FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2001, 10:05 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:
No, the Romans did not think it was a totally unimportant area. It was not super-important but neither was it unimportant to them.

[This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited May 24, 2001).]
</font>
It had strategic importance but it had no social importance! They were not concerned with Hebrew culture or religion, an homeless carpenter wondering the desert claiming to be something form Hebrew religion would have been a total turn off for them. That's one reason Josephus was writing in the first place, to try and work up their concern for the region.

3) Why Jesus wouldn't be mentioned more than he is.
 
 
 
 
 Jp Holding:
 
 
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jph..._01_01_01.html
 
 
a. Roman Historians were only concerned with issues that directly effected them where they lived, or pertained to the fortunes of the empire.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
He didn't address the Roman Senate, worte no treatesies, histories, poems or palys, never travaled outside of Palestine, and did not change the socio-economic situation in Paltestine. He was a strictly local affair, of regional importance only, in his own lifetime.
Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?"
 
 
Jesus and History
On Line Electronic books
Edward C. Wharton http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html
From Pagan Sources
"Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. [Micahel Green , Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.] This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him."
 
 
 
 
b. Jesus was not a big enough threat to the Romans

He was enough of a threat to warrent his exicution, but there had been many other Messianich "pretenders" who warrented harher treatment. The Romans never had to call out troops to quell a revolt led by Jesus or his followers.
 
 
c. His death as a criminal made him even more marginal, and as one of many criminals exicuted by Rome during their stay in Palestine he was unremarkable.

 
 
d. He was itinerant

J.P. Holding:
"Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?"
 
 
e. He was a nerdowell&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

Holding agin: "Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples."


f. He was unimportant, poor, migrant, in an empire the captial of which was very far away, ran by rich tyrannts and he could do nothing to imporve their power. Why should they have an interest in him?
 
 g. Not concerned with Roman gods&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

Jesus' bore a message of eschatological and spiritual significance about an obscure foreign God most Romans knew little about. They had no particular reason to see him as anything other than a strictly regional private matter concerning a religion that seemed barbaric and about which they had no interest.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;


 h. No evening News.

News travaled slowly, the distances were great. They had no mass communications. It took months for Rome to learn of events in Palestine, and most of the events there were of little interest to them. Moreover, his work only lasted three years. By the time he was begining to reach the height of his fame in Jerusalem word of his very existence might just be reaching Rome, where it would have been gretaed coldly with no real interest anyway. Than suddenly he was gone, exicuted as a torulbe maker and good ridence! Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so who would believe or care about this one?

i. One of many wonder workers
 
 
There were actually quite a few "wonder workers" and Messianic claimants in Jesus' time. In fact he may have seen one himself, a man called "The Egyptian" who led a revolt in Jesus' childhood, in The Galillee, but his followered were slaughtered and the Egyptian disappeared. Why should the Romans Take notice of just one more. (Now many will argue well see Jesus was just one more of these guys, but for an answer on that see "How do I know that Jesus is the Son of God?")

 
 
 
 
 



[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 24, 2001).]
 
Old 05-24-2001, 10:15 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance:
Valmorian: I'd agree with you both except for one thing. The same old shit is going on today, just less overt.

If the Christian cult had grown up, become responsible, and didn't terrorize people, that'd be one thing. We all grow up, hopefully...

The Christian cult to date has shown no signs of that.
</font>
TWo things:
1) that has nothing to do with wheather or not Jesus existed.

2) try to read some history. There have been tons of Christian voices for liberation, why should we define the Chrsitian tradition by the Fallwells when we could define them by the Albert Schweitzscher's?
 
Old 05-24-2001, 10:18 PM   #23
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:

Both Paul and I speicialize in doing it the other way around.</font>
Okay, heh. I trust you get the point however.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It had strategic importance but it had no social importance! </font>
So you admit your error in saying it was "totally unimportant"?

BTW - we are still waiting for the Lourdes data.

[This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited May 24, 2001).]
Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 10:19 PM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Valmorian:
I actually agree with you here Layman.

Holding modern day Christians responsible for acts committed in the middle ages is ludicrous.

</font>
So can I take it that none of you can answer the argument of the thread and that's why you keep changing the subject?

Why are there no alternate stories of Jesus? Becasue everyone knew the basic facts, becasue he was real.
 
Old 05-24-2001, 10:22 PM   #25
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why are there no alternate stories of Jesus? Becasue everyone knew the basic facts, becasue he was real. </font>
Assuming for a moment that there are none, your conclusion could be correct, or it could be that nobody else cared enough to write another, they were lost or destroyed by the church, differnt stories were melded to create a single new one, etc.

There are many possibilites. To conclude that a story is true because there is only one version of it is not rational.
Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 10:38 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:

Assuming for a moment that there are none, your conclusion could be correct, or it could be that nobody else cared enough to write another, they were lost or destroyed by the church, differnt stories were melded to create a single new one, etc.

There are many possibilites. To conclude that a story is true because there is only one version of it is not rational.</font>
Just so that I can understand your argument here Iconoclast, are you saying that because you can conceive of possible alternative stories to the only one we do have, that we it is not rational to accept the only story we do have?

If this is your argument, then why do you consider it to be a rational position to take, and what do you see as the consequences of such a view? Personally, I think the consequences would have us doubting all kinds of perfectly normal things in favour of every type of sophistry the human mind can invent.

Nomad
 
Old 05-24-2001, 10:42 PM   #27
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just so that I can understand your argument here Iconoclast, are you saying that because you can conceive of possible alternative stories to the only one we do have, that we it is not rational to accept the only story we do have?</font>
Nope. I am saying that it is not rational to conlude that just because we know of only one version of a certain story, the reason is because it is the only version ever created.

Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 10:51 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:

Nope. I am saying that it is not rational to conlude that just because we know of only one version of a certain story, the reason is because it is the only version ever created.</font>
Please bear with me on this point.

We have one version of a particular story. Thus far I have not seen you dispute this, so I am going to assume that you accept this (if I am mistaken, please let me know).

We have no evidence of any other story ever existing, let alone that an alternative story was possibly destroyed at some point in time by persons unknown.

The story is in no way extraordinary, nor does it make any extraordinary claims.

Do you believe that it is not even rational to believe this story? If so, why?

Finally, if that is your argument, then why do you believe any stories told to you? Or do you?

Nomad
 
Old 05-24-2001, 11:07 PM   #29
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We have one version of a particular story. Thus far I have not seen you dispute this, so I am going to assume that you accept this (if I am mistaken, please let me know).</font>
I am accepting that for the sake of this argument only.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We have no evidence of any other story ever existing, let alone that an alternative story was possibly destroyed at some point in time by persons unknown.</font>
That may or may not be true.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The story is in no way extraordinary, nor does it make any extraordinary claims.</font>
Not in the case of the Jesus story.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Do you believe that it is not even rational to believe this story? If so, why?</font>
As I said, it is not rational to believe a story is true simply because there is only one known version of it.

I've written a story about a tree god. There is only one version of it. Does that make it true? No, it does not.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Finally, if that is your argument, then why do you believe any stories told to you? Or do you?</font>
I don't automatically believe everything I read or hear, no. Do you?

Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 11:18 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Iconoclast

We appear to be talking about two different things. I am not talking about the Jesus found in the Gospels, but merely the one found in the historical record. There is only one record on His life and death, and there is no evidence that any other story about Him exists.

On that basis, why do you reject the story (again, assuming that you do reject it) that He lived and at the same time of John the Baptist and died under Pontius Pilate?

Nomad

P.S. I did not ask if you believe EVERYTHING you read, but merely if you believe ANYTHING you read. There is a very large difference between the two, and I would like to know when you decide that a story is probably true.

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited May 25, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.