Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 02-09-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

If you have evidence to the contrary, i.e. evidence to support the idea that Christianity arose DURING the first century, CE, please provide a link. Simply expressing your opinion, that mountainman's references are inadequate, to attest to the absence of organized Christianity prior to the second century, is unpersuasive. Evidence trumps opinions, every time. In this case, the evidence, overwhelming to me, is the absence of anything: coin, basilica, drawing, parchment, fig leaf, whatever....FROM THE FIRST CENTURY.

mountainman wrote that the absence you're referring to (or 'the Great Silence')) is evidence against any claims that anything happened in the saga of the history of Christian origins in the 1st century. I asked for mountainman's justification for saying that. mountainman has not provided that justification. Neither have you. Even if mountainman was already aware that the two of you were in agreement, I don't regard that agreement between the two of you as providing the justification I asked about.

Claims have been made - by others - about the activity of "Early Christians" in the 1st century.
If you are not aware of these claims phone the Pope's Information Line.

When the evidence is examined for these claims, there is a great silence. In places where we might expect a mention, there is not a peep. We have a list of sources from the 1st century .... S1, S2, S3, S4, ..., Sn.

The outcome of our reaearch is summarised in the statemernts:

S1 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S2 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S4 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S4 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".

...
...
...

Sn does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".

These are statements of NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.

The dog did not bark in the night.

The claimed events did not occur in the evidence.

In the original story, the dog's failure to bark was evidence against a stranger's having entered the stable in the night, because the dog would have been expected to bark if a stranger had entered the stable in the night. The dog's failure to bark was NOT evidence against a familiar person's having entered the stable in the night, because the dog would not have been expected to bark if a familiar person had entered the stable in the night.

This leads naturally to the question: in which places might we expect to see which claims mentioned and why?

J-D · 02-09-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

If you are suggesting that if Lincoln had survived the war he would have opposed the constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, then I think this is most unlikely.

No, sorry for conveying that sentiment.

I believe that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. But, I doubt that he was a "reformer", much less an abolitionist. I think modern historians have glossed over the accounts of his youthful endeavors, aimed at promoting preservation of the slavery status quo, and I also think that he HAD THE POWER to free ALL the slaves, including those in his home state, and yet, he did not do so.

Lincoln was elected to congress from a state, Illinois, which encouraged slavery. I think Lincoln would have supported the abolition of slavery, if that motion had arisen from Congress, but, he was unwilling to stick out his neck, to help those who had escaped from slavery, prior to his "emancipation proclamation", issued not in 1861, upon attaining the presidency, but two years later, when Lincoln needed warm bodies to fight the rebels.

I don't think that Lincoln himself, unlike Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James Madison, or George Washington was a slave owner. Maybe Lincoln believed that slavery was immoral. I don't know. I simply don't think he was the great hero he is made out to be.....

You are obviously not as well-informed on this subject as you could easily make yourself if you wish.

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...ln_and_slavery
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_a...ace#1862-08-22
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...hes/hodges.htm

Slavery was not legal in Illinois in Lincoln's time. Lincoln never owned slaves. His personal feelings were always totally opposed to slavery. These facts are easily checked by anybody who wants to.

J-D · 02-09-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

mountainman wrote that the absence you're referring to (or 'the Great Silence')) is evidence against any claims that anything happened in the saga of the history of Christian origins in the 1st century.

Maybe that is exactly what he is writing, and since I am not terribly clever,

Aren't you? Really? How do you know that you're not terribly clever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I simply haven't yet figured that out....

On the other hand, what you have written here, does NOT correspond to my point, maybe because of my lack of writing skill.

I claim that the "Great Silence", far from being evidence AGAINST something, is evidence in support of my claim of the non-existence of Christianity in the first century CE.

It is negative evidence FOR a theory that Christianity did not commence during the first century, CE. The evidence (absence of any artifacts, documents, buildings, etc...) is similar to the output of seismic probes looking for oil, or ultrasound looking at a woman's uterus for signs of life. What do you conclude, upon evaluating an ultrasound study which shows no fetus? We did the dig, we excavated the tombs, we dug up the catacombs, we pawed through the trash heaps in Egypt. What have we got? same for the radiologist. She's not pregnant. If she was copulating four months earlier, we can not confirm that fact by our best testing protocols. So far as we know, she hasn't yet begun fornicating. The church hasn't yet started in the first century.

If you tell me, that, according to the written testimony of Ms. Jones, our woman was seen going into a hotel room with a fertile man, four months ago, therefore the woman must be pregnant, because Ms. Jones has written it on a piece of paper, I am obliged to reiterate, that the negative evidence produced, leads me to conclude, contrary to what Ms. Jones has affirmed, that this woman may have been simply selling girl scout cookies in that hotel room....

If a woman is pregnant, there are certain signs of that which one would expect to find, and the absence of those signs would be evidence against her pregnancy.

If you expect that certain signs should be found if Christianity existed in the first century, it follows naturally that you would regard the absence of those signs as evidence against the existence of Christianity in the first century, but it also leads naturally to this question: what is your justification for your expectation?

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 03:36 PM

The Remsberg list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus - improved by Iason.

More recently Remsberg Redux: should anyone have written about Jesus split ... by Kapyong (starting at post # 24)

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you expect that certain signs should be found if Christianity existed in the first century, it follows naturally that you would regard the absence of those signs as evidence against the existence of Christianity in the first century, but it also leads naturally to this question: what is your justification for your expectation?

The memory of people and events are often preserved for future generations in manuscripts, in inscriptions and in various other forms of ancient historical evidence. When we go looking for any evidence supporting the existence in the 1st century of Apollonius of Tyana, we find this inscription (itself perhaps from the 3rd century). This is an example of evidence (an inscription) that we might expect for Jesus.

When we search for any evidence attesting to the memory of the so-called canonical Jesus, or the memory of the books of the New Testament or the memory of either "Christians" or any "Christian Church", we dont find any ancient historical evidence at all. There is an absence of expected ancient historical evidence in the 1st century.

Outside of the source called Eusebius in the 4th century, there is a similar silence in the evidence from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but without a doubt testimony and evidence for Jesus, the Christian Church and the new testament books explodes in a massive controversy in the early 4th century. From such patterns of evidence certain hypotheses are capable of being provisionally supported and certain hypotheses may be essentially provisionally rejected.

J-D · 02-09-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you expect that certain signs should be found if Christianity existed in the first century, it follows naturally that you would regard the absence of those signs as evidence against the existence of Christianity in the first century, but it also leads naturally to this question: what is your justification for your expectation?

The memory of people is often preserved for future generations in manuscripts, in inscriptions and in various other forms of ancient historical evidence. When we go looking for any evidence supporting the existence of Apollonius of Tyana from the 1st century we find this inscription:

When we search for any evidence attesting to the memory of the so-called canonical Jesus, or the memory of the books of the New Testament or the memory of either "Christians" or any "Christian Church", we dont find anything at all. There is an absence of expected ancient historical evidence.

Often the memory of people is preserved for future generations in manuscripts, in inscriptions, and in various other forms of ancient historical evidence.

And often it is not.

So you still haven't shown the justification for your expectation.

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When we search for any evidence attesting to the memory of the so-called canonical Jesus, or the memory of the books of the New Testament or the memory of either "Christians" or any "Christian Church", we dont find anything at all. There is an absence of expected ancient historical evidence.

Often the memory of people is preserved for future generations in manuscripts, in inscriptions, and in various other forms of ancient historical evidence.

In this case we can make hypotheses and reach hypothetical conclusions based on ancient historical evidence.

Quote:

And often it is not.

In this case we cannot make hypotheses and reach hypothetical conclusions based on ancient historical evidence.

Quote:

So you still haven't shown the justification for your expectation.

Those who make the claims in the field of "Biblical History" (which I categorize as a subset of ancient history) either have evidence to substantiate these claims, or they do not.

J-D · 02-09-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When we search for any evidence attesting to the memory of the so-called canonical Jesus, or the memory of the books of the New Testament or the memory of either "Christians" or any "Christian Church", we dont find anything at all. There is an absence of expected ancient historical evidence.

Often the memory of people is preserved for future generations in manuscripts, in inscriptions, and in various other forms of ancient historical evidence.

In this case we can make hypotheses and reach hypothetical conclusions based on ancient historical evidence.

Quote:

And often it is not.

In this case we cannot make hypotheses and reach hypothetical conclusions based on ancient historical evidence.

Quote:

So you still haven't shown the justification for your expectation.

Those who make the claims in the field of "Biblical History" (which I categorize as a subset of ancient history) either have evidence to substantiate these claims, or they do not.

You have made a claim and you haven't justified it.

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have made a claim and you haven't justified it.

Pay attention. Claims have been made by others which are not, after a thorough examination, justified in the ancient historical evidence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Remsberg list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus - improved by Iason.

More recently Remsberg Redux: should anyone have written about Jesus split ... by Kapyong (starting at post # 24)

J-D · 02-09-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have made a claim and you haven't justified it.

Pay attention. Claims have been made by others which are not, after a thorough examination, justified in the ancient historical evidence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Remsberg list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus - improved by Iason.

More recently Remsberg Redux: should anyone have written about Jesus split ... by Kapyong (starting at post # 24)

I have been paying attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
The "Great Silence of the first century" is negative evidence against any claims that anything happened in the saga of the history of Christian origins in the 1st century.
...

That is a claim made by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
In places where we might expect a mention, there is not a peep.
...

That is another claim made by you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2012, 03:36 PM	#694
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	The Remsberg list of early writers who failed to mention Jesus - improved by Iason. More recently Remsberg Redux: should anyone have written about Jesus split ... by Kapyong (starting at post # 24)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.