jgibson000

Are you actually saying that before 70 CE Christians had not established themselves anywhere within the Roman Empire (or beyond) except in Judea?

JG

rlogan

Who are these alleged earliest Christians, and what are you basing their existence on?

Sayeth you without reponding to the content.

Certainly not me. Google broken for you?

Here's one:

http://www.newdawnbooks.info/Reviews...at_Qumran.html

And another:

http://www.centuryone.com/4360-3.html

Let google do the work for you if you want more.

Obviously, you find absolutely zero suspicion in Josephus dedicating a chapter to "Sects of the Jews" without mentioning Christians LONG after they were supposedly in existence in your view. He seemed to be particularly intrigued by the Essenes.

If they were a sect of the Jews then Josephus was an amazingly poor author and historian - especially in light of the fact he was the General in charge of defending Jerusalem during the seige. Speaking derisively of the Zealots and making clear distinctions among groups in their positions vis-a-vis the Romans.

So the real question, Chris, is why are you so willingly blind to this. I mean, are you even willing to admit that Josephus, in a Chapter on "Sects of the Jews" ought mention Christians?

This is precicely where the objection "argument from silence" is invalid. Because the premise is Christians are a sect of the Jews. The chapter concerns itself with exactly that. And no mention of them. Straightforward contradiction.

In the immortal words of spin - read the archives. This is also an interpolation, but not a complete insertion. Refers to an existing passage above it.

You have zero evidence of a real Paul. In typical hypocritical fashion though, you demand this out of others in any version of the Christian story that is contrary to yours.

All we have are a set of writings from someone claiming to be Paul - quite a number of which are already universally declared as fraudulent.

Of whatever subset you claim to be bona-fide there are some substantial problems with the legend - much of which has been hashed over here at great length. But amongst these are the ludicrous story line of being a Pharisee/Roman Citizen/Officer of some authority in persecution/entertainer of guests while imprisoned/historical and geographical errors in writing...

At any rate - zero extrabiblical evidence and plenty of religio-legendary fluff.

Chris Weimer

Paul, for one.

"Sayeth you"? Learn English, bud. But apart from that, you made an assertion on, I'm guessing in your thoughts, the majority opinion on how Christianity got started. I don't think you accurately described it, and indeed it is far enough away from my own position that I don't have to argue it. Thus, you've created a strawman.

Let me rephrase that. Why did you mention Essenes at all if they have nothing to do with Christianity?

You brought the Essenes up. The "who" was rhetorical, as in "who would ever believe that". Christians were certainly not Essenes by any majority opinion, nor my own, so why you brought it up is...well, I suppose it's a red herring then.

Josephus talks about three major groups - Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Essenes, and also some minor groups - Zealots, Sicarii, the Herodians. All of these played a prominent part in early Judaism, and most are mentioned by early Christian works. Now, if all of these are prominent by the Jewish War, what makes you think that Josephus would mention Christians, not prominent by the Jewish War? There is no mass Christian groups and certainly they didn't have any power or play any part in the War. So for what possible reason would Josephus give them any credit? He wouldn't.

Certainly you don't think Josephus akin to a modern author, do you? Or that he has to cover every insignicant backwater group?

You have still showed no reason why they ought to be mentioned. Because they were Jews? Hardly. Josephus mentioned significant Jews. Now, if you can demonstrate that Christianity was significant and played a significant part in the war, then I'll buy into what you're trying to sell.

Actually, it was RTFA, and not only have I read them, but I participated in a-many on this very passage. The question is now pertinent. Are you capable of handling the details of this passage? I didn't think you had any Greek in you.

Are you joking me? That we have ancient letters which claim to be written by Paul is prima facie evidence for Paul. It would then be up to you to disprove they were written by Paul. What possible evidence could you want besides actually writing someone!? You're throwing out half of history if you get rid of Paul this way. Now, if you actually have a reason for regarding his letters as not his own, I'll listen, but if you refuse to even accept that, your hypocrisy would be apparent enough.

Yes, because the ones which were declared fraudulent were compared to the ones which are universally declared original.

Paul himself claims to be a Pharisee. Do you have any reason at all to disregard his own statement?

Ah, here's the bullshit. Of course, the Biblical stuff themselves don't count for shit. It's only the extrabiblical stuff. That's hypocrisy.

Clivedurdle

Not just any English translation, but the words Jesus spoke himself - the KJV!

Clivedurdle

Youngs Literal

NIV

Please explain the problem with standing.

Clivedurdle

The abomination of desolation is a direct reference to the following from Daniel. Judaism believed it was in touch with the creator of the universe, the holy of holies, who somehow was in the temple. For the temple to be destroyed or contaminated was a very serious matter. Read all the stuff about the ark of the covenant in the pentateuch.

We know there are two major incidents with the Temple - 70, and 130.

We have no reason at all to assume this passage in Mark (and Matthew) refers to the 70 incidents, when we also know the Romans would have read the Jewish scriptures and would have great pleasure fulfilling them - by putting a statue of Jupiter there! Of the two choices, the 130 one is the more likely!

Hadrian explicitly wanted to destroy Judaism. What better way than this blasphemy? The Romans knew all about psychological warfare.

rlogan

No - not for one. That is the ONLY "evidence" you have submitted. An interesting approach to history, especially on IIDB - total reliance on the Bible.

*yawn*

recreational harassment. In terms of strawman - the individual is directed to look in the mirror. Where have I stated anything about "majority opinion"?

Uh - let's see, I mentioned in passing that they are not the source of Christianity in my opinion, although some do. You wrote what a reasonable reader would infer was meant for me to demonstrate who believed that.

So I did. *shrug* So what?


heh. Not doing very well here, Chris. For one thing he mentions my favorite Jesus - a single person without so much as one follower, who goes around yelling "Woe unto Israel" - and you need to pretend that Josephus restricts his attention to "Sects of the Jews that are important to the war or prominent in early Judaism except for the exceptions that are not prominent and important to the war..."


Pretty obvious that you go out of your way pretending that Josephus wrote only about "prominent by Jewish war" groups when that is factually incorrect.

I do not expcet this concession from you because this is a matter of faith, not honest historical inquiry. A reasonable person not blinded by faith would admit that yes - it is odd the historian did not include this group.

Instead you have this amazing inconsistency: You insist Josephus wrote about the Christians (See James passage, and whatever fragment of the TF you believe in). OOPS! Except that you argue here that Josephus would have no reason to write about Christians.

Care to explain that rather glaring logical problem?

I realize you need to have the "just so" story that essentially has it both ways: Christians are an invisible backwater group, but they are on the other hand a significant movement with Paul's letters to churches all over the place. Heroic Martyrs and persecution. Of the invisible group.

So Josephus writes about Christians, and that is proof they exist. But Josephus would never write about Christians because he only writes about important groups.

Heh. Contradiction.


You mean besides the fact Josephus dedicates a chapter to sects of the Jews. The one repudiating basic Jewish belief that has by this time also allegedly spread to the gentiles via the missionary Paul cannot reasonably be inferred to be "invisible".

The ones you assert he wrote about.

I am not strictly relying on Josephus. As you know, but you wish to avoid, there are a long list of contemporary historians that do not mention Christians.

Since the Christian texts assert such stupendous acts and fame for Christianity, you are not even following the only evidence you are relying on (the bible). Instead, you pick and choose what you want.

What model does one use to "trust" what fits your fancy and ignore the rest?

no, I don't I have already falsified your claim that Josephus strictly wrote about "significant" Jews. By your own admission as well.


Besides childish bragging and irrelevant swipes, is there some actual debate point here?

Only for the true believer. It is evidence that someone wrote tracts, but not that there was a historical Paul as per it's own claim.


Apparently the entire context of the vast majority of biblical tracts being obvious as forgeries not written by a historical Moses, Mark, Luke, or whatever has absolutely zero influence on the letters of the legendary Paul. That even agreed upon forgeries of THOSE should have no influence on our thinking. Moreover, that the subject matter itself - of superstitious nonsense - does not in itself warn us against swallowing the "historicity" of it without some separate verification.

Additionally, it is obvious to me these are liturgical religious devices as opposed to "letters" proper, and yes, I do consider these differently from letters proper.


But you are doing your best to avoid the point that so much of religious writing is just superstitious gibberish by arguing that some of it is written by the same person. BFD. That does not make it historical.

So? "Moses" said he talked to a burning bush, and that God wrote on plates for him.

Joseph Smith could "see" hidden treasure and receive Golden plates. I say I'm the queen of France.

Sure. I don't take religious tripe as history. You do.

well, you bet your ass I discount the veracity of things said in the Bible. That seems a vastly more reasonable position than yours.

Chris Weimer

And yet you still have not provided any reason not to rely on it? It's your bias.

I thought it implicit with what you said. I quote:

What exactly are you saying here if not that many fall into the "trap" of a Jewish heritage for Christians? In fact, the majority of scholars do indeed see a Jewish heritage for Christians, but the way you described it is not accurate.

Moreover, you still have not provided any solid reason except a sole analogy for why one should not by into a Jewish heritage for Christianity? All you say is that the Bible should not be relied upon, but give no other reason than that. Essentially, you leave us to conclude that you are biased against the Bible, and thus since your bias renders you incapable of actually dealing with the subject matter, you ought to be ignored.

Essene-Christian connection is only made by a few fringe, and has no relevance to the topic besides what you brought up. That makes it clearly a red herring.

So, if I understand you correctly, you think both references to Jesus are valid? Wow. Even I don't go that far. In fact, I still don't think he mentions Jesus at all. But hey, that's just me. However, if you think that Jesus is mentioned, than you lost to yourself because your original claim was that Josephus never mentions Christians, which, if you take the first passage to be Josephan, than he does mention Christians and disciples. This sophistry of yours will not work.

Taking out the Jesus references, what other group is there that is not prominent? Even the John the Baptist group had prominence, having actually clashed with Herodian authorities. Josephus even calls John's influence great.

So, what groups are mentioned that do not play a major role or hold any prominence or are not connected in any way with the Josephan storyline? Barring, of course, Christianity, which you don't think were even mentioned in the first place.

Oh yes! When at a loss, deal out the ol' faith card.

Au contraire! I never said that Josephus wrote about the Christians. Not once will you see even an inkling about it in my writing. I have stood steadfast on the position that Josephus is silent about that much. I did ask you what you thought of the James passage, but that is unrelated to Christ himself. I find the passage pertinent because of the interpretations that may follow the passage, but I haven't changed my stance on Josephus' silence on Jesus despite Carlson's rather recent attempt to establish a connection between Luke, Josephus, and Tacitus.

Yes. You distorted my words. Typical.

Really? I said all this? Where? Oh that's right, you think I am of the "faith", thus I must believe whatever you imbue upon me. How thoughtful to force me to believe this garbage.

Wrong. Josephus never writes about Christians.

Right. Well, at least you do get one right.

No, just your usual distortion.

This makes no sense to me.

Like Tacitus and Suetonius? Oh wait, no, they mention them.

Nearly every Roman and Greek historian talk about wonderous and miraculous deeds. Why not throw them out as well? Part of being an historian, which I understand you know nothing about, is learning to pick out which parts aren't history and which parts are. Apparently, you just like to disregard whole anything which mentions "stupendous acts".

Obviously, anything supernatural is safe to say that it didn't happen.

No, you distorted what I said and put false words into my mouth. In the immortal words of spin, RTFA.

Sorry, but the knowledge of Greek when dealing with interpolations in Josephus is mandatory. If you don't have it, then quite likely you have no idea what you're talking about.

So...did Cicero write the letters which are headed "from Cicero"? Is that not evidence either? You have a very strange definition of evidence. Also, you forgot a little phrase I included - prima facie evidence. I surely hope that you know the English equivalent, despite being sine latina vel graeca.

Yes. That goes true for any writing. The forged letter from Seneca is not against Seneca's actual correspondence. Likewise, please tell me where any book is claimed to actually be from Moses, Mark, or Luke. You could perhaps find something written that claims to be from Moses himself, but most often we are pretty well assured that it's well after the supposed Moses would have lived.

What is the superstitious nonsense in Paul claiming to be a Pharisee? As far as I know, Paul only talks about one thing which can be construed as supernatural that he himself describes - seeing the Risen Jesus - though it's fairly obvious that he's experiencing some sort of hallucination, neatly explaining away something which would seem impossible by our standards. And rightfully so! But as far as the bulk of Paul goes, what is too hard to swallow? What is impossible? Have you actually read Paul?

You're right, actually. It's mostly in the form of a sermon. What's your point? It's still technically a letter, i.e. a writing addressed to a group. It's especially still in the epistulary genre that he addresses it as a letter, and throughout he includes different salutations. That the content is mostly sermon does not change the fact that it's still a letter.

You need to be explicit. What superstitious gibberish? What historicity? That Paul said he exists (obviously since he writes the letter) and that he was a Pharisee, and that he was hunted, and that he believes in Christ, and that he is writing to these different groups, and that he gives them certain letters of instruction, is gibberish?

Where did "Moses" ever say that? All I know of is that Moses is depicted talking to a burning bush from an anonymous work called in English "Exodus". I don't remember Moses himself, if he even existed, ever making such a statement.

So...Joseph Smith isn't real either? Let me guess, there were no Mormons until World War II. This is one big non sequitur.

So if it comes from Christianity, none of it is true. And none of it is true...because it comes from Christianity. And I thought Christians were bad, what you have is just...awful. Pure bullshit.

How mature.

jgibson000

Parse the Greek word which gets translated as "standing" and you'll see what the problem is and why what you think is to be "heard" at Mk 13:14 is not the case.

Or are you just another among the Greekless self professed NT "experts" here who does his/her exegesis and analysis of Greek texts and makes authoritative pronouncements on what those texts say not, as you should, after examining the Greek of those texts and looking at what is said about them in critical Greek based commentaries, but soley on the basis of English translations of them?

JG

spin

This interchange seems like fangs at twenty paces. It would be nice if you two snakes would hug and hiss and make up.

Chris, when you introduce what you consider as evidence for an argument, you need to validate the source some how. A text such as Tacitus' Annals has already undergone a vast amount of validation with support for very many people and events mentioned in the text. You know when this literature was written, where, by whom, for whom, so there is little difficulty contextualising the work in a historical framework. Can you point the casual reader to a similarly exhaustive validation for any of the works you would like to introduce for their historical content?


spin