J-D

Neither of those argues that nothing happened in the saga of the history of Christian origins in the 1st century, so neither of them explains how you justify saying what you said.

Doug Shaver

You're begging the question. A first-century Christian silence cannot be demonstrated without assuming facts not in evidence.

tanya

Here's an example. Hope it doesn't rile your feathers....I suppose many of the folks on this forum will be outraged...

Abraham Lincoln is often presented, throughout the world--even in China--as some kind of great humanitarian....

The truth is a little different.

Yes, he signed the emancipation proclamation, freeing the slaves ONLY in the southern states which had seceded from the Union. Specifically, Lincoln DECLINED to free the slaves of his wealthy supporters in Illinois (and, as a young Congressman, he co-authored legislation to punish captured runaway slaves.)

Here's some positive evidence of an unpleasant reality. It is unpleasant to learn that our big hero, Lincoln, was just an ordinary racist, not all that different from many of us....

http://www.state.il.us/hpa/lovejoy/illinois.htm

It is worth noting that the Wikipedia article on Lincoln, cites this reference, in support of the view contrary to that which I am documenting. In my opinion, the Wikipedia article is wrong. The myth has become entrenched, after only 150 years. School children throughout the world repeat the same mantra.



And, may I inquire, what do we call it, when, in a courtroom, such as you describe here, the witness fails to offer an alibi for the time of the murder, and has possessed and demonstrated both means, and motive, for committing the crime? The "fact" in evidence, is that there is no evidence for a first century christianity. That "fact" is very clearly, in evidence.

I wonder why Constantine's mother went digging in Jerusalem, in search of the cross? She obviously possessed, already, the shroud of Turin, right?

What mountainman wrote, seems clear, at least to me. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence from the first century, to support the notion that this religious movement commenced no earlier than the conclusion of the third Roman-Jewish war, circa 130CE.

If you have evidence to the contrary, i.e. evidence to support the idea that Christianity arose DURING the first century, CE, please provide a link. Simply expressing your opinion, that mountainman's references are inadequate, to attest to the absence of organized Christianity prior to the second century, is unpersuasive. Evidence trumps opinions, every time. In this case, the evidence, overwhelming to me, is the absence of anything: coin, basilica, drawing, parchment, fig leaf, whatever....FROM THE FIRST CENTURY.

Warfare: destruction of organized infrastructure, schools, books, neighborhoods, families, and congregations.

post warfare: wanderings, social interaction with new, strange ideas, and absence of oversight by conventional religious scholars. In a climate of despair and destruction, the new religion offered hope, and ultimate escape from poverty, rampant disease, filth, and hunger. Christianity filled a void, created by the war.

Before the war, during the first century, Palestinian society, ruled by Jewish laws, would have executed blasphemers claiming to be the son of god. With society utterly destroyed, leaders dead or in prison, and widespread dislocation, wandering, and dispossession, the new faith would have met with gratitude, rather than bellicosity.

A starving beggar will not reject a stale crust of toast. Offer the same morsel of bread to the same man, a month later, after return to his palace, and restoration of his millions, and he will scorn it, as he had, prior to his eviction.

Huon

Wrong. The Shroud of Turin appeared much later, and not in Turin.

J-D

No, your example is not an example of what aa5874 thought might be meant by that phrase.You are clearly mistaken about the meaning of what mountainman wrote.That by itself is not the same as what mountainman wrote; what mountainman wrote was more than that.mountainman wrote that the absence you're referring to (or 'the Great Silence')) is evidence against any claims that anything happened in the saga of the history of Christian origins in the 1st century. I asked for mountainman's justification for saying that. mountainman has not provided that justification. Neither have you. Even if mountainman was already aware that the two of you were in agreement, I don't regard that agreement between the two of you as providing the justification I asked about.

andrewcriddle

This is drifting wildly off-topic, but Lincoln did not believe that as President he had constitutional authority to emancipate slaves in loyal states by his own authority. It was only the fact of their rebellion against lawful authority that permitted him to confiscate the human property of slave-owners in rebel states.

If you are suggesting that if Lincoln had survived the war he would have opposed the constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, then I think this is most unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Claims have been made - by others - about the activity of "Early Christians" in the 1st century.
If you are not aware of these claims phone the Pope's Information Line.

When the evidence is examined for these claims, there is a great silence. In places where we might expect a mention, there is not a peep. We have a list of sources from the 1st century .... S1, S2, S3, S4, ..., Sn.

The outcome of our reaearch is summarised in the statemernts:

S1 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S2 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S4 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".
S4 does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".

...
...
...

Sn does not mention the existence of "Early Christians".


These are statements of NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.

The dog did not bark in the night.

The claimed events did not occur in the evidence.

tanya

No, sorry for conveying that sentiment.

I believe that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. But, I doubt that he was a "reformer", much less an abolitionist. I think modern historians have glossed over the accounts of his youthful endeavors, aimed at promoting preservation of the slavery status quo, and I also think that he HAD THE POWER to free ALL the slaves, including those in his home state, and yet, he did not do so.

Lincoln was elected to congress from a state, Illinois, which encouraged slavery. I think Lincoln would have supported the abolition of slavery, if that motion had arisen from Congress, but, he was unwilling to stick out his neck, to help those who had escaped from slavery, prior to his "emancipation proclamation", issued not in 1861, upon attaining the presidency, but two years later, when Lincoln needed warm bodies to fight the rebels.

I don't think that Lincoln himself, unlike Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James Madison, or George Washington was a slave owner. Maybe Lincoln believed that slavery was immoral. I don't know. I simply don't think he was the great hero he is made out to be.....

tanya

Maybe that is exactly what he is writing, and since I am not terribly clever, I simply haven't yet figured that out....

On the other hand, what you have written here, does NOT correspond to my point, maybe because of my lack of writing skill.

I claim that the "Great Silence", far from being evidence AGAINST something, is evidence in support of my claim of the non-existence of Christianity in the first century CE.

It is negative evidence FOR a theory that Christianity did not commence during the first century, CE. The evidence (absence of any artifacts, documents, buildings, etc...) is similar to the output of seismic probes looking for oil, or ultrasound looking at a woman's uterus for signs of life. What do you conclude, upon evaluating an ultrasound study which shows no fetus? We did the dig, we excavated the tombs, we dug up the catacombs, we pawed through the trash heaps in Egypt. What have we got? same for the radiologist. She's not pregnant. If she was copulating four months earlier, we can not confirm that fact by our best testing protocols. So far as we know, she hasn't yet begun fornicating. The church hasn't yet started in the first century.

If you tell me, that, according to the written testimony of Ms. Jones, our woman was seen going into a hotel room with a fertile man, four months ago, therefore the woman must be pregnant, because Ms. Jones has written it on a piece of paper, I am obliged to reiterate, that the negative evidence produced, leads me to conclude, contrary to what Ms. Jones has affirmed, that this woman may have been simply selling girl scout cookies in that hotel room....

Doug Shaver

There is no courtroom in my description of anything.