Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus did what the New Testament says that he did, his exploits would certainly have attracted the attention of the Roman government in Palestine, and even at Rome. Roman history would contain lots of references to the exploits of Jesus.

If Josephus actually wrote about the exploits of Jesus, why didn't anyone else of that time period write about them? If other non-Christian historians did write about the exploits of Jesus, you can bet that Christians would have preserved those records because the very best possible testimonies for Christians would be testimonies from skeptics. It is well-known that early Christians preferred to preserve records that were favorable to their religous beliefs.

Matthew 4:24-25 say "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

Now really, folks, such activities would surely have attracted the attention of the Roman government in Palestine, and even in Rome, not to mention the attention of people all over the Middle East. Many thousands of people travelled to and from Jerusalem each year. Jesus' supposed exploits would have been the talk of the entire Middle East and beyond.

I remind readers that Jesus supposedly performed miracles in front of thousands of people for THREE YEARS, and that the New Testament says that he performed many miracles that were not recorded.

InnocentSmith

What makes you think that? Itinerant healers were not terribly uncommon, and the Roman world would have hardly blinked an eye at the prospect of resurrection.

It is doubtful that Josephus actually did discuss Jesus. Even if he did, however, I would not be surprised if he were the only one. He wrote prolifically of the Jewish people, documenting presumably minute events and people. That does not mean that others would do the same, especially given the contempt with which others viewed the Jews, even at that time.

And I disagree. You've not shown why people would note Jesus in particular.

Johnny Skeptic

But if Jesus did what the New Testament says that he did, if early Christians had any sense, they would would have preserved testimonies of skeptic eyewitnesses who would have seen Jesus perform miracles if Jesus actually performed miracles. Logically, the best possible evidence is evidence from your critics.

Regarding "itinerant healers," why do you think that their supposed exploits did not survive the test of time? Obviously, because their supposed exploits did not happen.

If Jesus performed miracles, why did he perform them? If Jesus made personal appearances after he rose from the dead, why did he do it? These are important questions.

Regarding the supposed Ten Plagues in Egypt, if they occured, they would have been some of the most important events in human history, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people all over the Middle East would have known about them. If the plagues occured, it would have been very advantageous for Jews to preserve writings about them that were written by skeptics, but there aren't any such writings.

InnocentSmith

This assumes a number of things, not the least of which is that the disciples were carrying notebooks in which to jot down quotes from skeptical witnesses. Literacy was still not common among peasants, and literature was certainly not the primary mode of communication.
Collecting evidence to convince skeptics was not a primary concern, nor ought it to have been. Why should first-century Christians be concerned with proving things to you?

Does not logically follow.

Perhaps, but not particularly relevant.

aa5874

Who were these itinerant healers in the 1st century, do you have some historical source for your information? I cannot find any credible source.

And, based on the NT, Herod wanted to see Jesus do miracles for a long time.

Luke 23.8, "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

InnocentSmith

Most every work of history regarding the Classical world makes reference to itinerant healers and their function, usually in an offhand manner, which leads one to believe that they were ubiquitous and generally undeserving of special comment.

If you give me a bit, I'll try to find a specific internet source on the matter.
The author of Luke had an interest in presenting Jesus as a subject of curiosity to royalty.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to InnocentSmith: If the Ten Plagues in Egypt occured, in your opinion, would there probably have been surviving non-Biblical records, and would that have been the end of Egypt as a powerful nation?

What are your favorite tactics against fundamentalist Christianity?

Goathead

regardless, the issue still stands.

Jesus was reportedly NOt a normal healer, he apparently worked.This very much would be noticed.

Any leader with a real following would be watched by teh local rulers, and probably noted as such.

And lastly, these stories survived somehow, so why not more stories, and why not in particular-critical stories?!?!??!

Smacks of propagande to me.

darstec

Now wait a minute. Wasn't there a Herod who slaughtered all those innocent children to get rid of Jesus? Or didn't Luke read Matthew? Or is it that both knew they were writing fiction and felt no qualms about abruptly altering the other stories? It would have been easy to figure out who he was even as a grown up, as he would have been the only male in that age group.

InnocentSmith

Yes, and probably, respectively.

I generally choose not to engage fundamentalists at all.

Why? As opposed to all the other pagan healers?

His real following consisted of 12 men. He had many fans, granted, but that was the meat of his discipleship. Hardly something for Rome to worry about.

The simple answer is that those who believed he was the son of God wrote prolifically and preserved their manuscripts, while those who felt he was a crackpot did nothing of the kind. And as I earlier pointed out, nor should they have. There was absolutely no reason for texts critical of Christ to be written. His following was too small, too centralized, and his works were hardly extraordinary enough to require comment.

Luke probably didn't read Matthew, according to the most commonly accepted theory. (Of course, in Great Britian there is the Farrer hypothesis, but it has gained the popular or critical acceptance of the Two-Source hypothesis.)
It seems unlikely, but I suppose that's the sort of assertion that one could make around here without issue.

Assuming that the Matthew birth narrative is the accurate one.