Toto

We've had another discussion on the number of disciples recently. The number seems fluid.

This is a big argument from silence, and the silence may very well be the result of Christians not saving the documents casting doubt on Matthew, or it may be a reflection of the fact that every contemporaneous writer recognized that this story was fable and not to be taken at face value.

Are you seriously contending that a star or meteorite traveled across the heavens and came to a stop over Bethlehem, in violation of the laws of Nature's God? That three (or some number of) magicians came with valuable gifts, but weren't smart enough to figure out that Herod might want to off the rival to his throne? Or that Herod wasn't smart enough to send an emissary along with them? That Herod then slaughtered every male baby under the age of two, without this being recorded in any secular history? That Joseph and Mary received these valuable gifts but later settled down to do manual labor?

How many more impossible, improbable or mythic aspects do you need?

Biff the unclean

Magi were a whole priesthood in both Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. One of their main occupations was astrology, looking for signs in the stars of the second coming of the demigod Mithra. Gold, frankincense and muir (sp?) were scared and symbolic to Mithra.

Whoever wrote Matthew must have known this as many of the details of the birth of Jesus match those of the birth of Mithra. One assumes that he used this as an involvement device to stress the importance of the Jesus character to his Mithrian and Zoroastrian audience.

Doctor X

It seems clear that no one has produced evidence that the Magi of the Birth Narrative existed.

Therefore, I move to an New Topic--Is there any evidence that Magus exists? [Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

Haran

What is this based on? The death of Judas Iscariot?

This whole thread seems based on a similar argument from silence. What extra-biblical evidence is there to support the story of the Magi? Or what is the positive historical support for the story for the Magi (outside Matthew)? If these questions are reasonable, then so is mine in response to the implied accusations of falsification in the Matthean account. What is the positive contemporary historical support that ancients knew the Matthean infancy narrative to be historically inaccurate and/or fabricated?

Many ancient arguments were preserved in the church fathers, so I have a hard time accepting that it wouldn't have survived. It would have been an import issue to resolve had it arisen, especially in light of how integral Justin Martyr seems to make the story.

I don't see the indications in ancient writers that it was viewed as fable. If the critics of Christianity saw fit to make their other arguments, then why not this one? This would have been a particularly damaging argument to the narrative of Jesus' birth. It seems to me that the argument would have been made and there would have been a response.

I doubt there have not been responses in writing today to those who claim that the Holocaust did not happen...

No. Again, these are interpretations and probably over-literal simplifications.

I do not find the events as irreconcilable as you seem to.

Amaleq13

Are there any examples of opponents referring to the actual text of any Gospels when arguing against Christians? I'm not sure how valid it is to assume they had a copy of Matthew available to them. Also, given Carrier's work on the subject, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect this kind of skepticism:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/kooks.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/skepsis.html

For the most part we only have portions of arguments against Christianity that the early Church Fathers repeated in their responses. If they had no compelling rebuttal to any particular argument, I doubt we would ever know.

However, 2Peter1:16 certainly seems to imply that somebody was accusing Christians of following "cunningly devised fables".

Biff the unclean

I haven't seen the above mentioned thread but all the Gospels say there were 12 Apostles. Some times just calling them "the 12" and they each name 12. But if you count all the names from all of the gospels there are 14. oops!

Layman

Which gospel gives 14 names for the Twelve?

Or did you mean that a couple of the names are different in some of the gospels though no gospel counts more than 12?

The latter is explained by people being known by more than one name or a change in the membership of the 12 during Jesus' multi-year ministry.

Biff the unclean

Or did you mean that a couple of the names are different in some of the gospels though no gospel counts more than 12?
That's it

The latter is explained by people being known by more than one name or a change in the membership of the 12 during Jesus' multi-year ministry.

And if the gospels had said that was what was happening you would have a point. But they don't mention anyone quiting and those with more than one name it says so. You might make a case for Thaddeus being another name for Lebbaeus if you streeeeeeched it a bit, but you would still be stuck with James' brother Judas.

Layman

I don't think there is any stretch in supposing that some figures were known by more than one name.

But as for the former, I would not expect the Gospel authors to highlight defections from the 12. They already had to explain the embarassing traitor Judas from among the 12. In any event, I'm not sure that such traditions would have been preserved and/or spread equally to early Christian writirs or communities.

Biff the unclean

Or they just got it wrong. It wouldn't be the only thing