Reflectorites
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:52:23 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[continued]
PR>What I'm saying is no-one refuted
>early Christian claims because they didn't care
Paul has no evidence for either: 1) "no-one refuted early Christian claims"
or 2) "because they didn't care that".
There is evidence in the NT writings and some confirming extra- biblical
evidence. In those days ordinary writing was written on papyrus (made
from water reeds) and hardly anything written from that period has
survived, unless it was important enough to copy and recopy. I quoted in
an earlier post that there is *no* written report from a Roman governor of
Judea that has survived. If official records like that have *all* been lost,
why would we expect that mid- to late- 1st century Jewish polemics against
Christianity would survive, especially since Jerusalem was razed to the
ground in 70AD. That there is *any* Jewish polemics at all from the late
1st and 2nd centuries is remarkable.
All that Paul can say factually is that we don't have much (if any) written
evidence of anyone in the mid- to late- 1st century having "refuted early
Christian claims", but it is Paul's *assumption* that is "because they didn't
care". What evidence we do have in the NT is that the Jews cared very
much.
Paul needs to take a reality check. Does he *really* think that if Jesus did
the 7 things above that the Jewish records of the 1st and 2nd century
reveal, that the Jews wouldn't have cared about Christianity?
PR>"Why did no one say so at the time ?".
They did. The NT itself records an early Jewish attempt to refute early
Christian claims:
Mt 28:12-15 "When the chief priests had met with the elders and
devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling
them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and
stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the
governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the
soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this
story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."
PR>I would like you to explain to me how someone would be
>able to tell 100 years after the event where Jesus had been born, which
>they would need to do to refute the claim. Perhaps they had Birth
>Certificates.
I have pointed out in an previous post that two early Christian apologists
were appealing to just that! 1st century Palestine was not Hicksville. The
Roman Empire was *very* well organised.
>PR>[Many of the later anti arguments were destroyed by
>Christians, of course, remnants only appearing in Christian books.]
>SJ>Paul has produced no evidence of this either.
>PR>Err.... the Christian books, that still exist, refer to anti works that
>don't ! Like "Contra Celsus".
This is not evidence that the Christians *destroyed* Celsus' and other "anti
arguments". All they would need to do is not copy them, and they would
self-destruct in a century. (My wife works in a library and she tells me that
all our modern books on acid paper will have self-destructed in another 100
years). Why should Christians waste their time and resources copying their
opponents' works?
My point was that Paul just makes vague, unsubstantiated assertions. He
never quotes any evidence to support his claims.
This tells me that Paul does not *really* believe in what he says, because if
he did, he would go to greater lengths to support his claims, e.g. buying or
borrowing the books (if any) that support his claims and posting quotes
from them.
>PR>Tell me, Steve, how precisely would Jews be able to find out in 70AD
>where Jesus was or wasn't born, or even for that matter if he existed ?
>or even 33 AD
>SJ>First, from eyewitnesses or from those who knew eyewitnesses.
>PR>Wouldn't the eyewitnesses be dead ?
First, I also said "from those who knew eyewitnesses" which Paul just
ignores. There were 37 vital years between the death of Christ and the
destruction of Jerusalem. There was plenty of time for the 100 or so
Christian "eyewitnesses" to tell thousands of "those who knew
eyewitnesses" and for them to tell others in turn.
Second, not all the Jews were trapped in Jerusalem when it was besieged in
66AD. Many escaped (Josephus for one) and the book of Acts records that
most Christian Jews were driven out well before.
Tacitus above confirmed that by 64AD there were "vast numbers" of
Christians in Rome, for example.
PR>You don't get the point. In the intervening years (say 33-70 AD) noone
>cared.
These are just unsubstantiated assertions by Paul, which fly in the face of
all the available evidence, and even common sense. Paul needs to take a
reality check.
PR>Your above lists all come from after that date, Steve. Now, if
>Jesus had been thought to be of any importance, there may be people
>interested enough to be "eyewitnesses".
There were and the NT records them. The Jewish polemics that have
survived also record what *their* eyewitnesses said and wrote at the time.
>SJ>Second, from genealogical and other records. There were 40 crucial years
>between AD30 and AD70 when Jerusalem and the Temple (with all its
>records) was destroyed by the Romans. In those 40 years Christians were
>claiming that Jesus was the Messiah.
>PR>But no-one heard them.
Paul just ignores the NT for starters!
PR>None of your statements come from this 40 year period.
In the case of extra-Biblical "statements" it is true that none of them came
from this 40 year period", but that does not support Paul's claim that "no-
one heard them". Tacitus' statement that in 64AD there were "vast
numbers" of Christians in Rome, is sufficient to refute Paul's claim.
To write something later requires that someone witnessed it earlier and
communicated it verbally or in writing. If survival rate was good of
ordinary documents from that period, then Paul would have some
justification for his claim. But *hardly anything* has survived from that
period that was not important enough to copy and recopy.
If Jesus did what the Jewish 1st-2nd century polemics said above that he
did, then there is no doubt whatsoever that He, and the early Christians
were "heard"!
PR>The Tacitean events are right at the end of that time period (64AD)
>and at that point Tacitus needs to explain what Christianity is.
No he doesn't. He is writing a *history* for posterity. There were already
"vast numbers" of Christians in Rome in 64AD-only 31 years after Jesus'
death. Christianity kept growing (maybe with some setbacks due to
persecution) and by 312AD the Emperor Constantine became a Christians
and Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
>SJ>If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
>(for example), the Jewish religious leaders could have easily produced
>witnesses, genealogical or other evidence to that effect.
>PR>Really. You think you can produce a witness to some birth not happening
>somewhere ? All you could do is to produce evidence he was born
>somewhere else. Why would anyone keep such information about yet
>another Messiah claimant.
The Christian claim is not that Jesus was not born "somewhere". It
positively is that He was born in Bethlehem. The Jews and Romans kept
extensive birth records, and it would be easy to refute if it wasn't true.
Even just saying `there is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem'
would have been enough. That they didn't is evidence that the early
Christians could *prove* Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
And as I have pointed out in a previous post, two early Christian apologists
appealed to Roman birth records that still existed, showing Jesus was born
in Bethlehem.
PR>I've never heard anyone claim that genealogical records wrere kept
before.
Paul lives and learns! There seems to be a *lot* that Paul has never heard
about the evidence for Christianity. The main reason for this is Paul's
assumption that Christianity *must* be false. One doesn't waste much time
trying to find out the facts about something that one assumes must be false.
There is a record in the Talmud of a rabbi finding a genealogical record of
Jesus (who is often referred to as "such-an-one") being illegitimate:
"R. Shimeon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in
Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an
adulteress." (Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 4.49a, in McDowell J. &
Wilson B., "He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus,"
1988, p..69)
This is another back-handed confirmation of the Virgin Birth. BTW the
rabbis could not deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and they would
have done so if they could.
>SJ>Christianity would never have got off the ground in that case. Remember that
>Christianity got started in the very heart of Judaism. To imagine how hard
>this was, think of a new religion starting today in Mecca, Saudi Arabia,
>the heart of Islam to get the idea of how evidentially rock-solid
>Christianity had to be to even get started.
>PR>New cults start all the time.
>SJ>Christianity is not a cult. It is the world's largest religion:
>PR>This is debatable.
It is *not* "debatable". Christianity *is* by far, "the world's largest religion". I
posted evidence which Paul deleted without ellipses. If Paul knows of a larger
religion, then let him post his evidence.
PR>However, what is the difference between
>a cult and a religion, other than size ?
I Paul is claiming there is no difference between a cult and a religion other
than size, he agrees with me. If Christianity is the world's largest religion,
then either it is not a cult, or his distinction between cult and religion is
meaningless.
>PR>I suggest you read something of the history of
>Scientology. "Bare Faced Messiah" is a very good book if you want to know
>how gullible the believers can be.
>SJ>It is *irrelevant* how gullible believers in Scientology are, and in fact
>how gullible some believers in Christianity are. The fact is that Christianity
>is >based on *evidence* that has stood the test of time against centuries of
>sceptical attack.
>PR>That's absurd. You got killed for making skeptical attacks for most of
>that time.
Again Paul posts no evidence. I am aware of only *two* persons killed for
making skeptical attacks on Christianity, in is entire 2000 years history,
namely Bruno and Servetus.
>SJ>Indeed, it is the so-called sceptics who are the really gullible ones
>because they just follow each other uncritically making the same unsubstantiated
>claims.
>PR>Ah, projection. Doncha luv it.
*I* am not the one making unsubstantiated claims!
>SJ>Note that Paul ignores my main point about the fact that "Christianity got
>started in the very heart of Judaism". And unlike other religions
>Christianity made highly specific real-world claims that could easily be checked
and if
>wrong would be *fatal*.
>PR>Sorry.
>
>Do I have to repeat this endlessly ?
No. Paul just has to post some *evidence*. Repeating unsubstantiated
assertions "endlessly" cuts no ice with me.
PR>At the time they could be checked, NOBODY CARED ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.
>IT WAS A FEW PEOPLE MAKING RELIGIOUS CLAIMS. THIS HAPPENS
>TODAY.
See above. Just shouting unsubstantiated assertions without any evidence does
not change them into evidence.
PR>All your "evidence" above is timeline consistent with the arrival of the
>earliest Gospel (Mark).
Paul produces no evidence that Mark was the earliest Gospel.
PR>You just CONTINUALLY CLAIM that the Jews had noticed them (no evidence
>provided) AT A POINT WHERE THEY COULD HAVE REFUTED IT.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle `black'!
See my evidence above and in previous posts.
PR>The Apostle Paul, in his defence before Herod Agrippa in Acts 26:19-26,
>pointed out that all this "was not done in a corner", i.e. was shared public
>knowledge:
PR>Okay, how simple can I go.
>
>Do you believe that all small religion/cult claims that are not actively
>refuted are not so refuted because they are true ?
Christianity is not a "small religion/cult".
The fact that Paul wastes time debating whether it is true, is itself evidence
for that.
>SJ>[snip]
>PR>Where does that come from ? It should be noted that Paul knows nothing
>of the life of his Messiah beyond the bare outlines ; there is apparently no
>knowledge of the actions in the Gospels.
Since Paul has snipped what I said, I don't know what he is referring
to, and I can't be bothered going back and finding out. If Paul has a point
to make, then he can restore the snipped words.
>PR>That's why the two nativity stories send
>everyone off in different directions "Out of Egypt...." "He shall be called
>a Nazarene...." etc etc.
>SJ>There are not "two nativity stories". There is one complex history. Again,
>if the facts were false, the Jewish theologians would have made mincemeat of
>Matthew's claims. They didn't, so they weren't.
>PR>Yes there are two nativity stories. And they aren't a "complex history". They
>are a mess that apologists have wired together to make one composite.
>SJ>More unsubstantiated assertions.
>PR>It is typical Christian apologetics that, faced with two seemingly different
>stories, they glue them together to make one wierd history, rather than
>assuming any errors.
Continuing with the same unsubstantiated assertion. The complex history
of Jesus' birth explains very well what would be an enormous a puzzle if it
were not true. And that is, if Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the
Messiah, how did he manage to stay in obscurity until the time had come
for His public ministry?
The answer is that everyone expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem,
and no one seems to have realised that Jesus *had* in fact been born there:
Jn 7:41-42 "Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked,
"How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture
say that the Christ will come from David's family and from
Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"
And because of Herod's atrocity, everybody assumed that all the children of
Jesus age in Bethlehem had been killed:
Mt 2:16 "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the
Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in
Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in
accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."
Tragic though this was, it gave Jesus the perfect cover, as He escaped to
Egypt and lay low:
Mt 2:13-15 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to
Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother
and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going
to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and
his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed
until the death of Herod.."
Until the danger had past and been forgotten, and then He returned to
Nazareth, a quiet, almost forgotten town in the North:
Mt 2:19-23 "After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a
dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his
mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to
take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his
mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that
Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he
was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he
withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town
called Nazareth.
NAZARETH. A town of Galilee where Joseph and Mary lived, and
the home of Jesus for about thirty years until He was rejected (Lk.
ii. 39, iv. 16, 28-31). He was therefore called Jesus of Nazareth. It
is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, by
Josephus, or in the Talmud. The reason for this was first
geographical and later theological. Lower Galilee remained outside
the main stream of Israelite life until New Testament times, when
Roman rule first brought security. Even then Sepphoris was the
chief town of the area, a little to the north of Nazareth. But
Nazareth lay close enough to several main trade-routes for easy
contact with the outside world, while at the same time her position
as a frontier-town on the southern border of Zebulun overlooking
the Esdraelon plain produced a certain aloofness. It was this
independence of outlook in Lower Galilee which led to the scorn in
which Nazareth was held by strict Jews (Jn. i. 46)." Charley J.W.,
"Nazareth," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., "The New Bible
Dictionary," 1967, reprint, p.871)
And no one expected the Messiah to come from Nazareth:
"Jn 1:45-46 "Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found
the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the
prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.
So the complex story is perfectly consistent and explains much. It has that
`truth is stranger than fiction' feel to it.
>SJ>Note that Paul ignores my point about
>"the Jewish theologians would have made mincemeat of Matthew's
claims".
>PR>Maybe they didn't care. If in 114AD it was felt necessary to explain what
>a Christian was, it wasn't much of a threat.
Still no evidence from Paul- see above.
PR>I can only presume that you believe, that because Christian Theologians
>have not "made mincemeat" of the numerous claims of modern cults
>and religions, that you believe they are true as well.
See above.
PR>Or is this just a double standard ? No apparent rebuttal for insignificant
>cult groups is only relevant before 70 AD.
See above.
I have documented my claims but Paul has replied with unsubstantiated
assertions.
Therefore I judge there is nothing to be gained by continuing this thread,
unless Paul comes up with something new.
However, I thank Paul for his posts because they forced me to research
topics like Daniel's 70 weeks, the Virgin Birth and the historical evidence
for Christianity. In the 5+ years I have been on the Reflector there have not
been many opportunities to do this, and I must say I have enjoyed this
research and posting of it *tremendously*.
I apologise for neglecting other people's posts, and I will try to now catch
up with those before I look at any further replies of Paul on this topic.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 17:00:02 EST