Doug Shaver

Other atheists can speak for themselves, but I don't think anything of that sort.

I can't prove it wasn't, but by itself that's a pretty poor reason to think it was.

Rick Sumner

This isn't entirely true. Constantine converted because Christianity was already winning.

aa5874

Your statement may be false. There is no extant information that can show Constantine was converted because Christianity was winning.

Please give the number of Christians, specifically those who believed in the God/man Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the creator, during the time of Constantine and the number of persons who worshiped the Greek/Roman Gods.

Huon

This reminds me of a remark of Stalin to Roosevelt or Churchill, about the pope Pius XII, at Yalta : "The Pope, how many divisions ?".

The roman history between 305 (abdication of Diocletian) and 324 (defeats of Licinius at Adrianople and Chrysopolis) is marked by battles between the many Augustus(es) and Caesars, and sometimes by a natural death :

306 : Constantius Chlorus dies at York (normal death).
307 : Severus II killed by Maxentius, who had bribed the troops of Severus.
311 : Galerius dies at Sardica (cancer ?).
312 : Maxentius drowned at the Milvian Bridge. Constantine wins.
313 : Maximinus Daïa routed on the Campus Ergenus by Licinius, dies soon after.
317 : Licinius beaten on the Campus Ardiensis by Constantine. Valens killed.
324 : Licinius routed at Chrysopolis by Constantine, killed with his associate Martinianus, before 325.

The military aspect seems much more decisive than the religious aspect.

rcscwc

Hindus have no tradition that a man called Thomas preached in India. Contemprary Indian writers do not mention him. Maybe he came, but as one among many others. Had he made waves he would have been noticed.

Vatican has officially denied that Thomas ever was in India.

ph2ter

2 Peter's proclamation “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” clearly falls in the group of baptismal proclamations mentioned by the synoptics.
A 'sacred' mountain of 2 Peter is slightly different from a 'high' mountain of the synoptics.

Motive of beloved son and mountain appears throughout the whole OT. The relevant references are:
-Psalm 2:
“I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will proclaim the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.”

- Isaiah 42.1:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him;

- Exodus 24.15-18:
Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. The glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days; on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the cloud. Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel. Moses entered the cloud, and went up on the mountain.

Devouring fire suggest some sacrifice, burnt offerings actually. And this really shows clearly in Ezekiel and Isaiah:

Ezekiel 20:40:
For on my holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD, there in the land the entire house of Israel will serve me, and there I will accept them. There I will require your offerings and your choice gifts, along with all your holy sacrifices.

Ezekiel is interesting because this passage appears in a chapter which speaks about sacrifices of the firstborns and the motive of a high hill:

When I brought them into the land I had sworn to give them and they saw any high hill or any leafy tree, there they offered their sacrifices, made offerings that provoked me to anger, presented their fragrant incense and poured out their drink offerings. Then I said to them: What is this high place you go to? Therefore say to the house of Israel: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Will you defile yourselves the way your fathers did and lust after their vile images? When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your sons in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will not let you inquire of me."

Isaiah also connects the holy mountain with the burnt offerings:

Isaiah 56.7:
Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.

So we have a high/holy mountain/hill connected with the burnt offerings which are referenced also by 'the sacrifice of your sons in the fire'.

In the same group falls also the sacrifice of Isaac:
Genesis 22:
Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.” ...
When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

The motive of 'beloved son' could be found also in the Phoenician religion:

Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica book I., chap. 10:
"But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt offering to his father Uranus and circumcises himself, compelling his allies to do the same"...
Let these suffice as quotations from the writings of Sanchuniathon, translated by Philo of Byblos, and approved as true by the testimony of Porphyry the philosopher.
The same author, in his History of the Jews, further writes thus concerning Kronos...And soon after he says:
'It was a custom of the ancients in great crises of danger for the rulers of a city or nation, in order to avert the common ruin, to give up the most beloved of their children for sacrifice as a ransom to the avenging daemons; and those who were thus given up were sacrificed with mystic rites. Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus, who was king of the country and subsequently, after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn, had by a nymph of the country named Anobret an only begotten son, whom they on this account called ledud (Ieoud), the only begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians; and when very great dangers from war had beset the country, he arrayed his son in royal apparel, and prepared an altar, and sacrificed him.'

So, the source is clear. 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased' is the the only begotten and beloved son who needs to be sacrificed on the holy mountain (Sion-Moriah).
The Christians identified this beloved and only begotten son with Jesus, God's beloved and only begotten son sacrificed on the Sion.

From all that could be deduced that 2 Peter is closer to the source than Mark, but both of them could arrived at their interpretations independently. Some common proto-christian source which contained elaboration of similar themes was probably known to both of them.

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure who/what you're arguing against. It could be that they represent independent recensions of an existing tradition. It could be that Mark made it up. For my point here to stand it doesn't matter which is true, all that matter is that they can't both be true.

Mark's transfiguration has all the hallmarks of Markan redaction. It's scripturally based, it serves ends on either side of the pericope, and--most importantly--it serves a heavily and (as near as I can see) uniquely Markan theme. But if Mark made it up, and 2 Peter knows it, Doherty's argument from silence is wrong here.

On the other hand, if we follow your reasoning, and conclude that they represent independent traditions despite all the indicators of Markan redaction, then the argument that Mark is writing fiction is dealt a serious blow. Because that argument is wrong here.

So no matter what position one takes, one of the oft bandied about arguments against historicity is dealt a blow. Either we can't trust the argument about indicators of Markan invention, or we can't trust the argument from silence. But one of those two arguments is going to give you a false positive, which weakens the merit of any line of reasoning.

Personally, I'm inclined to think Mark made it up. Just makes the most sense to me, because that's what our friend William of Occam says must be true. But my point right now doesn't need either to be correct. It just needs to establish that they can't both be correct.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

show_no_mercy

Is 2 Peter securely dated to the 2nd century? AFAIK Origen is the first witness to 2 Peter.

Rick Sumner

Doesn't matter when it's dated for my point here. It meets all of the criteria for a silence. Discusses Jesus in OT terms. Makes no reference to his life on earth. Even speaks of him as a deity.

The reasoning behind Doherty's argument from silence is really quite simple: If we should reasonably expect someone to mention knowledge of the "gospel Jesus," and they don't mention such knowledge, they fail to mention it because they do not possess it.

Whether it's from the first century or the fifth doesn't matter. Apply Doherty's criteria to it and, if it knows Mark, his criteria is wrong. If it doesn't know mark, the argument for Markan fiction is wrong. There's really no way out--somebody misses. Either Doherty can't tell the difference between someone who knows the gospel and someone who doesn't, or the argument that Mark is fiction can't tell the difference between tradition received and Markan redaction. Either way, somebody gets reversed.

show_no_mercy

I haven't read all of Doherty's work, but I thought his argument from silence only applied to the 1st and 2nd centuries. It seems a bit absurd to try to apply the argument from silence into perpetuity.