TedM

If it was knowable then Stark would give us some figures to back up his conclusions. Instead he gives an arguments as to why it COULD have had a miniman negative affect vs a greater postive. He doesn't know though. Obviously persecution--even of just a few hundred or of just the leaders is going to have a negative effect on at least SOME people, right? How much? I don't know. Stark doesn't know. You don't know. If any of us knew, we'd give more than arguments, and would supply some numbers to prove them.

Again, I wasn't saying it is valid to call it Messiac or not, or that it came true or not. I was saying that some people of the time CONSIDERED it to be Messiac, and applied it to Jesus. Obviously an Old Testament passage that SOME PEOPLE would consider to have been fulfilled by Jesus would speed up growth in the number of Christians.

This I agree with. Let's just say it is more than it would have been had people NOT found passages they considered Jesus to have fulfilled.

Would you agree that IF there was a strong expectation for a Messiah at the time, and someone came along that people thought was the Messiah, it would speed up the number of followers that person had? That's all I'm saying.

You question Josephus' authenticity, and that's fine. I can't prove that his references to OTHER would-be Messiah's are wrong or forged, but I don't know why they would be.

Here's a link that discusses this issue that helps support my contention that Messiah-mania was big, and at the same time agrees with your sources on the problems of the TF:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html

One part of his webpage has the following:


In addition to this source, the references within the NT books make it clear that the culture was desperately seeking a Messiah. Also, the Jewish midrash makes that clear also.

This strongly argues IMO for a fast early start of Christianity, since as far as we can tell Jesus was considered from the very beginning of the movement in Paul's writings to have been the Messiah.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Some people does not by any means indicate how many people. It would have been ridiculous for anyone to have assumed that Jesus fulfilled socalled Messianic prophecies. There is no credible external evidence that I know of that Joseph of Arimathaea ever lived, much less that he buried Jesus in his tomb. Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." In the Old Testament Ephratah is used two times as a place, but it is also used two times as a person. There are numerous articles here at the Secular Web that dispute the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Of course, since Jesus did not become "ruler in Israel" as the prophecy predicted, the Bethlehem issue is irrelevant.

There is not a good case that can be made that Paul believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

TedM

Not if Messia mania was around, and I've already shown you that it was. And anyway, who says the early Christians didn't have some ridiculous interpretations? Why would that be a criteria for early growth? And what does it matter if Jesus really didn't fulfill some things, if people like Mark says he did? Obviously the other 3 gospel authors thought it compelling enough to repeat it. What if Jesus himself believed himself to be the Messiah and that is why he rode into Jerusalem on the donkey--a clear allusion to Messiac prophecy in Zechariah? Don't you think some people might have taken THAT as a strong sign? It only would take a few things that appear to be Messiac to get people excited.

Why is it so hard for you to conceive of the possibility that like other Messiah claimants Christianity may have actually started out with a bang? After all, it's the one that has lasted, so it makes sense that there was SOMETHING there that had more initial appeal than the Messiac movements that didn't last. A fast early growth doesn't make it a valid faith so why are you resisting my argument?

ted

Johnny Skeptic

You have not at all showed to what extent Messiah mania was around. There is not good evidence that Paul believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding the anonymous Gospel authors, they are not provably independent sources. The best available evidence indicates exactly the opposite. I can provide the evidence if you wish. The Gospel accounts are definitely not first hand accounts, and there are not any good reasons at all to believe that they are even second hand or third hand accounts.

Regarding “And anyway, who says the early Christians didn't have some ridiculous interpretations,� how many early Christians are you talking about?

You said “What if Jesus himself believed himself to be the Messiah and that is why he rode into Jerusalem on the donkey--a clear allusion to Messiac prophecy in Zechariah? Don't you think some people might have taken THAT as a strong sign?� Not at all. First of all, there is no external evidence that he did ride a donkey into Jerusalem. Second of all, donkeys were a common means of transportation at that time. Third of all, most people probably did not know about the Zechariah prophecy.

Regarding “It only would take a few things that appear to be Messiac to get people excited,� you haven’t provided any such reasons. I have adequately refuted all of your arguments about Messiah mania. Let’s discuss your arguments again one argument per post.

Amaleq13

Isn't Josephus sufficient to establish that messianic claimants were not uncommon?

TedM

I'm going to have to be more blunt to make my points with you and then I think I'll give up trying.

Not true. I gave examples that show it was to a large extent.

Maybe true but irrelevant to my point.

Even if this is true it is irrelevant to my point.

I don't know, do you? The point was that you used 'reasonability' of the people as an argument. People caught up in a 'manai' aren't always reasonable. Some Messiac passages are clearer than others. Some are not likely to have been fulfilled by Jesus but were claimed to have been, and it was not reasonable to see a connection, but that doesn't mean people didn't see one anyway. Others could have been fulfilled by Jesus reasonably, were claimed as such, and it was reasonable to see a connection. Your argument is irrelevant to the reality of the time.

That's why I said 'what if' so it it irrrelevant to my point.

Irrelevant to my point--read the passage in question.

Jewish scholars knew it, believe me. And they thought it was Messiac. Read Jewish midrash. Do some research and come back.

Why would it only take a few things? Because expectation was HIGH as I've already shown. So was desparation with the Romans crowding in--this raised expectation of the 'true believers'.

I just showed again that instead of refuting my arguments you have made irrelevant points in response. Messiah mania was big at that time. It a fact. People of the time scoured their OT scriptures looking for Messiac references BEFORE Jesus arrived. It's a fact. Jesus was believed to have done some things that fulfilled those Messiac scriptures. It's a fact.

Have you ever read the gospels and Paul's epistles? The allusions to this reality are prevelant. It's a fact.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, but there is a big difference between claiming that messianic claimants "were not" uncommon and claiming that Messiah mania "was" common. To what extent were the claimants believed? That is the question, not whether or not there were any claimants. The best evidence that a supposed claimant named Jesus was believed would be reasonable proof of at least 1,000 Christians by 40 A.D., but of course there isn't any.

TedM

According to this, one claimant had 30,000 followers! Luke says 4,000 about the same guy.

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants09.html

ted

Johnny Skeptic

It is fine if you list your web site references, but it would also be nice if your quoted them in order to save readers some time. I briefly visiting the reference you mentioned but I didn't find mention of 30,000 followers. I am not saying it isnt' there. I just couldn't find it.

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says "As a historian, Josephus shares the faults of most ancient writers: his analyses are superficial, his chronology faulty, his facts exaggerated, his speeches contrived. He is especially tendentious when his own reputation is at stake. His Greek style, when it is truly his, does not earn for him the epithet 'the Greek Livy' that often is attached to his name.

Regarding the "many thousands of Jews" mentioned in Acts, in 'The Rise of Christianity,' Rodney Stark says "As Hans Conzelmann noted, these number are only 'meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord hiimself is at work" (1973:63). Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, 'one must always remember that figures in antiquity...were part of rhetorical exercises' (1977-8) and were not meant to be taken literally."

Following is part of an e-mail exchange be me and Dr. Jonathan Roth, Ph.D., ancient history:

Is it reasonably possible that Tacitus was using hyperbole?

“Tacitus frequently uses such hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole.�

Is it true that the use of hyperbole can vary greatly depending upon who is using it and that there is no way of knowing to what extent Tacitus might have used hyperbole?

“Yes. We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check his statements.�

Is it true that Tacitus's use of the words "vast multitudes" did no favors for future historians?

“True, but remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more interesting and readable.� End of quotes.

Even some Christian scholars date the composition of the book of Acts from 80 - 100 A.D. Assuming 95 A.D., or about sixty years after the supposed facts, where did the anonymous author get his claims about numbers from? Were his claims first hand, second hand, third hand or possibly even fourth hand? Can we be reasonably certain that the claim of "many thousands of Jews" was in the original manuscripts?

S.C.Carlson

It was on the first screen of the link. Here's the quote: