bfniii

dramaq said that someone should have written about it but you say the opposite.

that was one of the claims i made, yes. your assertion that we shouldn't expect such a record is debateable and apparently not all skeptics in this thread agree about it.

yes you're right. they couldn't possibly have been trying to truthfully record actual events. they're christian and they're not to be trusted.

i don't have to. go to any thread about those texts and you will see plenty of skeptics making that very point (among other contradictory points).

none of what you just said addresses that a person's cruelty can lead to a rebellion which actually happened in this case. concordantly, it's unreasonable to think that pilate was unaware of this fact or of the fact that specifically HIS cruelty might have exacerbated the situation.

that's quite interesting and anecdotal, but not conclusive in this particular case.

not when considering he feared an uprising.

see above.

i disagree for the reasons listed above.

first, you don't acknowledge that the quote i provide supports my point, much less address it by providing contradictory information. second, i'm confused by your response. Jesus did those things causing Him to get framed. pilate considered Him innocent well after the mob had gained momentum, not before He got framed. you seem to imply that pilate's judgment was a prerequisite for the actions of the jewish leaders. could you rephrase, please?

could you provide a quote from him supporting that statement? i found this quote from his article "who killed Jesus" which seems to obviate your point:
"But the reality is that Jesus was officially, legally, and publicly executed by Roman authority--that is, by at least the normalcy and maybe even the cutting edge of civilization in his time. Pilate knew Jesus was not a violent threat, or he would have rounded up and executed many of his closest followers. But Pilate also knew that Jesus was a religio-political opponent of Roman imperialism who had announced the Kingdom of God for this earth in subversive opposition to the Kingdom of Rome."

yet during the time period you mention (while christians were either persecuted or despised) they continually win converts both from within judea and without, jew and gentile. if there are people who took it seriously enough to be willing to convert, it seems unreasonable that the opposite (anti-christian movement) wouldn't have taken place unless they didn't have a refutation of their claims. now you may ask why didn't the opponents convert? christianity wasn't and isn't for everyone. maybe these formal criticisms don't exist because people didn't refute the events described in the bible.

see, i feel the same about your expectation that it should exist. there is no proof that people didn't critically examine the beliefs of christianity, we just don't find them in written form. we do find them in the growth of the religion outside the boundaries of judea in the "civilized" and educated world where such criticism would have been expected. again, not seeing these criticisms in written form may be because people examined the specifics and found no refutation of them. i agree that some people didn't know the specifics of christianity, but that certainly wouldn't apply to all people everywhere.

none is needed for one to have existed.

the vietnam wall is called a wall, not a monument. nor is there evidence to the contrary.

to clarify, it has been suggested by archaeologists and biblical scholars that the gate referred to was the area of the city, apparently a housing district, where people egressed and ingressed. it's possible that there was some form of actual gate there that hasn't been located yet. you're really hung up on this gate of nain. is there a reason why it's such a big problem for you? the explanation provided seems pretty clear and unencumbered.

but how do we know that any story from a society preceeded a written form? my point is, we can be just as certain of jewish oral traditions as we can of any from other societies.

i don't believe this can be quantified. there are many colleges, universities and denominations who do believe single, apostolic authorship. is that the majority of biblical scholars? are the history professors from other institutions who disagree more numerous than the former? you can provide names and so can i but that only shows that there are people who debate the issue. in terms of christians, i believe those who believe multiple authorship are in the outspoken minority.

my response to this point is that a case can be made. it seems compelling to me, more so than other reasons i have read which appear to be merely happenstance and less numerous.

bfniii

i notice that you have yet to address the points i made but continue with your derisive remarks. do you believe that such responses will ingratiate me to your points? spin, indeed.

Toto

Clarification - spin is a very knowledgable poster here who can demolish your baseless claim that But he might be too tired of this nonsense. You could check his debate with judge on this thread.

Amaleq13

DramaQ's subsequent post should have disabused you of this incorrect perception. I entirely agree with his/her point but consider it a secondary position. IOW, I first see no reason to assume that anyone would bother to write down a formal critique of early Christian claims and plenty of evidence suggesting that no one cared enough. If, however, we assume that someone did, there is every reason to assume that it would have been eliminated from existence during the eventual Christian dominance of written text preservation. As with Celsus, though, I would think we might find some portions preserved in a Christian response so I tend to doubt any such document was ever created. Either way, this is a horrible argument to use to attempt to establish the reliability of early Christian claims.

Only if you define "debateable" as "bfniii refuses to accept it". You have offered no credible reason for anyone to expect such an effort to be made in opposition to the existing evidence from early Roman opponents who appear to have known very little.

Again, you either did not read or did not understand DramaQ's subsequent post. Specifically, this line should have cleared up your misunderstanding:

"I don’t disagree with his point at all. The two points are not mutually exclusive."

Regardless, since no one is arguing that everyone opposed to your claims agrees in their opposition, this is an irrelevant tangent.

You seem to be fond of trying to make me defend strawman positions. Please make an effort to address my actual statements. To observe that the Gospels have a theological agenda is not to assert the authors are liars. To ignore this rather obvious fact in considering the claims made within is exceptionally naive.

That is correct unless you want to be taken seriously. Stop wasting your time and ours with unsubstantiated assertions.

Could you be more specific? What rebellion resulted from what case?

If we assume the Gospel stories to be historically reliable in their depiction of Pilate then we must assume a unique and apparently temporary drastic change in his attitude toward the Jews followed by a return to his typical behavior which eventually resulted in losing his job. In addition, we must assume that he engaged in a practice of leniency toward a convicted seditionist that was wholly unique according to what is known of typical Roman practices, wholly unsubstantiated elsewhere, and likely an act that would be considered treason by the Emperor. I'm sorry but I lack the faith necessary to accept all of these unreasonable assumptions.

There is no good reason to suspect that an uprising would occur for him to fear. Your only "evidence" for the alleged potential uprising is the Gospel depiction of the most capricious "multitude" in history. Appealing to one ubelievable claim to support a second unbelievable claims doesn't make for a very compelling argument form a rational standpoint but I'm sure it works like a charm for the faithful.

The quote requires no acknowledgment absent the evidence to support it. Provide the examples of Pilate backing down not an appeal to this individual's authority.

You're confused because you missed the point. If Jesus did those things, there would have been no need to frame him. Disrupting the Temple during Passover would surely have been sufficient to get him executed by cruel Pilate yet that charge is never brought against him. Bad enough as fiction, utterly incredible as history.

Regarding Mark 15:6-15, Crossan writes:

"I judge that narrative to be absolutely unhistorical, a creation most likely of Mark himself [fyi:Crossan uses the convention of the name but does not consider the author to have been Peter's secretary], and for two reasons. One is that its picture of Pilate, meekly acquiescent to a shouting crowd, is exactly the opposite of what we know about him from Josephus. Brutal crowd-control was his speciality. Another is open amnesty, the release of any requested prisoner at the time of the Passover festival. Such a custom is against any administrative wisdom." (Who Killed Jesus?, p.111)

On the contrary, under the assumption that Jesus was crucified, Crossan's speculative reconstruction is entirely reasonable in contrast to the Gospel stories. His story clearly does not require Jesus to be framed nor does it require Pilate to act uncharacteristically nor does it require Pilate to consider Jesus innocent. If the Gospel story read this way, it would be far more consistent with the extrabiblical evidence.

I don't know where you get your understanding of why folks were converting but it doesn't appear to be Paul. Where does he indicate that any evidence was required by his converts beyond a demonstration of miraculous healing and pointing to passages in Jewish Scripture?

You are as fond of trying to force me to "prove a negative" as you are of trying to force me to defend strawman positions. It is your responsibility to support your assertions. The evidence of Roman opposition to Christianity indicates that very little was known about their specific beliefs yet they were reviled and despised. Your postions appears to have no merit. There is no good reason to expect such formal criticisms to have been written and, assuming they were, there is no good reason to expect them to have been preserved. Their absence from the extant record is entirely meaningless.

Prove it. We have evidence of ignorance from Roman officials who interacted directly with Christians. Where is your evidence?

Given the absence of supportive archaeological evidence, evidence that some sort of ceremonial gate existed is necessary to make the claim credible.

Are you kidding? This is getting idiotic. See the first sentence at this website. Not only is it a monument, it has been formally identified as a national monument.

It isn't a problem for me at all. There is no evidence and, thus, no good reason to assume that Nain ever had a gate. Period. That you persist in straining for a basis to claim otherwise is simply a testament to your faith.

We don't "know" it, we can only say that this is how it has been observed to occur and that it seems to be how we would expect things to develop. Why do you want to deny an oral tradition? That makes no sense given your faith in the Gospel stories. You are aware that those stories depict an earlier, oral basis for the written stories, right?

I agree that idenifying non-extant oral traditions from any cultural is equally uncertain. As I stated earlier, there is no known reliable methodology for identifying the oral traditions that may have preceeded written accounts.

I'm referring to professional, published scholars. As I mentioned before, when the Catholic Study Bible reports this to be the consensus of modern scholarship, I see no reason to suspect they would lie. On the contrary, I would expect the editors to try and emphasize anything that supports a traditional view whenever they felt it was reasonable.

I've read the primary arguments put forth by the minority and I find them to be more the result of the faith of the scholar than the evidence, itself. It requires faith to make the arguments and faith to accept them.

IvanJames

OK, am I the only one reminded of the movie, "Galaxy Quest"?
---IvanJames

bfniii

no more flawed than the reverse argument that the lack of refutation means biblical claims shouldn't be believed.

unlikely since people were serious enough about the claims to convert to christianity. it's improbable that, if there were people who converted, there weren't any people who felt the opposite about them.

how convenient. however, it is possible that one day such a refutation may be discovered.

yet christianity is mentioned even by non-christians thus nullifying this argument.

again, no more so than the opposite claim.

bfniii

this seems to be going in a semantic direction. i was trying to draw a distinction between the bible and other mythological stories by referencing the fact that the jews had long held beliefs, prophecies if you will, that apparently came true. this would seem to be one aspect separating christianity from other myths such as paul bunyan and robin hood.

i'm afraid i wasn't clear enough in this response. i was again trying to distinguish christianity from other myths. the fact that people aren't looking for these myths would seem to be another separator.

it seems you're saying there's no reason to believe Jesus existed. You seem to be saying that He was concocted because He was written about. Isn’t it possible that the Jesus they wrote about actually existed and genuinely fulfilled prophecy?

what i don't understand is why you don't take the same position with christianity. you admit you can't disprove ghosts, etc, so you just dismiss them. but with christianity, you don't just dismiss. you go to the trouble of trying to convince others it's untrue without proof of such. indeed you have obviously spent much time learning for the purpose of dissuading christians. why go to so much trouble?

the difference here is that christianity is a religion founded on purported real events whereas the legends you mention are not. They may incorporate some reality to make them accessible.

i see the completely opposite picture. i have spent hundreds of hours reading objections to christianity but i see the bible being trustworthy, reliable and not yet disproved. in that case, christianity is the best explanation available or the most likely.

To each his own.

i guess we disagree because it seems pretty clear that is the case. you acknowledge a lack of mention of biblical events by first century authors and see that as a strong case that biblical events are unlikely. however, without proof one way or the other, you don't respect the opposite belief that the events are not disproven or even disputed and even supported in certain ways. that seems intolerant.

there are some things that have been left out of your narrative. what if nasa makes some discovery that it is possible and even likely the star could have been in that position at that time? what if mr. x is known for reporting credible events? what if the path of nearby planets has been gravitationally altered seemingly by a star?

i agree with the principle of your criteria above if they were they only information we had to go on. but that's not the case. there is other information (historical, archaeological, social) that affects the case. there are certain facts that exist. skeptics choose to interpret them a certain way (the bible unearthed is a perfect example) and don't respect any other interpretations.

the books in the bible weren't in the bible until after they had been written. they were written by purported eyewitnesses and only included in the bible because people considered them eyewitness testimony and truthful. this is no different than writings of other first century authors that skeptics consider truthful. that is not using the bible to verify the bible.

I’m unfamiliar with it’s claims. What are they?

I think one problem with this analogy is the bible “doing� something. It’s a book. It may “record� something.

The bible is what it is. Any burden of proof lies on whatever person wishes to believe it or not. Otherwise, it can just be dismissed apathetically. Skeptics have no proof that the bible is untrue but claim the bible shouldn’t be believed or that it is mythological. Christians do have some evidence that corroborates biblical claims and can make a reasonable case that it is true.

I have outlined at least two double standards present in this particular forum. I’m not sure how I’m wasting your time. I didn’t force you to come to this forum and debate these points. Good reasons already exist or else sane, intelligent people would never become Christians or be able to defend biblical claims for centuries. The issue is that you need more reasons than some other people. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, claiming the bible is untrue without any proof of such seems unreasonable. It would be more prudent to just dismiss christianity.

I’m familiar with my responses and I don’t see any that are overtly emotional. If they can be interpreted that way, I apologize. I intend for them to be as objective and dispassionate as possible. I also am unclear on what things I have misstated.

Why would someone use josephus or any other first century author as a measuring stick for biblical reliability unless they considered his writing to be reliable itself? I didn’t make that up. I read it in posts in this forum regarding the antiquities. Perhaps you could clarify how I’m misrepresenting that position.

This is another point I don’t understand. It seems that you consider the two Christian passages unreliable but the rest of the antiquities to be reliable, correct? How do you know one part is, and another isn’t? I gather from reading the debates over the antiquities that people consider josephus to be reliable when it suits their fancy. The double standard I see is that josephus doesn’t mention the infanticide and that’s reliable. But his mention of Jesus, that’s unreliable. Agree or disagree?

i would like to point out that many skeptics consider the bible unreliable because of certain passages. however, they don't hold josephus to the same standard that you mention here. you seem to be advocating that the two christological references are problematic but the rest is trustworthy. the bible is different though. even though some things have been shown to be reliable, the few passages not liked show the bible isn't trustworthy. again, this is the "guilty until proven innocent" standard.

I don’t quite follow this point.

That’s not necessarily true and I’m not sure why you make this comment. Catholicism is still around. It hasn’t been suppressed or eliminated by Protestantism. Protestants became influential long after the first and second centuries so I’m not sure what bearing this has on first and second century Christian writings.

I couldn’t disagree more especially given the fact that Christianity didn’t develop and incubate in obscurity. There were many people in many countries who were familiar with Christianity mostly due to Christians taking advantage of travel through the roman empire.

This is a great point. If they change their story even minutely, we’ll know they’re liars trying to improve their religion’s claims much like the mormons now.

There are many things about Christianity that are “truth�. It’s ok if you don’t like that. It isn’t meant to appeal to everyone.

I wish skeptics would take your advice and stick to the facts. There isn’t factual proof that the bible contains lies, yet some people maintain that.

bfniii

could you provide some examples?

this doesn't seem possible because his writings show he spent time with christians but we don't see them disapproving of what he wrote. in fact, his message coincided with theirs.

bfniii

who is mainstream archaeology? besides, it doesn't matter. as i have said, archaeology is constantly discovering things. earlier i referenced a website that shows lengthy and detailed evidence of an exodus. check it out.

good point. i should have said that there is no evidence of it. thanks for the clarification.

bfniii

judaism is an incomplete religion. they are still expecting their inheritances, from what i understand.