Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
|
One of my debates with James Holding at the Theology Web
Consider the following post that I made at the Theology web over two years ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Do you still claim that 1 Christian per5,000 people is miraculous? You are actually pretty close to agreeing with Rodney Stark’s estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.” You conveniently did not respond.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
Sorry, Johnny, but I did already; you just didn't like it. But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
It most certainly does. You said that in 70 A.D. there were from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians in the Roman Empire in 70 A.D., and that there had to be that many Christians in order to get the Romans' attention. Now you contradict yourself with "But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit." You said that even 1 Christian per 5,000 people would have been miraculous. That would be 10,000 Christians per 50 million people. Some time ago you said that Stark picked his numbers out of a hat, and on another occasion you said that Stark massaged the numbers, but now you are saying "But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit." If you don't mind agreeing with Stark, then there is no doubt whatsoever that by 70 A.D., the vast majority of people had flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. If there were no miracles and no Resurrection, then it is to be expected that the Christian Church could not have begun to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the first century.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
I'll skip any more canned answers by you at this point, which are merely repeats of what has already been refuted.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Well of course you will skip my answers, since I demolished you in my post #608, not only regarding the numbers, but regarding the persecution of Christians as well. I encourage readers who have not read that post to do so. If Richard Carrier likes my post #608, he might add it to his nexts rebuttal of TIF. If he does add it to his next rebuttal of TIF, you will be forced to respond to it.
E. Mary Smallwood, in her literary work, 'The Jews Under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian,' says, 'The hardening of Jewish Nationalist feeling.'
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
That's nice. What did this have to do with anything I said? Nothing. It doesn't even mention personal attitudes.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Consider the following from a previous post:
“Titus did not have a personal disdain for Jews in general, only Jewish Zealots.”
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
No, sorry, Johnny -- Romans as a whole had a disdain for Jews as a whole. Nice try.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
E. Mary Smallwood, in her literary work, ‘The Jews Under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian,’ says, "The hardening of Jewish Nationalist feeling into a militant resistance movement at the very start of the period of Roman rule was the fundamental cause of the recurrent disturbances of the next sixty years and of the revolt which was their climax, in the sense that it created or sharpened the dilemma facing the Romans in attempting to govern Judaea as a province. They were committed to a policy of protecting Jewish religious liberty, but on the political level they were opposed to nationalist aspirations among their subjects. The problem in Judaea was that to the Jews religion and politics were inextricably bound up together as two facets of a single way of life, AND THOUGH A 'MODUS VIVENDI' MIGHT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN ROME AND MODERATE JEWISH OPINION, THE EXISTENCE OF A BELLIGERENT NATIONALIST PARTY FOCUSING DISCONTENT AND FOSTERING OPPOSITION POSED A PROBLEM WHICH THE ROMANS SIGNALLY FAILED TO SOLVE. THEIR FAILURE IN TURN AGGRAVATED MATTERS, AND THE STORY OF THE YEARS 6-66 IS LARGELY THE STORY OF HOW THE OCCUPYING POWER AND THE NATIONALISTS (Johnny: Contrary to what you said, not all of the Jews) REACTED TO ONE ANOTHER, EACH PROVOKING THE OTHER TO FURTHER EXCESSES, UNTIL THE FINAL EXPLOSION CAME."
You knew exactly what my quotes meant, and since you knew that you didn't have a decent rebuttal, you pretended not to know what I meant. Any high school student would know what I meant.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
About WHAT that I said??? About Titus being Josephus' boss??? You didn't even touch those points and instead went back to some old crap about the Tacitus fragment, and none of that has a whit to do with anything I said about Josephus.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
I just showed you how I refuted your comments about Josephus via E. Mary Smallwood. Surely you know that if necessary I can find other sources that corroborate Josephus and Smallwood.
|
Holding and I debated the size of the first century Christian church for many months. He claimed that in 70 A.D. there were from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians in the Roman Empire in 70 A.D., and that there had to be that many Christians in order to get the Romans' attention. By contrast, In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the world 30 years later in 100 A.D.
Holding said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit.
|
But it did affect his point that there had to be from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians in the Roman Empire in 70 A.D. in order to get the Romans' attention. In addition, regarding "But you say I'm close to Stark," it was not just that I said that Holding was close to Stark, but that eventually, after many months, I succeeded into luring Holding into a trap where he himself unwittingly agreed with Stark.
As I said, Holding said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Holding
No, sorry, Johnny -- Romans as a whole had a disdain for Jews as a whole. Nice try.
|
Wasn't Holding wrong?
|