Theological Opinions , PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

It is a bit curious then, that Christianity never gained much support among the people it was initially started and that so many remained jews. In such a large area with so bad communications it would be easy for these authors to claim anything, there weren't anyone to check their sources - certainly not the common people who made up the majority of Jesus' followers, who could neither read nor write and would perhaps not even be sure of what they had seen (also the people with the shortest life expectancy).

Actually, upper-class Romans were a significant portion of the followers.

Instead, they turned outwards and the few jewish Christians, shunned by both factions, died away (drawing on my memory of a book I started called "The Early Christianity" here).

Wait: you're citing as a source a book you are writing?

[hectorberlioz]

Wait: you're citing as a source a book you are writing?

Thats what I wondered earlier...
...

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Actually, upper-class Romans were a significant portion of the followers.

Later, yes. I doubt there were to many of them in Jerusalem or the surroundings, the period we're discussing.

Wait: you're citing as a source a book you are writing?

Yeah, but not, to my knowledge, written 1900 years ago.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That's not the point. The point is, citing one's own books is hardly credible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I know what you said about the political Messiah - I claimed it to be curious because such acts in broad daylight should be enough to encourage long-time devotion from the masses (especially as those that according to the NT was the most widely observed, the feeding of the 5000 if I'm not much mistaken, could hardly be considered the work of a demon)

Look, if I saw something that on the one hand appeared to be miraculous and yet did not fulfill the scripture, even if it's on a huge scale, I would reject it and probably consider it to be from the devil. I already do that, to some extent.

You see, the return of Israel is strongly predicted in the scriptures. The current return of Israel appears to fulfill a certain batch of scriptural prophecies. However, there also is a large chunk of them that it does not fulfill, and in fact seems to go against. Because Israel doesn't seem to fulfill the prophecies of Israel's return from the scripture, I don't accept that this is the prophesied return in joy and peace, and full of the love of Christ, which many scriptures talk about. If I saw some prophet running around performing astounding miraculous signs, I would likewise reject such a person as the anti-Christ if he rejected scripture. The Jews functioned in much the same way as I do- we are alike in that way.

Jesus didn't seem to fulfill the prophecies, and that made a huge difference. The Jews' whole faith was based around the innerancy of scripture, and there Jesus was seemingly breaking the role of Messiah.

The Jews knew that demons had power and they believed Beelzebub also did, just as I do. I think that this is sufficient to make their rejection of Jesus, though tragic, not really "curious."

Originally Posted by Falagar

People didn't travel around to check whether what the diciples said in another town was the same thing they'd experienced. No one would check whether there actually had been 5000 people observing Christ serving food, or how he had gotten hold of it.

The Pharisees would have. They would have sought out any little point they could find at which they could tug apart the apostles' message. In that setting- most of the people having witnessed for themselves what Jesus said and did, while many of the major events were common knowledge, the disciples would have had to stick to accuracy. And archaelogical and documentary corroborative data have repeatedly proved the New Testament accurate on many, many points, including issues where previously it had been considered faulty based on lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Christianity had a message that attracted a lot of people (especially a few of the judaic groups in opposition to the Pharisees, like the Sadducees, and jews that felt the formal, rigid traditions of the Pharisees missed the point of the religion), but not many enough in the Jewish world.

There were several thousand according to Acts, but they probably were scattered at the same time the rest of the Jews were thrown around the map, when the Romans put down their rebellion.

My suspicion is that the Sadducees didn't care for the Christians, though. Jesus was as critical of their beliefs as he was of the Pharisees'. I'd like to know what your source is on that one.

Originally Posted by Falagar

"From that time"? After Jesus' death, I presume, the only jewish document that mentions him while still alive only mentions his followers. The earliest texts mentioning him directly are the Pauline letters, if I'm not much mistaken.

You are. The Talmud mentions Jesus in a few places, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic. They also say that a Roman soldier raped Mary, which caused Jesus to be born. That shows that there was something odd about his birth.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Claiming your enemies were practicing dark magic was a pretty common way of denouncing them in those days.

Back that claim up, please, with a citation.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd claim several of the internal evidences you present there seem pretty suspect to me, and only makes sense within a certain context. Cannibalism may not have appealed,

That's my whole point, and my point is about the Jews putting things complex doctrine like that into the scriptures, not about Roman acceptance of them. That they put things like that into the scripture indicates that they were striving for accuracy more than appeal. They could more easily have left that out, if they wanted their doctrine to be attractive.

Originally Posted by Falagar

but the zeal of the apostles, the doctrine of an after-life, the passifist theology (the Roman Empire had prevously been riddled with civil wars, and their religion didn't have the same "force" as Christianity - the Romans and Greeks were ready for something new), etc. did.

Especially with the Romans killing them in large numbers.

Originally Posted by Falagar

And as mentioned I find that quite suspect as I haven't heard of there existing any documents from the phariseers of Jesus' time, nor much else directly mentioning Jesus before Paul.

Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus provide evidence corroborating New Testament accounts.

I'm not saying that any of this was written before Paul, but you don't have to be that early in your recording to be valuable as a corroborative source.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Look, if I saw something that on the one hand appeared to be miraculous and yet did not fulfill the scripture, even if it's on a huge scale, I would reject it and probably consider it to be from the devil. I already do that, to some extent.

You see, the return of Israel is strongly predicted in the scriptures. The current return of Israel appears to fulfill a certain batch of scriptural prophecies. However, there also is a large chunk of them that it does not fulfill, and in fact seems to go against. Because Israel doesn't seem to fulfill the prophecies of Israel's return from the scripture, I don't accept that this is the prophesied return in joy and peace, and full of the love of Christ, which many scriptures talk about. If I saw some prophet running around performing astounding miraculous signs, I would likewise reject such a person as the anti-Christ if he rejected scripture. The Jews functioned in much the same way as I do- we are alike in that way.

Jesus didn't seem to fulfill the prophecies, and that made a huge difference. The Jews' whole faith was based around the innerancy of scripture, and there Jesus was seemingly breaking the role of Messiah.

The Jews knew that demons had power and they believed Beelzebub also did, just as I do. I think that this is sufficient to make their rejection of Jesus, though tragic, not really "curious."

I doubt the common people knew enough scripture to be able to tell whether this was according to a prophesy or not. They may have heard things from their rabbies, but how much did they really understand? They wouldn't be able to check the scripture for errors. Their Phariseers may have tried to convince them differently, but when you see a benevolent miracle that almost certainly must come from some higher power, and the wise, learned guy (perhaps a phariseer himself?) who made it come through tells you it was God's work - you'd be hard pressed to question him.

The Pharisees would have. They would have sought out any little point they could find at which they could tug apart the apostles' message. In that setting- most of the people having witnessed for themselves what Jesus said and did, while many of the major events were common knowledge, the disciples would have had to stick to accuracy. And archaelogical and documentary corroborative data have repeatedly proved the New Testament accurate on many, many points, including issues where previously it had been considered faulty based on lack of evidence.

And I'd say the Phariseers tried - and succeeded in many Jewish areas. Of course the New Testament uses real places and cities in the story, it couldn't just invent those. Even though most people were uneducated in many respects, they would have some notion of nearby geography. It's the events they may have invented, or exaggerated, or intepretated, or twisted - and events are here and then gone, and people can't go back in time and check what really had happened. If they said 5000 people from an area attended such a miracle, who was to prove them wrong?

Also, a miracle may have started as a "true story": an apostle gathers a crowd and tells them how Jesus fed a huge crowd of people. Some might want to know how he fed them, and the apostle may say somehting about Jesus bringing bread and fish as a gift from the Lord (no specifics about how he obtained the foodstuffs) - as a part of a speech on the Kingdom of God or similar. Then the story of Jesus feeding a crowd of people wanders, spreads out through the lands, and by the time it's written down 30 years later, "the gift" has become a miracle and the crowd has become 5000.

For example. We can't really know.

There were several thousand according to Acts, but they probably were scattered at the same time the rest of the Jews were thrown around the map, when the Romans put down their rebellion.

My suspicion is that the Sadducees didn't care for the Christians, though. Jesus was as critical of their beliefs as he was of the Pharisees'. I'd like to know what your source is on that one.

Sorry, meant jews in general, not Sadducees (who you correctly asserts were pretty sceptic of Christianity). I believe Paul mentions an incident where he managed to use the differences between Phariseers and Sadducees to get out of a difficult situation (Acts xxiii, 6-10)

You are. The Talmud mentions Jesus in a few places, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic. They also say that a Roman soldier raped Mary, which caused Jesus to be born. That shows that there was something odd about his birth.

Sources? The only mentions I have found were of Yeshu, a figure that hardly seems like the Jesus of the gospels (for one he was executed by stoning in Lod). Anyway, the Talmud wasn't assembeled before much later, 200 AD. The claim that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier first appeared in 176 AD by a pagan writer who said he had heard it from a jew.

Back that claim up, please, with a citation.

Hm, don't have anything at the moment. Of course, you have the usual suspicion of people practicing magic (there were many who claimed to use magic, to be able to heal or see the future). If a learned rabbi heard of a person claiming to be able to heal, to walk on water and that he was the son of God I suspect he would refute it by saying the person got his powers from demons rather than say "you can't prove that". Don't have time to do any research now though, consider the point refutet. Doesn't really matter as there aren't any accounts of what the earliest rabbis heard, saw or reacted - excepting the Bible.

Especially with the Romans killing them in large numbers.

Citation. Except from Nero there were few organized attacks on Christians by the state before the 200's. Christians could be brought to trial for their beliefs and executed if proven guilty - but that would take private actions from other citizens, and all the Christian really had to do would be to disavow his god and declare that he worshipped the emperor (Pliny mentions a few such).

Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus provide evidence corroborating New Testament accounts.

I'm not saying that any of this was written before Paul, but you don't have to be that early in your recording to be valuable as a corroborative source.

Tacitus mentions Jesus in 116 AD (and differs slightly from the Biblical account). Pliny wrote about how to deal with the Christians in 112 AD. Josephus in 93 AD. None of them are first hand accounts, all of them are late and none of them directly mentions miracles or magic - except from Josephus, in a slightly debated passage. They have all gathered information from others or written what they've heard, we have no idea how reliable their sources are - no more so than any of the evangelists.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's not the point. The point is, citing one's own books is hardly credible.

I'd say there's a difference between a modern scientific book and the Bible, but perhaps that's just me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I doubt the common people knew enough scripture to be able to tell whether this was according to a prophesy or not. They may have heard things from their rabbies, but how much did they really understand? They wouldn't be able to check the scripture for errors. Their Phariseers may have tried to convince them differently, but when you see a benevolent miracle that almost certainly must come from some higher power, and the wise, learned guy (perhaps a phariseer himself?) who made it come through tells you it was God's work - you'd be hard pressed to question him.

They understood at least some of the basics, such as that Jesus would save Israel from the Romans, and that basic point was one of the most important points on a practical level for many of the people at that time.

Originally Posted by Falagar

And I'd say the Phariseers tried - and succeeded in many Jewish areas. Of course the New Testament uses real places and cities in the story, it couldn't just invent those. Even though most people were uneducated in many respects, they would have some notion of nearby geography.

Those aren't the only things that check out in terms of archaelogical research that verifies the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's the events they may have invented, or exaggerated, or intepretated, or twisted - and events are here and then gone, and people can't go back in time and check what really had happened. If they said 5000 people from an area attended such a miracle, who was to prove them wrong?

The Pharisees! I've already pointed that out. Plus, virtually everywhere the apostles went, people already had known Jesus and experienced for themselves what he'd done. Remember that the Jewish people have always loved vigorous debate (and the New Testament strongly indicates they loved it back then as much as they do now). All you need is one or a handful of hecklers in a crowd who know what's going on to be a pack of lies and then the disciples would be taken away and stoned. Remember how close Jesus came to being martyred in this way, on more than one occasion, because he said something that the common people believed to be opposed to the Old Testament doctrine.

What you're proposing the disciples could have done is just impossible. They were preaching to people who knew for a fact whether or not what they were saying was true, and they were preaching in the presence of people who longed to discredit them. They also weren't just speaking in poor areas- the Early Church was born in Jerusalem and stayed in Jerusalem, right under the noses of the highest circles of Israel's religious leaders, for quite a while preaching its message before it fanned out across Israel. But even out there there would have been other opponents of Jesus and Pharisees. Remember, he attacked them, the Sadducees, and the "teachers of the law." He attacked everyone in the education business, basically. They could not have made up many events (except those where they are telling about events that took place while they were alone with Jesus), and the record of NT accuracy shows this to be true.

The idea that their message was purposely twisted or exaggerated in places also is just an outright ignoring of what I've already presented involving the content of the New Testament. They said things in the New Testament that they wouldn't have said if they were trying to attract converts, and didn't say things that would have greatly helped them if they'd spoken of them. These internal points from the texts themselves establish that they were seeking to maintain as high a degree of historical accuracy as they could. Archaelogical evidence and historical corroborative documentary evidence also shows that they did a very good job of it.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Also, a miracle may have started as a "true story": an apostle gathers a crowd and tells them how Jesus fed a huge crowd of people. Some might want to know how he fed them, and the apostle may say somehting about Jesus bringing bread and fish as a gift from the Lord (no specifics about how he obtained the foodstuffs) - as a part of a speech on the Kingdom of God or similar. Then the story of Jesus feeding a crowd of people wanders, spreads out through the lands, and by the time it's written down 30 years later, "the gift" has become a miracle and the crowd has become 5000.

For example. We can't really know.

Well, it would be pretty hard to make this particular example plausable. The Pharisees would have cut it apart. Also, after Jesus was already dead, as I've already pointed out, people weren't overly thrilled with the idea that they and their leaders had killed the Son of God. They wouldn't have been making miracles bigger in their minds- they'd have been trying to make them smaller.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Sources? The only mentions I have found were of Yeshu, a figure that hardly seems like the Jesus of the gospels (for one he was executed by stoning in Lod).

I don't have the precise textual references from the Talmud, but I do have the word of a highly credible scholar.

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ

"There are a few passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also repeat the rumor that Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there waws something unusual about his birth."

That was a quote from Edwin Yamauchi. Yamauchi earned his bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics and received master's and doctoral degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, and others. He delivered seventy-one papers before learned societies,, lectured at more than one hundred seminaries, universities and colleges, including Yale, Princeton and Cornell. He served as chairman and for a time president of the Institute for Biblical Research and was president of the Conference of Faith and History, and he has published eighty articles in thirty-seven scholarly journals.

My reason for citing all his credentials like that is just to show that though I don't have the exact quotes from the Talmud, he's probably right on this.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Anyway, the Talmud wasn't assembeled before much later, 200 AD. The claim that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier first appeared in 176 AD by a pagan writer who said he had heard it from a jew.

Scholars often accept things dated to two or three hundred years after the fact as being valid sources. It would be hypocritical for them to reject their standard approach with regard to the New Testament. They'd have to discard almost everything they know about ancient history, if they had to go by the terms you're proposing. The latest copies of the Iliad, for instance, are dated to having been written a thousand years after the fact, yet they are still considered among scholars to possess a strong degree of value concerning historical events of the time they describe. Having a pretty good certainty that the canonical scriptures were written a mere thirty years after the fact makes them very, very handy for scholars.

Also, when they take an ancient manuscript, they tend to automatically accept what it says unless proven otherwise, rather than reject it. So you see, the scholarly approach on this is entirely different from the one that you and many others mistakenly take.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Hm, don't have anything at the moment. Of course, you have the usual suspicion of people practicing magic (there were many who claimed to use magic, to be able to heal or see the future). If a learned rabbi heard of a person claiming to be able to heal, to walk on water and that he was the son of God I suspect he would refute it by saying the person got his powers from demons rather than say "you can't prove that". Don't have time to do any research now though, consider the point refutet.

I agree with you that they would have been more likely to come to the conclusion of black magic than secular audiences today. I just don't believe that they would have frequently and carelessly accepted such rumors with complete credulity.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Doesn't really matter as there aren't any accounts of what the earliest rabbis heard, saw or reacted - excepting the Bible.

The Talmud includes the Jewish tradition, and it was not assembled so late that its words about Jesus are considered by scholars to be void of utility. They are a useful evidence about what Jesus' opponents in the hierarchy of the Jewish religion claimed about Jesus.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Citation. Except from Nero there were few organized attacks on Christians by the state before the 200's.

From the state yes, I agree. The persecution involved stops and starts. It would be present for a while, and then would fade away for a while, and then would start up again. It also was often localized, occurring fiercely in certain places though not in others. It could involve the mood swings of the population, and whether or not they felt threatened, and sometimes Christians could escape it just by taking a hike to the next town.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Christians could be brought to trial for their beliefs and executed if proven guilty - but that would take private actions from other citizens, and all the Christian really had to do would be to disavow his god and declare that he worshipped the emperor (Pliny mentions a few such).

I know that that's all they had to do to be accepted. Most refused to do that, though, and hence the persecution.

I talked with my history professor at college about the persecution of Christianity by the Roman Empire, and from what I recall of what he said, the primary reason people don't believe as much now that it was widespread (though they used to) was really that it spread so very fast. Modern scholars (unless I'm wrong in what I remember my professor saying) can't get their heads around the idea that Christianity could have spread so very rapidly in spite of ferocious persecution, so they assume the persecution was on a much smaller scale.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Tacitus mentions Jesus in 116 AD (and differs slightly from the Biblical account). Pliny wrote about how to deal with the Christians in 112 AD. Josephus in 93 AD. None of them are first hand accounts, all of them are late and none of them directly mentions miracles or magic - except from Josephus, in a slightly debated passage.

You are wrong about all of those sources being late. For historical manuscripts, none of them are considered late. Rather, being within one hundred years of the events described makes them very good and valuable sources.

Besides, they corroborate the firsthand accounts, and we do have eyewitness accounts in the form of the Epistles and Gospels. Corroborative sources certainly don't have to be firsthand accounts to be useful information. But you won't accept either the firsthand accounts or the secondhand accounts, though most scholars tend to accept both. Not that non-Christian modern scholars accept the miracles, but they don't doubt the usefulness of those sources for gaining information about the Early Church and the history of that time period. They have proven to be highly reliable time and again.

[Lief Erikson]

Falagar, I really think a lot of the problems you're raising are based upon certain faulty assumptions. I would like to outline three of them here, as I think that that would help us in this dispute.

One of the assumptions you're making is that 30 years is a long time, and even that three hundred years is a long time. By scholarly standards, 30 years is a very, very tiny period of time.

A second thing you're assuming is that three hundred years is a long time, but scholars accept sources from much longer than that as generally accurate, anyway.

A third thing you're doing, which I think is just a faulty approach because scholars don't do this, is come from the position that, "If there isn't sufficient evidence from other sources to back something written in this historical text, we can't trust it." Scholars, on the other hand, accept what is written in the text by default and only if evidence comes up that comes against it will they reject the source's information. Even if the source comes from hundreds of years later. That's how they deal with ancient historical texts, and it works for them. This is the process from which a lot of our knowledge of ancient history comes.

Originally Posted by Falagar

They have all gathered information from others or written what they've heard, we have no idea how reliable their sources are - no more so than any of the evangelists.

You know, I've presented a lot of evidences now from both the content of the New Testament and from corroborative sources to prove my various points. You've opposed that evidence for various reasons I strongly disagree with, and will continue to argue against, but I'd like also to see what you've got!

I want to see what the evidence is for the various claims that you have been making . Because it looks like while you're trying to present alternate possibilities to the case I'm presenting evidence for, and frequently fight the evidence I present, I think that so far, for the most part, you've done so by merely presenting questions and alternate possibilities rather than real data. I'd like to hear what the evidence is to support the suggestion that miracles in the New Testament came from a telephone game, or that the disciples presented one message to the people of Israel and then changed it for the Gospels and Romans, or that events in the scripture were exaggerated or purposely twisted, any evidence at all that supports any of these suggestions.

I've provided evidence against these suggestions, but I haven't seen much of anything backing them, so I'm very curious to see what you have.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd say there's a difference between a modern scientific book and the Bible, but perhaps that's just me.

Indeed. Modern scientific books are much more dogmatic, biased, and unreliable.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Pharisees! I've already pointed that out. Plus, virtually everywhere the apostles went, people already had known Jesus and experienced for themselves what he'd done. Remember that the Jewish people have always loved vigorous debate (and the New Testament strongly indicates they loved it back then as much as they do now). All you need is one or a handful of hecklers in a crowd who know what's going on to be a pack of lies and then the disciples would be taken away and stoned. Remember how close Jesus came to being martyred in this way, on more than one occasion, because he said something that the common people believed to be opposed to the Old Testament doctrine.

And why should the people believe the Phariseers instead of Jesus, who, for all we know, might have been one himself? He came with a new message, and of course that was hard for many people to swallow (indeed most of them didn't), but it had its attractions - strong enough to make many follow him. These followers would probably defend him, he had built himself a strong enough base for the Pharisees to have a hard time touching him.

It's a interesting to note that the earliest jewish Christians, who actually had heard Jesus speak (as opposed to the gentiles, lead by Paul), wanted the gentiles to convert to judaism and follow the mosiac laws. They might also have had other divergent beliefs (I believe it was from here the Christianity in Egypt and the rest of the middle-east spread, and many of the forms it took differ with the ones the Christians in Rome and the West held to)

What you're proposing the disciples could have done is just impossible. They were preaching to people who knew for a fact whether or not what they were saying was true, and they were preaching in the presence of people who longed to discredit them. They also weren't just speaking in poor areas- the Early Church was born in Jerusalem and stayed in Jerusalem, right under the noses of the highest circles of Israel's religious leaders, for quite a while preaching its message before it fanned out across Israel. But even out there there would have been other opponents of Jesus and Pharisees. Remember, he attacked them, the Sadducees, and the "teachers of the law." He attacked everyone in the education business, basically. They could not have made up many events (except those where they are telling about events that took place while they were alone with Jesus), and the record of NT accuracy shows this to be true.

Far from all the people would "long to discredit" them. Jesus attacked the old and formal customs, and I doubt there were only people at the bottom who longed for some new religious awakening. I also doubt all of them were that emotionally tied to the religion to start with - judaism had become pretty formal, and I guess many wanted it to change. The church was established in Jerusalem when Jesus was strong enough. To be protected from the Phariseers, at least, the Romans were a different matter. Of course there weren't only poor people - many at the top might also have been attracted by the new teachings (there were probably fractions within the jewish leadership, as there are in all such fractions).

The idea that their message was purposely twisted or exaggerated in places also is just an outright ignoring of what I've already presented involving the content of the New Testament. They said things in the New Testament that they wouldn't have said if they were trying to attract converts, and didn't say things that would have greatly helped them if they'd spoken of them. These internal points from the texts themselves establish that they were seeking to maintain as high a degree of historical accuracy as they could. Archaelogical evidence and historical corroborative documentary evidence also shows that they did a very good job of it.

I'm not talking about what they wanted to convey, I'm talking about the difference between had actually occured and what they said, and how that might have been twisted. They might have exaggerated, etc. It's impossible for us to know exactly what happened, what we do know is that they had a message which attracted lots of followers - especially among the gentile jews (those were probably the first Christians) and then the gentiles in general - most of whom had never seen Jesus or talked to anyone that had, except from the apostles that were preaching his message.

Well, it would be pretty hard to make this particular example plausable. The Pharisees would have cut it apart. Also, after Jesus was already dead, as I've already pointed out, people weren't overly thrilled with the idea that they and their leaders had killed the Son of God. They wouldn't have been making miracles bigger in their minds- they'd have been trying to make them smaller.

The Phariseers might not have heard it, might have tried - but the apostles could easily say that they were bringing about a new era, quote scripture that supported them - and then the people would have to make up their own minds. With varying results.

I don't have the precise textual references from the Talmud, but I do have the word of a highly credible scholar.

That was a quote from Edwin Yamauchi. Yamauchi earned his bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics and received master's and doctoral degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, and others. He delivered seventy-one papers before learned societies,, lectured at more than one hundred seminaries, universities and colleges, including Yale, Princeton and Cornell. He served as chairman and for a time president of the Institute for Biblical Research and was president of the Conference of Faith and History, and he has published eighty articles in thirty-seven scholarly journals.

My reason for citing all his credentials like that is just to show that though I don't have the exact quotes from the Talmud, he's probably right on this.

I've read several books on the subject by probably just as acredited authors, none of them has mention it. I could probably site their referentials as well, if you'd think that would be of interest.

Scholars often accept things dated to two or three hundred years after the fact as being valid sources. It would be hypocritical for them to reject their standard approach with regard to the New Testament. They'd have to discard almost everything they know about ancient history, if they had to go by the terms you're proposing. The latest copies of the Iliad, for instance, are dated to having been written a thousand years after the fact, yet they are still considered among scholars to possess a strong degree of value concerning historical events of the time they describe. Having a pretty good certainty that the canonical scriptures were written a mere thirty years after the fact makes them very, very handy for scholars.

I doubt it since we know the guy that assembled it and much of his story. The Talmud is not the Iliad. And as I said, there are much debate around the nature of the supposedly-Jesus in the document.

Also, when they take an ancient manuscript, they tend to automatically accept what it says unless proven otherwise, rather than reject it. So you see, the scholarly approach on this is entirely different from the one that you and many others mistakenly take.

No. They tend to be sceptical of the claims - see if they match other sources, try to see if the author might have had any agenda (they usually did), how detailed they were, and how the author got hold of the information he presented. Source criticism is the first thing you learn as a historian, and arguably the most important.

I agree with you that they would have been more likely to come to the conclusion of black magic than secular audiences today. I just don't believe that they would have frequently and carelessly accepted such rumors with complete credulity.

I'd disagree, at least from my experience people will believe anything if it fits with some of their views and presents some of their hopes.

The Talmud includes the Jewish tradition, and it was not assembled so late that its words about Jesus are considered by scholars to be void of utility. They are a useful evidence about what Jesus' opponents in the hierarchy of the Jewish religion claimed about Jesus.

Not void, but very debatable, as mentioned. If it was Jesus that is mentioned at all.

From the state yes, I agree. The persecution involved stops and starts. It would be present for a while, and then would fade away for a while, and then would start up again. It also was often localized, occurring fiercely in certain places though not in others. It could involve the mood swings of the population, and whether or not they felt threatened, and sometimes Christians could escape it just by taking a hike to the next town.

I know that that's all they had to do to be accepted. Most refused to do that, though, and hence the persecution.

How do you know 'most' did? Many, certainly, but why most? Many probably disavowed him and then kept it on in secret.

I talked with my history professor at college about the persecution of Christianity by the Roman Empire, and from what I recall of what he said, the primary reason people don't believe as much now that it was widespread (though they used to) was really that it spread so very fast. Modern scholars (unless I'm wrong in what I remember my professor saying) can't get their heads around the idea that Christianity could have spread so very rapidly in spite of ferocious persecution, so they assume the persecution was on a much smaller scale.

Explaining how the arabs could have conquered such a large part of the world isn't easy to explain either. Or the rapid expansion of the industrial revolution, if we didn't have as much sources as we do (of course, the spread of technology is easier to account for and trace than the spread of ideas). There are quite a few problematic historical accounts abound, and they all have teir explanations - some might be wrong, based on wrong assumptions, but there are always explanations. Trying to explain the spread of a 2000 year old religion, where most of the sources come from the religion itself and its opponents, isn't an easy thing to do.

You are wrong about all of those sources being late. For historical manuscripts, none of them are considered late. Rather, being within one hundred years of the events described makes them very good and valuable sources.

Late compared to Paul. A lot could happen in 60 years in those days, as the spread of islam (and possibly other religions) show.

Besides, they corroborate the firsthand accounts, and we do have eyewitness accounts in the form of the Epistles and Gospels. Corroborative sources certainly don't have to be firsthand accounts to be useful information. But you won't accept either the firsthand accounts or the secondhand accounts, though most scholars tend to accept both. Not that non-Christian modern scholars accept the miracles, but they don't doubt the usefulness of those sources for gaining information about the Early Church and the history of that time period. They have proven to be highly reliable time and again.

How do we know they're eyewitness accounts? From the sources themselves? They are of course useful to gain information from, but they aren't the end-all.

One of the assumptions you're making is that 30 years is a long time, and even that three hundred years is a long time. By scholarly standards, 30 years is a very, very tiny period of time.

A second thing you're assuming is that three hundred years is a long time, but scholars accept sources from much longer than that as generally accurate, anyway.

30 years is a long time for a human being, which is what we're discussing here - and Christianity wasn't fully fleshed out by those 30 years. There were numerous different views (some even thought Jesus hadn't been divine), and there were much disagreements before the Catholic church had established its canon (which, though the prevailing belief of many people and the most powerful ones, like the bishop in Rome, was far from widely accepted).

Scholars never accept sources as completely accurate (there are lots of discussions on f.ex. Herodotes), but sources can be used in many different ways.

I want to see what the evidence is for the various claims that you have been making . Because it looks like while you're trying to present alternate possibilities to the case I'm presenting evidence for, and frequently fight the evidence I present, I think that so far, for the most part, you've done so by merely presenting questions and alternate possibilities rather than real data. I'd like to hear what the evidence is to support the suggestion that miracles in the New Testament came from a telephone game, or that the disciples presented one message to the people of Israel and then changed it for the Gospels and Romans, or that events in the scripture were exaggerated or purposely twisted, any evidence at all that supports any of these suggestions.

I'm not trying to present a coherent alternate - I believe that to be pretty impossible, and I'm certanly not qualified to make such an attempt. I've been pointing out the areas where I think you're making faulty assumptions, have brought in bad sources

All I had time for now, could perhaps try to present some of my sources later (when I've recovered from this evening ). I rely much on the little I've read of the works by Bart Ehrman and Henry Chadwick + good ol' wikipedia (and try to add in what little I have of logic and sense in between). Got to run.

Edit: Jesus this post was monsterous! (The worst being I could have written more o_O )

[klatukatt]

Greetings all theologists!

I like religion. I am, by default, a Taoist, but I love Unitarianism. I'm gonna marry a Unitarian.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

And why should the people believe the Phariseers instead of Jesus, who, for all we know, might have been one himself?

I don't think his comments indicate that. He sometimes says things like, "woe to the Pharisees," big generalizations like that, if I recall correctly, and the language could certainly have been better chosen if he was one of them. Plus, there isn't any mention of his having been a Pharisee in any of the canonical Gospels (I don't know about the non-canonical ones).

Originally Posted by Falagar

He came with a new message, and of course that was hard for many people to swallow (indeed most of them didn't), but it had its attractions - strong enough to make many follow him. These followers would probably defend him, he had built himself a strong enough base for the Pharisees to have a hard time touching him.

We were talking about Jesus' disciples, not Jesus himself. It wouldn't have taken much for people to overturn their message, if they didn't stick to the facts. Besides, remember that in the Book of Acts, Peter is recorded as having spoken to people of events that they themselves had witnessed, as well as the ones they haven't (Jesus' resurrection).

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's a interesting to note that the earliest jewish Christians, who actually had heard Jesus speak (as opposed to the gentiles, lead by Paul), wanted the gentiles to convert to judaism and follow the mosiac laws.

Remember, the disciples who had been with Jesus throughout his ministry rejected the approach of the Jewish Christians you mention. That wasn't "the earliest Jewish Christians," but rather, "some of the earliest Jewish Christians," and not the ones who knew Jesus best.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Far from all the people would "long to discredit" them. Jesus attacked the old and formal customs, and I doubt there were only people at the bottom who longed for some new religious awakening. I also doubt all of them were that emotionally tied to the religion to start with - judaism had become pretty formal, and I guess many wanted it to change.

On the contrary, they were very attached to their religion. That is why the Roman Empire made a specific exception with regard to Israel to its normal policies about incorporating other people's religions into their own universalist ideology. Normally, Rome absorbed other religions and cultures and sucked them all into its own. With Israel, though, the opposition to such religious change was so strong and the people were such zealots that such a change could not be implemented. They made a specific exception, allowing Israel to continue worshipping its one God and not the Roman gods, because the religion was so volatile and attached to its beliefs.

Originally Posted by Falagar

The church was established in Jerusalem when Jesus was strong enough. To be protected from the Phariseers, at least, the Romans were a different matter. Of course there weren't only poor people - many at the top might also have been attracted by the new teachings (there were probably fractions within the jewish leadership, as there are in all such fractions).

I'm not sure what your point here is . . .

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'm not talking about what they wanted to convey, I'm talking about the difference between had actually occured and what they said, and how that might have been twisted. They might have exaggerated, etc.

Except that exaggerations would have been poked by their numerous opponents (remember that the disciples started their preaching in Jerusalem), and twisting likewise would have been difficult. Remember also that preaching in Jerusalem first, in the very city full of people that killed Jesus, takes a lot of guts. They had almost no following, at that point. They could easily have been crushed. You only do something that brazen if you believe every word of what you're saying, and probably if you think God is leading you. You don't go and stand up in the middle of your enemies, tell them they crucified God and then spray a bunch of exaggerations or fact twisting into the breeze. Peter used as an evidence before the Jews the miracles Jesus had done that he said they themselves had witnessed, and he accused a big crowd of them of having crucified the Son of God. You only do things like that if you're sure you're right and that God is with you.

Furthermore, I now have a quote from another expert who said, "The community would constantly be monitoring what was said and intervening to make corrections along the way. That would preserve the integrity of the message."

This expert was Craig Blomberg. Here are his credentials:

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ

Craig Blomberg is widely considered to be one of the country's foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, which are called the four gospels. He received hsi doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, later serving as a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years he has been a professor of New Testament at the highly respected Denver Seminary. Blomberg's books include Jesus and teh Gospels; Interpreting the Parables; How Wide the Divide? and commentaries on the gospel of Matthew and 1 Corinthians. He also helped edit volume six of Gospel Perspectives, which deals at length with the miracles of Jesus, and he coauthored Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. He contributed chapters on the historicity of the gospels to the book Reasonable Faith and the award-winning Jesus under Fire. His memberships include the Society for the Study of the New Testament, Society of Biblical Literature, and the Institute for Biblical Research.

By the way, it's worth noting that this same individual also said, "Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit this movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history better.

"Yet look at what his opponents did say. In later Jewish writings Jesus is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray- which acknowledges that he really did work marvelous wonders, although the writers disputed the source of his power.

"This would have been a perfect opportunity to say something like, 'The Christians will tell you he worked miracles, but we're here to tell you he didn't.' Yet that's the one thing we never see his opponents saying. Instead they implicitely acknowledge that what the gospels wrote-that Jesus performed miracles-is true."

So I now have two experts who have made the point that the Jews claimed Jesus to be a sorcerer with magical powers. Do you think it's likely that they're both mistaken?

On another issue, almost all the disciples ended up dying for their beliefs. You don't do that if you don't believe every word of what you're saying. Even if you're in charge of a large movement, if that large movement is based on lies, you wouldn't suffer torture and death just for that movement. Remember also what they said about liars going to hell . They'd just be the biggest and stupidest hypocrites imaginable.

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's impossible for us to know exactly what happened, what we do know is that they had a message which attracted lots of followers - especially among the gentile jews (those were probably the first Christians) and then the gentiles in general - most of whom had never seen Jesus or talked to anyone that had, except from the apostles that were preaching his message.

Of course I agree that it's impossible to know what happened, in terms of having absolute knowledge, as though we'd been there. But there are strong evidences that indicate powerfully that the New Testament is extremely accurate. The fact that they did not perfume the account up and remove the warts is a strong evidence that they were trying to be as accurate as they could be to what happened.

What they wrote in the Gospels, they wrote at a time of strong division in the church over the issue of circumcision. There are a lot of ways they could have doctored the Gospels, if they weren't determined to stick to the exact events of what occurred. The fact that they didn't make the changes to the scriptures that would most have helped them to survive and would have helped other people to more easily accept what they were saying is a strong evidence that they were trying to be historically accurate.

Remember also how they painted their own religious leaders! They made the disciples look like fools, never understanding what Jesus was saying and all running away when he was in trouble. These were the very leaders of their movement!

There are a whole host of things they would have changed if they were not trying to stick to the history. Anyway, in view of all of these things that I've been posting about internal evidences from the scripture, will you at least agree with me that the Gospel writers were doing their utmost to preserve historical accuracy? Because that is one of the key points I'm trying to make, though I realize it doesn't respond to everything you're saying. Some of my earlier points in this post are more on topic to what your point is.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

The Phariseers might not have heard it, might have tried - but the apostles could easily say that they were bringing about a new era, quote scripture that supported them - and then the people would have to make up their own minds. With varying results.

And cite miracles that the people themselves had witnessed, in Jerusalem . And without a support base, start public preaching in the heart of their enemies, accusing and preaching to the very people who had crucified Jesus. That takes certainty that you're telling the truth and God is on your side. You don't do that with lies. Neither does your whole batch of leaders die for claims that they know are lies.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I've read several books on the subject by probably just as acredited authors, none of them has mention it. I could probably site their referentials as well, if you'd think that would be of interest.

Omission of a point by some authors does not mean that a highly distinguished and professional scholar is saying something untrue.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I doubt it since we know the guy that assembled it and much of his story. The Talmud is not the Iliad.

I know! It's much, much more recent! And consider also the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great. They were written by Plutarch and Arrian four hundred years after his death, and yet they're considered to be very reliable by scholars. The length of time that you're pointing out is very small in comparison with that which distances most other ancient texts from the events they describe.

Originally Posted by Falagar

And as I said, there are much debate around the nature of the supposedly-Jesus in the document.

Since when is there debate? You just said some authors you'd read hadn't mentioned it, but that doesn't prove anything.

Originally Posted by Falagar

No. They tend to be sceptical of the claims - see if they match other sources, try to see if the author might have had any agenda (they usually did), how detailed they were, and how the author got hold of the information he presented. Source criticism is the first thing you learn as a historian, and arguably the most important.

Okay. I'm having trouble finding a quote on this, though I will probably keep probing, so I'll drop that argument. However, I will make one other point.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, the former director of the British Museum and author of The Paleography of Greek Papyri, said that, "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest [ancient] manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd disagree, at least from my experience people will believe anything if it fits with some of their views and presents some of their hopes.

For people who are opposed to the message, it makes sense for them to explore all avenues of attack, rather than only one. First, they would seek to discredit the miracles. Failing that, they would proceed to paint the miracles black.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Not void, but very debatable, as mentioned. If it was Jesus that is mentioned at all.

I now have cited two experts who say that this is what the Jews said, and you haven't yet produced any who say the reverse. It doesn't seem like it's all that debatable.

Originally Posted by Falagar

How do you know 'most' did? Many, certainly, but why most? Many probably disavowed him and then kept it on in secret.

From what I've heard historians say, the way the Christians endured persecution stoically and accepted death willingly for Christ was a key factor that attracted many people to their religion. If most of them were instead surrendering their beliefs and coming in with their tails between their legs, I don't think I would have been told this.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Explaining how the arabs could have conquered such a large part of the world isn't easy to explain either.

Agreed. And I firmly believe that a great spiritual power was involved in that conquest.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Or the rapid expansion of the industrial revolution, if we didn't have as much sources as we do (of course, the spread of technology is easier to account for and trace than the spread of ideas).

I agree that the Industrial Revolution is rather easier to account for.

Originally Posted by Falagar

There are quite a few problematic historical accounts abound, and they all have teir explanations - some might be wrong, based on wrong assumptions, but there are always explanations. Trying to explain the spread of a 2000 year old religion, where most of the sources come from the religion itself and its opponents, isn't an easy thing to do.

Granted.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Late compared to Paul. A lot could happen in 60 years in those days, as the spread of islam (and possibly other religions) show.

Except that the lateness doesn't matter, because they were still preaching to the eyewitnesses of the events they were describing. Very liberal circles accept the standard scholarly dating for the books as follows: Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s.

And furthermore, we're still talking only about 60 years at the latest, and not hundreds of years as we are with other texts that are accepted as accurate. So the lateness is, in Craig Blomberg's words, "almost a nonissue."

Originally Posted by Falagar

How do we know they're eyewitness accounts? From the sources themselves? They are of course useful to gain information from, but they aren't the end-all.

True, and scholars also use the teachings of the Early Church fathers and Christian tradition to help shed light on the identity of the authors. With John's authorship, there is some question as to whether it was the Apostle John or some other John, but the majority of the evidence still leans toward the Apostle John. And whoever it was, the content of the book makes it clear that it was an eyewitness of the events he was describing.

Originally Posted by Falagar

30 years is a long time for a human being, which is what we're discussing here - and Christianity wasn't fully fleshed out by those 30 years. There were numerous different views (some even thought Jesus hadn't been divine), and there were much disagreements before the Catholic church had established its canon (which, though the prevailing belief of many people and the most powerful ones, like the bishop in Rome, was far from widely accepted).

Yes, there were tangent groups, and I've also heard that it's argued the Roman Empire in part funded these groups to try to discredit and slow the Christian expansion. I don't know how much validity there is in that claim, as I haven't researched it.

But it also is clear that Christian doctrines such as the Resurrection and crucifixion for the sins of the world are recorded as having clearly been around just two years after Jesus' death. You see, in Philipians 2:6-11, Paul says that, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to the apostles."

Now I'll shift into quoting Blomberg, again, where he talks about that creed I quoted above. Note that the creed says in the first line that Paul had taken it from some earlier source.

"If the Crucifixion was as early as AD 30, Paul's conversion was about 32. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about AD 35. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

"Now, here you have the key facts of Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form- all dating back to within two to five years of that very event!

". . .

"This is enormously significant; now you're not comparing thirty to sixty years with the five hundred years that's generally acceptable for other data- you're talking about two!"

He got rather excited as he was explaining this- hence the exclamation points .

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'm not trying to present a coherent alternate - I believe that to be pretty impossible, and I'm certanly not qualified to make such an attempt. I've been pointing out the areas where I think you're making faulty assumptions, have brought in bad sources

Well, the lack of evidence to support any of these alternate hypotheses is worth noting, as we proceed.

Originally Posted by Falagar

All I had time for now, could perhaps try to present some of my sources later (when I've recovered from this evening ). I rely much on the little I've read of the works by Bart Ehrman and Henry Chadwick + good ol' wikipedia (and try to add in what little I have of logic and sense in between). Got to run.

It's been interesting! I fear I'm going to be overwhelming you with responding to this monster two-parter post, though. It took me hours to write. I will probably not have much time tomorrow or the day after for writing more on this thread, either . I'm preparing for my final exams, you see.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Edit: Jesus this post was monsterous! (The worst being I could have written more o_O )

And now you'll certainly have to .

[Lief Erikson]

Jeesh that was a monster two-parter. I'm done on this thread for today .

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Greetings all theologists!

I like religion. I am, by default, a Taoist, but I love Unitarianism. I'm gonna marry a Unitarian.

Welcome to the thread, Klatukatt! Would you mind telling me for what reasons you believe in Taoism or Unitarianism? I'd be very curious to learn what evidences there are to support those kinds of belief, too .

[klatukatt]

I don't really believe in Taoism, but my frame of thought falls into the category marked Taoist.
This means, I think that everything flows and any setbacks are not to be minded, because you will get back on top one day.
My philosophy:
"Work hard, smile at everyone, and life is your banquet."

I like Unitarianism because their philosophy is basically "Believe whatever you want, but don't push your beliefs on others. Great. Awesome. Let's have a picnic."

[Arien the Maia]

I know this is slightly off-topic but it DOES concern religion ....so there! anyhoo....I was thinking today, that the way things turn out is , indeed, strange! when I first joined Entmoot, almost 4 years ago (can you imagine?!)our dear Gwaimir was a non-denominational Protestant and is now, a Roman Catholic attending a Catholic collage. also, my wonderful hubby, who awas born into the Amish community and raised a non-denominational fundamental Protestant is now joing the Catholic Church (the Roman rite)! how strange! God indeed works in mysterious ways! I have always hoped that my children would attend Mass with BOTH their parents (instead of 1 like I always did), and now it shall be true!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I don't really believe in Taoism, but my frame of thought falls into the category marked Taoist.
This means, I think that everything flows and any setbacks are not to be minded, because you will get back on top one day.
My philosophy:
"Work hard, smile at everyone, and life is your banquet."

I like Unitarianism because their philosophy is basically "Believe whatever you want, but don't push your beliefs on others. Great. Awesome. Let's have a picnic."

Whatever you want, EXCEPT Trinitarianism. Or polytheism. Or a negation of Universalism.

I'm glad to hear the good news, Ari. I'll pray for your husband.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm glad to hear the good news, Ari. I'll pray for your husband.

thank you! pray for me too, as I am his sponsor! it's a scary thought, but since as I'm the one who lives with hime, I thought I would be the best choice

[Falagar]

No time for anything else right now, but...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I now have cited two experts who say that this is what the Jews said, and you haven't yet produced any who say the reverse. It doesn't seem like it's all that debatable.

The only place I've seen Jesus' role in the Talmud discussed is in this article on wikipedia, on Yeshu, which also sites the passages in question.