Johnny Skeptic

It is reasonable to conclude that far more than 7530 people would have checked things out in the 1st century "IF" Holding's and Miller's source (A. E. Harvey) is correct. I don't believe that A. E. Harvey is correct. I am catering to Holding, Miller and A. E. Harvey here for the sake of argument. If they are correct, it is logical to conclude that the check-outers would have been quite numerous.

Peter Kirby

10,000 would be a quite numerous number of people. Your "vast majority" statement requires that the population of checker-outers be greater than 20,000 at the least. Explain your estimate.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

Paul's missionary journeys across the Mediterranean alone in the 50's A.D. would have been known about by far more than 10,000 people. In addition, Christians were present in Rome by 64 A.D. when Nero persecuted some of them. Further, Paul preferred to proselytize in quite a few small towns. All together, the numbers of people in those towns would certainly have been much more than 10,000.

At any rate, I believe that the following from my opening post is more important than the number of people who checked things out for themselves:

Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who [tangibly] confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous [tangible] signs and wonders.� The verse is not to be trusted. Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, the feeding of the 4,000, Matthew 4:24, which says “And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them,� the 500 eyewitnesses, and the coming of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the book of Acts, if those claims actually happened, there would have been no need for additional tangible confirmation by the disciples.

It is a fact that we need tangible confirmation of
“the message of his grace� much more today than people did back then. There were supposedly eyewitnesses aplenty back then, but there aren’t any of them around today. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is no longer interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 2) God is compassionate in tangible ways today, but has abandoned his previous approach and now chooses to make his compassion not noticeable in tangible ways, adding considerably to doubt regarding his compassion, or that 3) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 4) he does not exist.

Peter Kirby

Why do you say that?

Also, simply because they had heard of Paul does not make them checker-outers.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

I have found out from experience that sometimes it is beneficial to agree with Christians on some points for the sake of argument. For instance, if skeptics never conceded for the sake of argument that intelligent design is a reasonable possibility (as an agnostic that is actually my position), the only debates that they would ever be able to have with Christians would be about creation and evolution. I am agreeing with James Holding, Glenn Miller and A. E. Harvey only for the sake of argument in order to show them that I can defeat them even IF the Gospel message was heard and examined to the extent that they claim that it was.

As I told you before, I believe that the last part of my opening statement is more important than the first part. I only used James Holding's name to attract the attention of readers so they would read the last part of my opening post. I have found out from personal experience that while apologists are quite content to debate skeptics regarding Bibical criticism and history, they are much less willing to debate the philosophical issue of the nature of God. Reliably establishing the nature of God is just as important as reliably establishing whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. We only have the Bible writers' word for it that God is good. I challenge Christians to reasonably prove that he was good 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good today.
Regarding today, what I mean is good in tangible ways.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'd still like to know if Holding has an answer to the question of HOW these claims were supposed to be tested. I'd also like to see the proof that miraculous claims for Jesus were made at all by any direct followers.

Johnny Skeptic

Indeed. I suggest that you ask Gakusei Don to go to the Theology Web and send a private message to James Holding regarding your argument. Maybe we can get some exchanges going between you and Holding.

Toto

Acts 1-2 is clear that the disciples did not preach about Jesus' resurrection until after the 40 day period in which he appeared to them. By that time, it would be impossible to locate the body or prove that it was Jesus. This seems calculated to be sure that no one could challenge their account.

Johnny Skeptic

Even the texts themselves admit that virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. John says that when Peter saw the emtpy tomb he went away confused. When Mary saw the empty tomb she thought that the body had been moved. Such being the case, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea would not have been an issue, that is, assuming that the location was well-known, which I do not assume. Skeptics have long maintained that stories of the bodily resurrection of Jesus "did not" begin to circulate until a number of years after the supposed Resurrection.

CJD

Arguably, there are whole host of other reasons that the majority of people geographically closest to the supposed event did not follow this guy Jesus. (Interestingly, those who were closest to him geographically did follow him — even unto death.) One major reason is that if Jesus had been raised, why then had the great promised eschaton not followed along? Why were those Roman dogs still oppressing God's people? & co. Moreover, following another king besides Caesar was not a healthy thing to do. Hence the cry, "We have no king but Caesar!"

In other words, they didn't buy these alleged events because the events themselves transpired in ways unexpected and unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen. The Christ was supposed to brandish the sword, not lead as a suffering servant.

CJD