Freethought & Rationalism Archive

couch_sloth · 08-15-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by 411314

The probable response from skeptics will be to point out that, back in the early 21st century, there WERE no "opponents of Elvism". On the other hand, there apparently were opponents of Christianity.

But we have no record (outside the later written gospels) of any opponents of Christianity before the end of the first century, certainly none before the fall of the Temple. The Romans don't seem to have noticed Christianity before then. There is no (Jewish) record of Jewish opposition, although there have been attempts to associate Christians with the minim who were expelled from the synagoges about 90 CE (IIRC).

Didn't Nero blame Christians for the fire in Rome prior to the fall of the Temple?
Still this would have been 30 years after Jesus's crucification was supposed to have happened.
And we really don't know how diverse were the Christian views about Jesus during this period.

aa5874 · 08-15-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by couch_sloth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But we have no record (outside the later written gospels) of any opponents of Christianity before the end of the first century, certainly none before the fall of the Temple. The Romans don't seem to have noticed Christianity before then. There is no (Jewish) record of Jewish opposition, although there have been attempts to associate Christians with the minim who were expelled from the synagoges about 90 CE (IIRC).

Didn't Nero blame Christians for the fire in Rome prior to the fall of the Temple?
Still this would have been 30 years after Jesus's crucification was supposed to have happened.
And we really don't know how diverse were the Christian views about Jesus during this period.

Virtually nothing is known about the "Christians" in Tacitus. Based on Justin Martyr, a "Christian" could have been a believer or follower of a magician, or a person could have been called a Christian when they were not.

In the 1st century, then, the word "Christian" is ambiguous, unless specifically defined.

If today a person is said to persecute Christians, would that mean they persecuted only Catholics, only Baptists, or only Mormons?

Nero persecuted Christians cannot just mean Nero persecuted Jesus believers unless it can be shown that Tacitus did specify that it was indeed so.

Toto · 08-15-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by couch_sloth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But we have no record (outside the later written gospels) of any opponents of Christianity before the end of the first century, certainly none before the fall of the Temple. The Romans don't seem to have noticed Christianity before then. There is no (Jewish) record of Jewish opposition, although there have been attempts to associate Christians with the minim who were expelled from the synagoges about 90 CE (IIRC).

Didn't Nero blame Christians for the fire in Rome prior to the fall of the Temple?
Still this would have been 30 years after Jesus's crucification was supposed to have happened.
And we really don't know how diverse were the Christian views about Jesus during this period.

Nero did blame a group called Christians, unless this is a later interpolation. I find the case for interpolation fairly good, but opinions differ.

But even here we don't know what these Christians believed, or if showing that Jesus never existed would have challenged them at all.

storytime · 08-15-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Why is that important? The point is that we have irrefutable evidence that at least 1 crucified individual received a proper burial, and so the idea that Jesus might have received a proper burial is not implausible. ...which is the only point I was making.

Whether that happened in 3 days, or 7 days, or a month later, or a year later, is irrelevant.

When a body is removed is extremely important. It was simply not normal to remove a body right after putting it on display. Normally, it would be there until it was really and truly dead. You see, crucification does not result in a quick death, but tends to take a long time. If bodies would be removed right away, they would end up with a lot of people who would turn out not to have been dead yet, which would make it unreliable as a form of execution (though still very nasty as a punishment). Remember, this was at a time before modern medicine, so occasionally someone would be thought to be dead when they were not dead yet. So when a body is removed is extremely important.

Given that the Romans had a good deal of experience with crucifixions, and given their tendency to keep the bodies on display for long enough, why would they make an exception to the rule in Jesus' case? You see, the story does not make sense from many different angles.

In fact, this aspect of the story has led some to believe that Jesus was not dead yet, and his empty tomb is explained by him running away to avoid the Romans having a second attempt at killing him. After all, if the story has any truth to it at all, he was a condemned man, and if they caught him again, they surely would have gotten it right the second time. The thing is, though, these people are believing too much of the propaganda in the Bible, as really the Romans would probably have gotten it right the first time, and not allowed the body to be removed so quickly.

Doesn't the story say that a couple of Jews (Nichodemus and Joseph of Armethia) didn't want a Jew hanging around on the Sabbath? So they went and begged for the body of Jesus and quickly buried it somewhere because the Sabbath was drawing nigh. Some of the Pharisees also wanted the body for burial and probably for the same reason.

And if Jesus was quickly buried in the ground, then wouldn't that explain the empty tomb when the women went to spice-up the corpse after the Sabbath?

spamandham · 08-15-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

And if Jesus was quickly buried in the ground, then wouldn't that explain the empty tomb when the women went to spice-up the corpse after the Sabbath?

The simpler explanation for the empty tomb, is that there never was an empty tomb, and the whole thing is just a story.

Empty tomb arguments are much ado about nothing.

storytime · 08-16-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

And if Jesus was quickly buried in the ground, then wouldn't that explain the empty tomb when the women went to spice-up the corpse after the Sabbath?

The simpler explanation for the empty tomb, is that there never was an empty tomb, and the whole thing is just a story.

Empty tomb arguments are much ado about nothing.

Agreed. But it's fun to speculate on the story.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.