuttered embarrassed comments at Jesus because they couldn't figure out how to respond to his brilliant riposte, and their utterances were too inconsequential or ineffective for the authors to waste ink and papyrus on? How does Herzog KNOW that this did not happen? How do you know this didn't happen?

JOE ALWARD
However, it is equally well possible that because the scribes were amazed by Jesus' healing, and his apparent apostasy, and by his clever questions, that their stuttered and embarassed responses to Jesus went unrecorded by the authors because they were of no consequence.

JP HOLDING
The tone of what they do say/think doesn't support that, does it?

JOE ALWARD
At the time the scribes spoke to themselves in Verse 3, they were not yet amazed by Jesus, for the paralytic had not yet gotten up in Verse 12, and Jesus had not yet demonstrated he could read their thoughts in Verse 8, and Jesus had not yet launched his brilliant riposte in Verses 9 and 10. Thus, it was AFTER these things had happened that the scribes might have offered their weak and embarrassed responses, responses that were not worth reporting by the authors.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

Still not done with Suey; I had another project hop in on me. But so far Suey is kissing up to Tiberius, which may make it moot as to whether he'd try to embarrass him with the Herod incident.

I believe you're mistaken. There's nothing even remotely like an explicit statement by the Matthean or the Markan authors that the scribes were silent toward Jesus.

But Doc, there's no room in the conversation recorded for any other chatter between them. Jesus responds DIRECTLY to their comments (or thoughts) among THEMSELVES. That's as explicit as one can get without hanging extra verbiage. You may as well offer that Jesus sang karaoke between the lines. :smile:

Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the scribes in their amazement might indeed have stuttered embarrassed comments at Jesus because they couldn't figure out how to respond to his brilliant riposte,

Heck, they'd be pretty stupid then, Doc. :smile: If they didn't have a worthwhile reply they'd heap more shame on themselves than if they kept their mouths shut.

They'd have got more honor by singing karaoke. :rofl:

[lonigan]

Please let me know what this long discussion of the paralytic
is supposed to prove. Was Herzog already convinced that silence
was an accepted practice to insult opponents and was offering
this case of the scribes as another example of that practice? If so, what evidence had convinced Herzog that this practice of silence existed? On the other hand, is Herzog using this case of
the scribes to help establish that the practice of silence existed?

Whether or not a practice of silence existed, it seems to me
that it is unsupported from Matthew that the scribes were
putting that practice into use in this case. The text says that
certain of the scribes began talking among themselves, but that
information allows that there were other scribes who were not
talking among themselves. As Joe rightfully indicated, the
scribes who were talking among themselves before Jesus spoke to them may have been trying to decide how to address Jesus or the crowd and were caught unexpectedly by Jesus's statements.
Other quite possible explanations for the actions of some of
the scribes are:

(1) The scribes were terrorized to speak against Jesus's actions
by the multitudes who seemed to be marveled by what they
had just seen.
(2) The scribes were unable to be heard over the roars of the
multitudes and therefore decided to speak among
themselves.

I'm not sure JP should be so eager to try to establish silence
as a social paradigm to insult ones opponents. If such a
practice really prevailed, then "The Impossible Faith" perhaps
becomes "The not at all Impossible Faith." If Christianity would
have originally seemed repugnant to converts, then the natural
response would have been silence. There would hardly have
been any incentive to check out the claims of the evangelists. On
the other hand, those who converted did not find Christianity
repugnant or deserving of the silent treatment.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The text does not explicitly state the scribes were silent

JP HOLDING
But it DOES explicitly state that they were silent TOWARDS Jesus.

JOE ALWARD
I believe you're mistaken. There's nothing even remotely like an explicit statement by the Matthean or the Markan authors that the scribes were silent toward Jesus.

JP HOLDING
But Doc, there's no room in the conversation recorded for any other chatter between them. Jesus responds DIRECTLY to their comments (or thoughts) among THEMSELVES. That's as explicit as one can get without hanging extra verbiage.

JOE ALWARD
You said that the text explicitly states that the scribes were silent toward Jesus. There is no such explicit statement, is there? The text quite explicitly says that the scribes said something to themselves, but it does not explicitly say that the scribes said nothing to Jesus. Reporting only that the scribes spoke to themselves is not the same as reporting that the scribes spoke only to themselves.

Ionigan, welcome to the discussion. You have made a very good point (among several others) about the scribes: The author says that SOME of the teachers spoke among themselves:


Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, saying to themselves, (Matthew 9:3)

Thus, not only are we not explicitly told that these teachers spoke nothing to Jesus, but we are told nothing about what the other teachers may have said that the author considered inconsequential and therefore did not report. It seems quite daring of Herzog to jump from the fact that some of the scribes talked among themselves to the conclusion that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus with their silence. As I noted more than once in previous posts, the Bible is filled with examples of the temple authories actively engaging Jesus with their questioning. What is it that Herzog sees in this encounter to convince him that the scribes were not engaged in the same type of interaction with Jesus that is reported everywhere else?

Herzog gets the part about the shaming correct, but he blows the parts about the silence, in my opinion. Of course, the scribes would have loved to shame Jesus, but there is zero evidence that they were trying to do so with silence.

[jpholding]

Lonigan,

Please let me know what this long discussion of the paralytic
is supposed to prove. Was Herzog already convinced that silence
was an accepted practice to insult opponents and was offering
this case of the scribes as another example of that practice?

Yes, because as one educated in social anthropology, he knew that silence was used thusly in the cultures under study.

but that
information allows that there were other scribes who were not
talking among themselves.

That may be so, but it was not those scribes to whom Jesus addressed his next words. Thus the point that there is no room for more conversation is relevant.

(1) The scribes were terrorized to speak against Jesus's actions
by the multitudes who seemed to be marveled by what they
had just seen.

Doubtful. Remember the silent treatment came BEFORE the marvel was done.

(2) The scribes were unable to be heard over the roars of the
multitudes and therefore decided to speak among
themselves.

What were they roaring at and why?

I'm not sure JP should be so eager to try to establish silence
as a social paradigm to insult ones opponents. If such a
practice really prevailed, then &quot;The Impossible Faith&quot; perhapsbecomes &quot;The not at all Impossible Faith.&quot;

How so? There is a vast difference between insulting someone and having to take social action against them. As I noted to Doc, the later responses of Pharisees and scribes shows the silence didn't work. They almost immediately turned to direct action.

If Christianity would
have originally seemed repugnant to converts, then the natural
response would have been silence.

It would indeed, until the faith got pestiferous enough. Then greater action was needed -- that would take only a few years. Of course you must recall that silence was far from the only way to insult an opponent.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

You said that the text explicitly states that the scribes were silent toward Jesus. There is no such explicit statement, is there?

Doc, the seamless conversation is as much as an explicit statement. There's no room for Jesus to say anything.

Ionigan, welcome to the discussion. You have made a very good point (among several others) about the scribes: The author says that SOME of the teachers spoke among themselves:

I got no problem with other scribes being there, but that's not who Jesus interacted with. Plus I'm not sure you can assume that the set of scribes of which these were "some" has to mean "of those in the synagogue" -- why not, "some" of those who were in town, or in Galilee, or in the profession?

It seems quite daring of Herzog to jump from the fact that some of the scribes talked among themselves to the conclusion

Has he answered your letter yet?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
You said that the text explicitly states that the scribes were silent toward Jesus. There is no such explicit statement, is there?

JP HOLDING

Doc, the seamless conversation is as much as an explicit statement. There's no room for Jesus to say anything.

JOE ALWARD
I don't know what you mean by "the seamless conversation." The authors do not report a conversation; they only report what Jesus said. I also don't know why you say that there's no room for Jesus to say anything. You must mean there's no room for the scribes to say anything to Jesus?

I'll assume that you meant the latter.

Why do you believe there's no room for the scribes to say anything to Jesus? Room is quite easily found for comments directed by the scribes toward Jesus. In the boldface below I suggest just one plausible response the scribes might have directed toward Jesus:


6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10a But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."

10b Now the teachers of the law angrily said to Jesus, "How can you talk like that? Only God can forgive sins! You're blaspheming!"

Jesus said nothing to them and turned to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:6-12)

Since the essence of the suggested bold-faced comments would have been expressed earlier in Verse 7, the Markan author may have not bothered to repeat the scribes' sentiments, especially given that space requirements on papyrus may have been a consideration.

How can you, or Herzog, KNOW that the scribes didn't make such an exclamation toward Jesus?


JOE ALWARD
It seems quite daring of Herzog to jump from the fact that some of the scribes talked among themselves to the conclusion that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus with their silence.

JP HOLDING
Has he answered your letter yet?

JOE ALWARD
Weeks ago I sent him an email, and getting no response I emailed Bexley Hall, and got no response. I called Bexley Hall twice and left messages with the secretary on her answering machine, but no one has called back. I think he might be away for the summer. I will try again to contact him. It is interesting to note, however, that I have been in contact with Bruce Malina in regards to other matters, but he has not yet accepted my invitation to express his views on Herzog's conclusion. It was a week ago that I last contacted him, and he has not yet responded.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

I don't know what you mean by &quot;the seamless conversation.&quot; The authors do not report a conversation; they only report what Jesus said.

In other words, what Jesus did, what the scribes said to themselves, what Jesus said back to what they said -- is all a sensible and seamless conversation. One step follows another naturally and directly with no room for extras. Like this?

"Hello."
"Hello."
"How are you?"
"I'm fine."

You can speculate endlessly that maybe in between all of this there was all kinds of talk, but the conversation as it is, is seamless, and moves along with no room for extras. There's no reason to insert them at all.

In the boldface below I suggest just one plausible response the scribes might have directed toward Jesus:

It's quite plausible as a conversation, but do you have any reason to add it?

Weeks ago I sent him an email, and getting no response I emailed Bexley Hall, and got no response. I called Bexley Hall

Now who is Bexley Hall? I'm too lazy too look it up. :smile:

Malina in regards to other matters, but he has not yet accepted my invitation to express his views on Herzog's conclusion. It was a week ago that I last contacted him, and he has not yet responded.

I think he's a busy guy. I once emailed him and he never responded.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Why do you believe there's no room for the scribes to say anything to Jesus? Room is quite easily found for comments directed by the scribes toward Jesus. In the boldface below I suggest just one plausible response the scribes might have directed toward Jesus:



“ 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10a But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."

10b Now the teachers of the law angrily said to Jesus, "How can you talk like that? Only God can forgive sins! You're blaspheming!"

Jesus said nothing to them and turned to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:6-12) ”

JP HOLDING
It's quite plausible as a conversation, but do you have any reason to add it?

JOE ALWARD
There IS no reason for the author to have added it to his account. That's the whole point. Since the author had already explained to the readers what the sentiment of the scribes was, there was no reason to repeat it. The Markan author told us that the scribes thought (or said to themselves) that Jesus was blaspheming, and that only God can forgive sins. There would have been no good reason to add to his account the fact that the scribes said to Jesus the same thing they had been thinking.

If you cannot rule out the possibility--indeed, you call it plausible--that the scribes spoke to Jesus, then there is no grounds for assuming that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus with silence.

Now, I just got off the phone with Bill Herzog, who finally returned my call. He had been busy with his son's graduation these past two weeks, and had not had time to respond to emails.

Bill says that he has no idea why one would conclude from his book that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus with silence. He agrees with me that the Markan and Matthean accounts allow for the scribes to have spoken to Jesus, and given the many examples of the temple authorities actively engaging Jesus, the notion that the scribes in this case spoke to Jesus seems quite reasonable.

Where the confusion may have come in, he says, is in his use of the word "snubbing." By this he means that the scribes were actively seeking to widen the social gap between the temple authorities and Jesus. They were attacking Jesus by minimizing him with their comments to one another, and perhaps to the crowd as well, who would have overhead their comments: Look, they said, this man claims to be able to do what only God can do. He's blaspheming. He's not worthy of attention.

Herzog tells me that he intended no implication that the scribes were silent toward Jesus, or that the scribes were attempting to shame Jesus with silence.

This should settle the matter, in my opinion. Your claim that there was evidence in Herzog's book in the matter of the withered hand that the authorities tried to dishonor Jesus with silence was shown not to be true, and your claim that Herzog was stating in the matter of the paralytic that the scribes were shaming Jesus with silence is a notion he completely rejects.

Thus, we seem to be back to where we were weeks ago: Where is the evidence in the literature of the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you claim existed in the first century? About the evidence of such a thing, Richard Rohrbaugh, co-author of Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, told me, "I am aware of none." He's been in the field for decades, as you noted, so if anyone would be aware of such evidence, he would. Furthermore, when I described to Bill Herzog your suggestion (I gave no names) that Domitian may have encouraged Josephus to remain silent toward Jesus as a way of dishonoring Jesus and his movement, he immediately dismissed it.

[lonigan]

Lonigan
Please let me know what this long discussion of the paralytic
is supposed to prove. Was Herzog already convinced that silence
was an accepted practice to insult opponents and was offering
this case of the scribes as another example of that practice?

JP
Yes, because as one educated in social anthropology, he knew that silence was used thusly in the cultures under study.

Lonigan

My question was intended to determine how Herzog came to characterize the paralytic story as an example of insulting by silence. Is Herzog an originator of the theory and was he applying one of his own theories or was he applying an existing theory?

Let me insert the response from Rohrbaugh.

“I am not familiar with this social paradigm as such. I suppose one could argue it as a plausible supposition, but one would like to see evidence. I know of none....I am not familiar with any ancient author explicitly doing what your colleague suggests.”

A theory of insulting by silence should have been presented by the originator(s) to peer review. Judging by the Rohrbaugh remark above, no peer review has been done. Certainly, Rohrbaugh should know of the insult by silence theory if such a theory had been submitted to peer review. We will have to await the responses From Hall and Malina to get a better handle on this issue. JP, you seem to be one down, but may still get a majority rule in your favor once Hall and Malina respond.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lonigan
but that information allows that there were other scribes who were not
talking among themselves.

JP
That may be so, but it was not those scribes to whom Jesus addressed his next words. Thus the point that there is no room for more conversation is relevant.

Lonigan
Maybe there was no other conversation to scribes, but the possibility is not eliminated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lonigan
(1) The scribes were terrorized to speak against Jesus's actions by the multitudes who seemed to be marveled by what they had just seen.

JP
Doubtful. Remember the silent treatment came BEFORE the marvel was done.

Lonigan
The text describes Jesus’ actions as witnessed to by multitudes. The marvel is described as occurring
after the scribes spoke among themselves, but the multitudes were probably originally gathered to be in the presence of someone they deeply admired. Most likely, the scribes could understand even before speaking among themselves that the multitudes would be hostile to any challenge to Jesus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lonigan
(2) The scribes were unable to be heard over the roars of the multitudes and therefore decided to speak among themselves.

JP
What were they roaring at and why?

Lonigan
Since the multitudes were probably admirers of Jesus, it is likely that excited talk among themselves was probably taking place.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Lonigan
If Christianity would have originally seemed repugnant to converts, then the natural
response would have been silence.

JP
It would indeed, until the faith got pestiferous enough. Then greater action was needed -- that would take only a few years. Of course you must recall that silence was far from the only way to insult an opponent.

Lonigan
You seem to be making many assumptions about when the faith got pestiferous enough to require
greater action. From what I have read, it should have taken decades before Christianity would have posed a genuine risk to anyone else. I do not wish take this discussion far off course. It might be better to ponder the impact of insult by silence to the spread of Christianity in your current debate with Kyle. I was only offering my observation that insult by silence is another way to explain why
the spread of Christianity would not have had the resistance that you seem to assume.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

There IS no reason for the author to have added it to his account.

But what I'm asking is, what reason do YOU have to see that behind the scenes. Not why the author might not add it, but why YOU think something like that happened.

If you cannot rule out the possibility--indeed, you call it plausible--that the scribes spoke to Jesus, then there is no

I can only agree if you satsify a positive burden for showing why we ought to think that such talking was in the background.

Where the confusion may have come in, he says, is in his use of the word &quot;snubbing.&quot; By this he means that the scribes were actively seeking to widen the social gap between the temple authorities and Jesus.

Well, Doc, I think you may have overstated my argument a bit, if that's the way you put it. What he said, that you report here, is more or less my position. I still have his book and he explicitly says, "It is an effort to shame Jesus that reflects the scribes' conviction that Jesus os too far below them socially to engage in a debate. Shaming by snubbing is their strategy." (130) Keep in mind that after we hashed out our ideas I argued (see page 10 of this thread) for more of a "directed" silence/ignorance and not absolute silence. So what it looks like is, Herzog allowed for your hypothesis of more interchange, but still agreed with me about the tactic being used.

Furthermore, when I described to Bill Herzog your suggestion (I gave no names) that Domitian may have encouraged Josephus to remain silent toward Jesus as a way of dishonoring Jesus and his movement, he immediately dismissed it.

Here again you may or may not have overstated my case, I am sure not intentionally if so. How about withholding reportage of miracles, et al. as a way of snubbing Jesus and the movement? (On p. 10 of this thread, again, I suggested that it was not a way of dishonoring so much as a way of not imputing any honor.)

It was nice of him to talk to you like that. That's a rare breed.

[jpholding]

Lonigan,

My question was intended to determine how Herzog came to characterize the paralytic story as an example of insulting by silence. Is Herzog an originator of the theory and was he applying one of his own theories or was he applying an existing theory?

He wouldn't be an originator, no. For more on this see what Doc and I are discussing now.

JP, you seem to be one down, but may still get a majority rule in your favor once Hall and Malina respond.

Well, Doc and I may be inadvertantly talking past each other here. :smile:

Maybe there was no other conversation to scribes, but the possibility is not eliminated.

I would maintain nevertheless as I have with Doc that we need a positive reason to include it. But even so, based on what Herzog told him, it may not matter.

The text describes Jesus’ actions as witnessed to by multitudes.

Sigh, beg pardon. I mixed this up with another account again.

You seem to be making many assumptions about when the faith got pestiferous enough to require
greater action. From what I have read, it should have taken decades before Christianity would have posed a genuine risk to anyone else.

How do we define "risk" here? Are there not levels of risk (local and on up) that can engender a reaction? Alexander the smith, who made little silver shrines, seemed to have his own problem with the faith fairly quickly!

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
So what it looks like is, Herzog allowed for your hypothesis of more interchange, but still agreed with me about the tactic being used.

JOE ALWARD
Herzog only agrees with what everybody has known all along, namely, that temple authorities were using the tactic of shaming Jesus. This has never been in dispute. The scribes obviously hoped to disgrace Jesus, and you and I have never disagreed about that. Attempts to disgrace Jesus were made in every single encounter between the authorities and Jesus, including in the healing of the paralytic.

The only reason we're talking about the paralytic incident is that you claimed that Herzog's comments on the paralytic supported your view in that dishonoring by silence was a social paradigm in the first century. You have been arguing that Herzog supported your view that (1) the scribes were silent toward Jesus, and (2) that they were silent toward him as a way of shaming him. These two points have been for about two weeks the main points of contention between you and me.

Herzog disagrees with you on both counts:

(1) Herzog states that he did not intend for anyone to believe that the scribes were silent toward Jesus, and he furthermore states that it is quite reasonable to believe that the scribes may have spoken to Jesus in the manner I've suggested. Thus, he sees no reason to conclude the scribes did not speak to Jesus, as you have been claiming must have been the case. Thus, Herzog does not support your view that the scribes did not speak to Jesus.

(2) Herzog further states that he does not understand why anyone could conclude from his work that the scribes were attempting to shame Jesus by not speaking to him.

Thus, Herzog denies the two main claims you have been making.

Thus, while is is certainly true that the temple authorities in the case of the paralytic, and in every other single encounter with Jesus, were using the tactic of attempting to shame Jesus, we find zero evidence from Herzog of the existence of the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence. This is supported by Rorhbaugh, who said in regard to the existence evidence of this paradigm, "I know of none."

Unless you have evidence from at least one social scientist, anthropologist, or historian that such a social paradigm existed in the first century, we should not conclude that such existed, should we?

JOE ALWARD
If you cannot rule out the possibility--indeed, you call it plausible--that the scribes spoke to Jesus, then there is no grounds for assuming that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus with silence.

JP HOLDING
I can only agree if you satsify a positive burden for showing why we ought to think that such talking was in the background.

JOE ALWARD
Oh, but I am NOT saying we ought to think that the scribes spoke to Jesus. I am only explaining that it is plausible that they DID speak to Jesus, but that we don't know one way or the other. Likewise, it is plausible that the scribes in fact did NOT speak to Jesus, as you have been claiming, but we don't know one way or the other. If we don't know one way or the other whether the scribes spoke to Jesus, how can anyone conclude that the scribes wanted to shame Jesus by not speaking to him? Herzog certainly doesn't conclude this. How can you?

[jpholding]

Heay Doc,

The only reason we're talking about the paralytic incident is that you claimed that Herzog's comments on the paralytic supported your view in that dishonoring by silence was a social paradigm in the first century. You have been arguing that Herzog supported your view that (1) the scribes were silent toward Jesus, and (2) that they were silent toward him as a way of shaming him. These two points have been for about two weeks the main points of contention between you and me.

Well, Doc, I could go over this thread and check, but my recollection is that I was arguing for silence as either a method to dishonor OR a method to withhold/not impute honor. I am happy with either being what is done here or in Josephus. I'm also quite happy with it being "directed" silence (what Herzog called "snubbing") and my position can also withstand that they spoke to Jesus later, AFTER the snub, since the principle remains intact. I can give a little and still earn my way. A social paradigm of snubbing by ignoring is just as good for me as one of dishonoring by silence. In fact I'd consider the latter a potential subset of the former.

Oh, but I am NOT saying we ought to think that the scribes spoke to Jesus. I am only explaining that it is plausible that they DID speak to Jesus, but that we don't know one way or the other.

OK, well, then you acknowledge that you have no *positive* evidence and the data as it stands does not support your contention. In any event if they even snubbed him with ignorance/silence for any part of the time, I think I still have a plus for my own case that Josephus (BTW, not necessarily at direct instruction from Dommy) said as little about the movement as possible as a snub.

As an aside, did Herzog give any suggestion as to why he thinks Josephus said nothing about the miracles, etc.?

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I'm also quite happy with it being "directed" silence (what Herzog called "snubbing") and my position can also withstand that they spoke to Jesus later, AFTER the snub, since the principle remains intact.

JOE ALWARD
I believe you have it got it wrong. Nobody but you is saying that Herzog's "snubbing" was "directed" silence. Herzog does not say in his book that the scribes were directing silence at Jesus, and more importantly, he told me he does NOT believe that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus by not speaking to him, as you have been claiming.

Herzog told me that "snubbing" to him means that the scribes were trying to insult Jesus by saying bad things about him to one another, and possibly to the crowd, not that they were ignoring him.

Herzog's "snubbing" is the type described in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

snubbing:

To check, stop, or rebuke, with a tart, sarcastic reply or remark; to reprimand;


Rebuking Jesus is EXACTLY what I have been arguing for weeks that one could expect from those who would wish to minimize Jesus', or his followers', influence. Thus, you seem here only to be confirming what I have been saying all along: that those who have something to lose from the Jesus movement would actively seek to shame him. Actively seeking to shame or insult Jesus is exactly what you would have expected from the temple authorities. It likewise is exactly what you would expect from Emperor Domitian, who would have noticed in the early nineties that Christians were diminishing his influence in one of his provinces, and thus would have had someone such as Josephus damn the memory of Jesus by criticizing Jesus, or his followers, in some way. The fact that Domitian obviously did not do this is strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in wide circulation even into the late first century, almost six decades after the miracles allegedly had occurred, and that indeed the movement was not burgeoning, as you said.

In summary, Herzog NEVER says or implies, nor does he believe, that the scribes were intending to shame Jesus before, during, or after the paralytic healing with a silence directed toward Jesus. He told me so in a telephone call. Thus, you find zero evidence in William Herzog's book, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, or from Herzog himself, for the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence that you said could be found in his book, and which you have been arguing for these past few weeks. Richard Rohrbaugh, co-author of Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, another author cited by you, told me that he not not aware of any evidence of the paradigm you describe. As you noted, he has had decades of experience in this field, so if anyone would know of such evidence if it existed, he would. He is aware of none, and Herzog, whom you quoted as providing evidence which supported your position, told me that he does NOT support it.

JP HOLDING
As an aside, did Herzog give any suggestion as to why he thinks Josephus said nothing about the miracles, etc.?

JOE ALWARD
No, but he did say that he rejects the notion that Domitian would have urged Josephus to remain silent about Jesus.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

This will sound short -- I have thunderstorms heading my way.

I believe you have it got it wrong. Nobody but you is saying that Herzog's &quot;snubbing&quot; was &quot;directed&quot; silence.

Doc, what Herzog calls snubbing is what *I* call "directed silence".

Herzog told me that &quot;snubbing&quot; to him means that the scribes were trying to insult Jesus by saying bad things about him to one another, and possibly to the crowd, not that they were ignoring him.

In other words, they were not talking to HIM. This is what I call directed silence.

Rebuking Jesus is EXACTLY what I have been arguing for weeks that one could expect from those who would wish to minimize

If you allow that "rebuking" does not require a person to talk directly to another, then we are not as far apart as we think.

re·buke
1. To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2. To check or repress

To me this seems to require direct involvement to the "rebukee", at least 1 does. But 2 does not, and if that's what you mean, we've been in agreement on this point.

that those who have something to lose from the Jesus movement would actively seek to shame him.

And so we do go back to that -- I think that Josephus WOULD have something to lose if he gave too much notice to Jesus -- his head! Giving space to a rival of the Roman Emperorship, one who some held to be the foretold Messiah, as I think I have said, seems to me enough reason for him to skip out on giving Jesus credence as a miracle worker by detailing the stories (assuming he thought they were true, which I also doubt).

No, but he did say that he rejects the notion that Domitian would have urged Josephus to remain silent about Jesus.

Suits me, Doc. I think Josephus more likely would have remained quiet of his own accord. Dommy the Fly Killer seems more indifferent and unknowing to me.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I'm also quite happy with it being "directed" silence (what Herzog called "snubbing") and my position can also withstand that they spoke to Jesus later, AFTER the snub, since the principle remains intact.

JOE ALWARD
I believe you have it got it wrong. Nobody but you is saying that Herzog's "snubbing" was "directed" silence.

JP HOLDING
Doc, what Herzog calls snubbing is what *I* call "directed silence".

JOE ALWARD
You told me on June 27 that William R. Herzog II, author of Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, concluded on the basis of his social science background that Jesus' accusers did not interact with Jesus in any way, and since that time I've been seeking to confirm that that was indeed Herzog's conclusion. Thus, I believe that what really matters what Herzog says the word means to him, not what the word means to you.

Bill Herzog told me that he was using that word in the sense of insulting Jesus by speaking derogatory things about him. He furthermore stated that he does not conclude that the scribes were intending to dishonor Jesus by not speaking to him, and that it is quite plausible that the scribes were indeed interacting with Jesus. Thus, while you may believe that the scribes were trying to dishonor Jesus by not speaking to him, Herzog does not. Thus, it is not true that Herzog concluded that the scribes were not interacting with Jesus in any way, as you claimed. He told me so.

Do you now agree that you cannot point to Herzog as a social scientist who believes with you that there existed in the first century the dishonoring by silence social paradigm that you described? If so, then this will end the debate within a debate we've been having over Herzog these past two weeks. Perhaps then we can turn our attention to your interpretation of the paralytic incident, if you wish.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

I believe you have it got it wrong. Nobody but you is saying that Herzog's &quot;snubbing&quot; was &quot;directed&quot; silence.

I'm aware of that, Doc, and that is what I've been saying. "Directed silence" is my own term for what Herzog described.

his social science background that Jesus' accusers did not interact with Jesus in any way, and since that time I've been seeking to confirm that that was indeed Herzog's conclusion.

Shrug. In his book he says nothing about the accusers interacting at all; what am I supposed to say, then? You had to ask him to get his further opinion, did you not? In the end what else may have been said doesn't affect my point as long as at SOME point they snubbed Jesus by addressing others as though he were a non-entity. As Herzog puts it: "It is an effort to shame Jesus that reflects the scribes' conviction that Jesus is too far below them socially to engage in a debate." [130] They talk "without acknowledging Jesus' presence."

Thus, I believe that what really matters what Herzog says the word means to him, not what the word means to you.

What word means what to him? The one I use for my own description? :smile:

Bill Herzog told me that he was using that word in the sense of insulting Jesus by speaking derogatory things about him.

Well, Doc, I'll send you a photocopy of the page if you want and you tell me whether that's what you get from the text. How about it?

He furthermore stated that he does not conclude that the scribes were intending to dishonor Jesus by not speaking to him,

But remember, I also allowed that it was a way of *withholding* honor rather than giving dishonor. And he does clearly say that the snub was a means of shaming.

Do you now agree that you cannot point to Herzog as a social scientist who believes with you that there existed in the first century the dishonoring by silence social paradigm that you described?

Not exactly. I think my descriptions may have been imprecise by Herzog's standard, which is no shame for a popular format of argument. He does seem to agree that snubbing (what I call "directed silence") was a means of shaming and that's fine for my position AFAIC.

Move on as you please, Doc. :smile:

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
Herzog puts it: "It is an effort to shame Jesus that reflects the scribes' conviction that Jesus is too far below them socially to engage in a debate." [130] They talk "without acknowledging Jesus' presence."

JOE ALWARD
If this is all we had to go on, you would be quite right to suppose that Herzog believed that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus by not speaking to him. However, in my telephone conversation with him, Herzog did NOT support that view. He said that there was no way of knowing whether the scribes did or did not speak to Jesus. He furthermore stated that he thought that it was quite plausible that the scribes might have been actively engaged with Jesus, just as were the temple authorities in all of their other encounters with Jesus.

I can see why you might conclude from Herzog's words that he was supporting your view that the incident involving the paralytic provided evidence of the social paradigm of dishonoring by silence. I guess if there is any fault to be attached, it belongs to Herzog alone. He seemed convinced after listening to my argument--and before he presented his own to me--that there was no basis for concluding that the scribes did not speak to Jesus. He allowed that it seemed quite reasonable that the scribes may have shouted to Jesus the very things they earlier had either been thinking to themselves or saying to themselves: "How can you say that? Only God can forgive sins!" but that the author didn't bother to repeat the sentiments of the scribes.

What I get from all of this is that Herzog was either careless in his choice of words--for they surely could be interpreted in the manner you've been describing, or else he rashly concluded without good evidence that the scribes did not speak to Jesus. If the latter is the case, my telephone conversation makes it clear that he now no longer holds that view. It is not hard to see why he wouldn't hold that view, for there is zero evidence that the scribes didn't speak to Jesus, and ample reason to believe that they would have actively engaged Jesus, just as the temple authorities would do in all of their future encounters with Jesus.

What we can learn from this is that we must be very careful not to treat published authors, even those who are long trained in their field, with too much respect. It appears that what may have happened with Herzog--and I cannot be sure, of course, is that he was describing a "what if" situation. What if it were true that the scribes did not interact at all with Jesus? If that was the case, then perhaps it was because they wanted to send the message that their silence toward Jesus was an attempt to shame him. What Herzog left out of his analysis, of course, is the evidence by which one could conclude that the scribes did not in fact interact with Jesus. Herzog now knows that he omitted that evidence, and perhaps for good reason: It does not exist.

The bottom line is that Herzog won't support your view that the scribes were intending to dishonor Jesus by not interacting with him, no matter what his words might imply. This is not your fault, of course. As I said, the fault lies with Herzog.

Now, if you would like to advance an argument--separate from Herzog's, of course--that the Bible's description of the paralytic supports your view that dishonoring by silence was a social paradigm in the first century, I would be happy to show why I think it doesn't do that. Otherwise, we can move on to other matters.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

If this is all we had to go on, you would be quite right to suppose that Herzog believed that the scribes were trying to shame Jesus by not speaking to him. However, in my telephone

OK, so you're allowing that the conclusion I drew having nothing but the book at hand was justified. I wish I had the dough to call all the people whose works I read :smile: Anyway, as noted, I can accept what he said further within my argument.


I guess if there is any fault to be attached, it belongs to Herzog alone.

Heck Doc, I'd blame his publisher if anyone. Editors tend to chop stuff out that's important because they know no better, or else impose space restraints. I'm sure he would have liked to have said more. What he said to you sounds like an elaboration on &quot;what else may have happened&quot; rather than being different from what the book says. I don't see anything in the book that disagrees; it's just elucidation. The offer to send you a copy of the page stands if you want it. He also says of their silence to his challenge (v. 9) about what's easier to say (pick up your mat and walk, or sins are forgiven): "They are silent, a continuation of their strategy of shaming by ignoring." [130] But I wouldn't take that to exclude conversation later as it was only a moment in the strategy.

Now, if you would like to advance an argument--separate from Herzog's, of course--that the Bible's description of the paralytic supports your view that dishonoring by silence was a social paradigm in the first century, I would be happy to show why I think it doesn't do that. Otherwise, we can move on to other matters.

I'd rather steer back to the main issue of Dommy and Jospehus if you don't mind.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Now, if you would like to advance an argument--separate from Herzog's, of course--that the Bible's description of the paralytic supports your view that dishonoring by silence was a social paradigm in the first century, I would be happy to show why I think it doesn't do that. Otherwise, we can move on to other matters.

JP HOLDING
I'd rather steer back to the main issue of Dommy and Josephus if you don't mind.

JOE ALWARD
All right. Do you have any positive evidence that that Josephus would not have written about the alleged miracle workings Jesus Christ?

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

All right. Do you have any positive evidence that that Josephus would not have written about the alleged miracle workings Jesus Christ?

Well, Doc, I'm sure you know that short of getting Josephus' brain open, we have no real certainty. It boils down to these options I think:

1) They were either "out there" for him to know of, or not. You take the latter position.
2) He either had heard about them or he didn't. I think it is possible he didn't hear about them, because I think it's unlikely that a Gospel would circulate in his direction, being that they were written for believers. And in that light, if he lacked eyewitness testimony, he may have been hesitant to go into detail. All I suspect ever came to his ears was that Jesus was known to do miracles. Barring that, if he did hear about them specifically:
3) He either believed them or he didn't. I think as a whole he would have doubted them and been inclined to dismiss them, and therefore not report them. But he may have learned enough to allow that he had some ability to do magical stuff, which would allow him to say that he did "works" and not go into details. If he did believe them:
4) He either could or could not report them, and "could not" was of course the point of our past discussion.

Do you want to add anything to the above as possibilities?

Asking for "positive evidence" absent a direct comment from Josephus is really not possible. I doubt if we could say we have that for much of what historians from that time wrote.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I think it is possible he didn't hear about them, because I think it's unlikely that a Gospel would circulate in his direction, being that they were written for believers. [/B]

JOE ALWARD
Josephus would not have had to read the gospels to have learned about the alleged miracles. After all, the miracle stories, if they were true, would have been circulating orally for six decades before the time Josephus began to write his Antiquities of the Jews. How could he not have been made aware of what people had been saying for six decades about Jesus--the walking on water, the raising of the dead, the miraculous feedings of the five thousand and the four thousand, and his resurrection, and return witnessed by hundreds, if these events had really happened?

If Josephus would know and write about the comparatively insignificant man who said he was a prophet and could divide the waters (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 and Acts of the Apostles 5.36), how likely is it that Josephus would not know and write about the allegedly hugely significant man who did all of these things, if stories of these events really were in circulation in Josephus's time?

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

Josephus would not have had to read the gospels to have learned about the alleged miracles. After all, the miracle stories, if they were true, would have been circulating orally for six decades

Yeah, Doc, but among whom, and at what date? If you speak of people after 70 AD when he wrote, you have to account for a huge Jewish body count that stopped oral tradition in its tracks. I don't think there would be much left of Palestinian non-Christian oral tradition by that time, but who do you see carrying the oral tradition other than Christians?

the walking on water, the raising of the dead, the miraculous feedings of the five thousand and the four thousand, and his resurrection, and return witnessed by hundreds, if these events had really happened?

Other than the second I don't see any of these being carried by anyone outside the church. Just as a note to the above. And individual healings I don't see carried on by more than a few witnesses. You have maybe 30-40 with the man with the withered hand (some of those enemies who would sooner forget), for example. The feedings are probably a "best case" scenario for transmission, so how about we focus on that? How many people of that 5000 do you think:

1) Had ancestors who lived past 70 and the time of Josephus?
2) Carried on the tradition (with or without becoming believers)?

Of course they may have passed it on to other people beyond them, but I don't see those others passing it further not having been there -- not as sacred tradition worth preserving, anyway, unless they converted later.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Josephus would not have had to read the gospels to have learned about the alleged miracles. After all, the miracle stories, if they were true, would have been circulating orally for six decades before the time Josephus began to write his Antiquities of the Jews.

JP HOLDING
Yeah, Doc, but among whom, and at what date? If you speak of people after 70 AD when he wrote, you have to account for a huge Jewish body count that stopped oral tradition in its tracks. I don't think there would be much left of Palestinian non-Christian oral tradition by that time, but who do you see carrying the oral tradition other than Christians?

JOE ALWARD
Perhaps some Jews wouldn't have thought much of the miracle stories, but what evidence is there that the Jews prevented the spread of the stories among others? If there is none, then why shouldn't we suppose that the tales would have spread like wildfire, especially given that they provided evidence of the existence of the long-awaited Messiah? Also, don't forget that the oral traditional tales involving the garden obviously spread, allegedly, because the Adam and Eve passed them on to their sons, and their sons to their children, and so on. Thus, it doesn't take many people to propagate oral traditional tales to millions.

JOE ALWARD
How could he not have been made aware of what people had been saying for six decades about Jesus--the walking on water, the raising of the dead, the miraculous feedings of the five thousand and the four thousand, and his resurrection, and return witnessed by hundreds, if these events had really happened?

JP HOLDING
The feedings are probably a "best case" scenario for transmission, so how about we focus on that? How many people of that 5000 do you think:

1) Had ancestors who lived past 70 and the time of Josephus?
2) Carried on the tradition (with or without becoming believers)?

Of course they may have passed it on to other people beyond them, but I don't see those others passing it further not having been there -- not as sacred tradition worth preserving, anyway, unless they converted later.

JOE ALWARD
There is no need for Domitian or others of that time to have heard the tales first-hand from eye-witnesses to have taken notice and reported them. If you and nine thousand other people with you had witnessed the miracle of your lifetimes, you no doubt would have been talking about it to your children and your friends for the rest of your lifetime. How many Christians do you know who love telling their own special miracle stories, over and over again? So it would have been with the nine thousand who had witnessed the miracle of the feedings, in my opinion. Nine thousand is just too big a number too ignore. All of these witnesses would have repeated the story untold number of times to their children and friends, and the children, especially, would have told their children, and their children told their children. And most of them would have told their friends. After six decades, why wouldn't almost everyone in the region have heard about the miraculous feedings of the nine thousand? Hundreds of thousands would have heard the stories, if not millions. If Josephus would know and write about the comparatively insignificant claim by Theudas that he was a prophet and could divide the waters (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 and Acts of the Apostles 5.36), how likely is it that Josephus would not have known and written about the miraculous feedings witnessed by nine thousand people, unless they didn't happen?

The reason why Josephus didn't write about the feedings, in my opinion, is that the stories about them were not in circulation even late into the first century. The feeding stories, as you may know, have an extremely close parallel to the story of Elisha and his servant. The servant says to Elisha, We cannot feed all one hundred of these men, so Mark, or his oral traditional sources, had his disciples say to Jesus, We cannot feed all of the five thousand. Elisha says to the servant, Feed them anyway, so Mark had Jesus say to his disciples, Feed them anyway, too. The servant fed all of the men, with food left over, so Mark also had Jesus' disciples feed all of the five thousand, also with food left over. This very strong parallel suggests that Mark's tales of the miraculous feedings are fictional, and not in wide circulation even late into the first century. That's why Josephus and Domitian didn't know about them, in my opinion.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

This is just a bump for the thread. I have lightning outside and have to stop for the day. If you have time just do a bump also to keep this thread near the top. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc,

Weird! You didn't bump the thread but it was still on page one. Anyway the lightning went by way overhead today but I need to keep an eye out...

Perhaps some Jews wouldn't have thought much of the miracle stories, but what evidence is there that the Jews prevented the spread of the stories among others?

Direct? The one thing that comes to mind is where the opponents of Jesus attributed his miracles to Beelzebub. That's the sort of thing I envision -- to either stop the spread or else to influence the tint of the stories. Then we have the man born blind in John 9, taken in for questioning, which could be a scare tactic as well as due process.

Thus, it doesn't take many people to propagate oral traditional tales to millions.

It doesn't, no, but what opposition did Adam and Eve and the early people have? Come to think of it, if we allow that paradigm for the sake of discussion, you would then have to allow that obviously other cultures either distorted or forgot the stories (as Noah became Utnapishtim).

There is no need for Domitian or others of that time to have heard the tales first-hand from eye-witnesses to have taken notice and reported them. If you and nine thousand other people with you had witnessed the miracle of your lifetimes, you no doubt would have been talking about it to your children and your friends for the rest of your lifetime.

"No doubt"? I don't agree. There's too much ideology at stake and reasons for them to dismiss it after the fact: Jesus was a failed prophet. A failed Messiah. He was shamefully killed. He may have been a deceiver or a magician. That's why I say they would have to be either converts or perhaps neutrals to pass the story on. And there are other halting points -- I don't see this spreading past Judaea/Galilee/Samaria, for example.

How many Christians do you know who love telling their own special miracle stories, over and over again?

None, sorry. :smile:

Hundreds of thousands would have heard the stories, if not millions.

But Doc, how many people out of this were alive to tell Josephus? I'd like for you to give me a theoretical "chain of custody" for the story and explain why Josephus in particular would have considered it credible enough to report.

If Josephus would know and write about the comparatively insignificant claim by Theudas that he was a prophet and could divide the waters (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 and Acts of the Apostles 5.36), how likely is it that Josephus would not have known and written about the miraculous feedings witnessed by nine thousand people, unless they didn't happen?

The rub is I can allow that he heard of it, but hearing it an considering it credible enough to report are two different matters. Theudas' account also had the help of Roman witnesses Josephus could trust. Can you explain why he would trust Galileean peasants? This is why I want to know who you think would have told Josephus if the events were real.

The feeding stories, as you may know, have an extremely close parallel to the story of Elisha and his servant.

Yes, but I don't take that as meaning much. Glenn Miller did some detail work on that if you're interested.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

In light of a comment you made in the other thread about your raising a "stupid objection," I am no longer sure I can take your comments and arguments seriously.

[jpholding]

Huh? To whom and in what thread do you refer specifically? I save comments like that for people who need 'em.

[abe3]

I've done a fair amount of research on the subject, and have not seen any pre-Christian deities that strike me as possible influences on the Biblical Jesus story".

I tend to disagree with this statement because there is an ancient religion that has influenced Christianity and was borrowed by the Christians. The deity of this pre-Christian religion is still worshiped by Christians. The deity for this religion is Yahweh, also known as Elohim, has been copy-catted (sp?) and absorbed by the new religion. The religion is known as Judaism and pre-dates Christianity by 1400 to 2000 years. The bible actually contains the Jewish Torah and many other Hebrew scriptures in what is now known as the Old Testament. Much of the bible has been borrowed from the Jews as well as many laws and customs come from this pre-Christian religion.

Of course Christianity made something new out of Judaism. But the Christianity can't be considered totally unique. And they still have the deity Yahweh.

[Jedidiah]

Snort.

[abe3]

Snorteth Thou?:tongue:

[moreta]

Snorteth Thou?:tongue:


Not to be an Early Modern English grammer nazi/snob, but that shoudl be "Snortest thou?"


:hehe: :outtie:


The website that I confirmed this on, http://http://www.ehow.com/how_4474444_learn-speak-write-elizabethan-english.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_4474444_learn-speak-write-elizabethan-english.html), has this suggestion for those who wish to learn Elizabethan English:


Get to know Elizabethan slang, as well as some off-color words to ensure you do not use them. There are a good number of online resources that mention these words.


I'd go looking for them in order to use them, not to avoid them. :ahem:

[jpholding]

I've done a fair amount of research on the subject, and have not seen any pre-Christian deities that strike me as possible influences on the Biblical Jesus story".

I tend to disagree with this statement because there is an ancient religion that has influenced Christianity and was borrowed by the Christians. The deity of this pre-Christian religion is still worshiped by Christians. The deity for this religion is Yahweh, also known as Elohim, has been copy-catted (sp?) and absorbed by the new religion. The religion is known as Judaism and pre-dates Christianity by 1400 to 2000 years. The bible actually contains the Jewish Torah and many other Hebrew scriptures in what is now known as the Old Testament. Much of the bible has been borrowed from the Jews as well as many laws and customs come from this pre-Christian religion.

Of course Christianity made something new out of Judaism. But the Christianity can't be considered totally unique. And they still have the deity Yahweh.

Hey stupid,

No one disagrees with that and no one thinks its a problem. Get a life and stop resurrecting threads from 2003.

[abe3]

Stupid? You don't play very nice, I don't think I want to play with you anymore.

[abe3]

let me see, grammAr not grammer and should not shoudl, there might be a beam in your eye


http://www.ehow.com/Learn-CONTEMPORARY-English.html

God loves you and I'm out of here! Good witnessing, I remember why I left.

[abe3]

zzzzzzl

[abe3]

Not to be an Early Modern English grammer nazi/snob, but that shoudl be "Snortest thou?"


:hehe: :outtie:


The website that I confirmed this on, http://http://www.ehow.com/how_4474444_learn-speak-write-elizabethan-english.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_4474444_learn-speak-write-elizabethan-english.html), has this suggestion for those who wish to learn Elizabethan English:



I'd go looking for them in order to use them, not to avoid them. :ahem:


let me see, grammAr not grammer and should not shoudl, there might be a beam in your eye


if you get a chance look up the website http://www.ehow.com/Learn-CONTEMPORARY-English.html

God loves you and I'm out of here!
Good witnessing, I remember why I left.

[abe3]

Hey stupid,

No one disagrees with that and no one thinks its a problem. Get a life and stop resurrecting threads from 2003.

Stupid? You don't play very nice, I don't think I want to play with you anymore.

[Soyeong]

Stupid? You don't play very nice, I don't think I want to play with you anymore.

Christians claim to follow the same God as the Jews, it's just that the Jews failed to recognize their foretold Messiah when he came. He is the same God, so clearly He's not a copy cat of Himself. It'd be like saying I'm no longer unique because two different people consider me to be their friend. If you want to post stuff that shows you've put a little though into it, by all means go ahead and we'll play nice, but JPH does back down from calling stupid as he sees it.

[jpholding]

Stupid? You don't play very nice, I don't think I want to play with you anymore.

The truth hurts, huh? :lol: Stop being stupid and I'll call you something better.

[abe3]

That sounds good, I wasn't looking at it from a Christian point of view. To Christians, Yahweh and Jesus are the same God as opposed to the Jewish viewpoint. Good answer.

[moreta]

let me see, grammAr not grammer and should not shoudl, there might be a beam in your eye


if you get a chance look up the website http://www.ehow.com/Learn-CONTEMPORARY-English.html

God loves you and I'm out of here!
Good witnessing, I remember why I left.



Dude...Take a look at the time stamp. It's toward the end of a 12 hour night shift,and grammAr ain't the same as spelling and typos.

[moreta]

hmphh I think he anti-reputationed me. For a typo?!?!?! What the :rant:

[Andius]

hmphh I think he anti-reputationed me. For a typo?!?!?! What the :rant:

Balanced it out señorita.

None shall tarnish honors whilst I am still around!

http://www.cinepremiere.com.mx/files/u8/uss.gif

[moreta]

:flowers:

Love the kitty!!

[abe3]

zzz

[abe3]

hmphh I think he anti-reputationed me. For a typo?!?!?! What the :rant:

ok that was overkill and I now realize I replied to an ancient post (2003). It was the first one I saw and did not notice the date!

[abe3]

I also forgot to communicate the sarcasm in my post about Judaism and the "Copycat theory".

[kingcobra]

u guys should check out this documentary called zeitgeist. it talks about the story of Horus in the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. Its basically the same story as Jesus but it was on the walls of the pyramids over 4,000 years before Jesus' existence. --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE

[fm93]

Allow me to respond to that with as much dignity and respect as your post deserves:

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Zeitgeist? Please. I hate to think that I spent two hours of my life watching that drivel.

And I still wonder if JPH ever found those two guys in Charlotte that asked him to review it. I never found them while I was there.

[JB]

u guys should check out this documentary called zeitgeist. it talks about the story of Horus in the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. Its basically the same story as Jesus but it was on the walls of the pyramids over 4,000 years before Jesus' existence. --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE

I really wish I could believe that you don't seriously believe that. To put it mildly, you're very, very incorrect - and we know this because we've not only seen the so-called "documentary", but have researched its claims in ancient sources and scholarly literature, and found that very few of Zeitgeist's assertions hold any water at all.

[fm93]

The copycat idea is literally just Mad Libs:

(Any person/deity from before the first century AD) was born of a virgin, had his birth attended by shepherds, walked on water, claimed to be the Light of the world, was crucified, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Hey, aren't those the same things that Jesus did? Clearly, the Christians stole everything from the pagans!"

I wish I was just kidding, but I'm not. More than 90% of all alleged pagan parallels literally consist of nothing more than someone just saying that some ancient figure did and said the same things as Jesus. The rest are cases in which there actually are parallels, but the sources about those ancient figures are too late, because they come from after Christianity took off.

[mate_no_way]

The copycat idea is literally just Mad Libs:

(Any person/deity from before the first century AD) was born of a virgin, had his birth attended by shepherds, walked on water, claimed to be the Light of the world, was crucified, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Hey, aren't those the same things that Jesus did? Clearly, the Christians stole everything from the pagans!"

I wish I was just kidding, but I'm not. More than 90% of all alleged pagan parallels literally consist of nothing more than someone just saying that some ancient figure did and said the same things as Jesus. The rest are cases in which there actually are parallels, but the sources about those ancient figures are too late, because they come from after Christianity took off.

Why should I believe you?

[mate_no_way]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "Jesus is a dead giveaway isn't it? You sent Him to die for us without us asking for it, and now demands worship or else we go to Your Hell. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and vanishes in a puff of logic.

Evidence for God contradicts Christian Faith.

Surely Christians know this?

[jpholding]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "Jesus is a dead giveaway isn't it? You sent Him to die for us without us asking for it, and now demands worship or else we go to Your Hell. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and vanishes in a puff of logic.

Evidence for God contradicts Christian Faith.

Surely Christians know this?

That makes three times you've stolen this from Adams without credit, and the 2nd time you've farted it out on a thread that it has no relevance to.