aa5874

But, you must agree that once there were no tombs or inscriptions then we have the full picture.

And all we have to do is to examine the description of Jesus in the NT Canon.

Would you expect to find a tomb which held an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Would you expect to find a tomb which held the Creator of heaven and earth?

We have the full picture.

JESUS of the NT, the disciples and Paul had no tombs, and inscriptions in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

Since the 2nd century Justin Martyr gaves US the full picture. There was a picture of a BIG BLACK hole for 150 years.

I got the picture.

Again, the use of the word "Christianity" is ambiguous. You must know that the writings of Tacitus and Pliny which mention the words "Christian" did not mention Jesus.

The writings of Philo and Josephus have answered the questions about Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus of the NT was fiction.

Now, what is the Greek words for "messianic" is it not the same word for "christian"?

People who believe that they were anointed by God were most likely the first to be called Christians. After all the word Christian is derived from the Greek word for "anointing with oil".

But, not all Christians had a connection with Jewish tradition.

But, Paul did not claim he was Simon Magus and neither did the Church writers.

According to the NT and Church writers, Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who used to persecute Jesus believers and met the apostles in Jerusalem after he escaped in a basket by a wall in Damascus.

We know who PAUL was. Paul internally corroborated the author of Acts. He was a fictitious character who witnessed and participated in fictitious events. Only fiction can do that.

Toto

It really screws up your perspective to make any analogy to the creationism debate. Evolution is a highly developed theory with a lot of data to support it; creationist objections are based on mere speculation.

In the Biblical studies field, ALL of the interpetations are speculative. The idea that Paul wrote the epistles with his name on them is mere speculation. The idea that we have his letters as he wrote them - speculation. There is no way to prove it. What did he really mean? All speculation.

Then please stop. Stop calling your opponents "highly" skeptical, as if you possess just the right amount of skepticism.

But maybe they are right and you are wrong.

bacht

If you want to believe that we can reconstruct a credible story about early Christianity from Christian texts alone then go for it. This isn't proper historical procedure afaik.

aa5874

But, I am NOT using Christian texts alone. Your claim is completely erroneous.

Did not Philo and Josephus write in the 1st century and were they Jesus believers?

Did not Pliny the Elder write in the 1st century and was he a Jesus believer?

Did not Tacitus and Suetonius write in the 2nd century and were they Jesus believers?

Did not Pliny the younger write in the 2nd century and was he a Jesus believer?

And do we not have Hebrew Scripture?


Again, "Christianity" is an ambiguous word. I am dealing with "Jesus of the NT" and the Church writings.

We have sufficient sources of antiquity that can give a reasonable indication of the existence or non-existence of Jesus, the 12 disciples and Paul as described in the NT Canon.

And I am afraid that the NT Canon can be reasonably considered to be a compilation of FICTION written to mis-lead and propagate erroneous information about the history of Jesus believers.

bacht

I dunno Abe. As Toto says, there's no law forcing us to reach absolute conclusions about events in ancient Palestine. History is a work in progress, with new materials and new interpretations continuously. We never know when new insights will arise or new finds appear like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi collection.

I'm not a professional, but it seems obvious that texts are the most easily manipulated artifacts. As Roger has pointed out, we only have a small fraction of what was originally produced anyway, so there are huge gaps in the written record. There were other Jewish historians besides Josephus eg, but their work is lost. Much pagan work was destroyed by the imperial Christians in the 4th C. Then there is the question of translators and editors "improving" the text before them.

And historians have to consider human nature, and what people can and will do in any given situation. The pre-scientific mindset of the ancients may be more alien than the average modern person assumes.

bacht

At worst, we can look at Christian literature as reflecting the religious and political concerns of the writers at the time of composition or redaction. Apologists like Justin had their own agendas, as did the pagan writers you mention.

As to whether Jesus, the disciples or Paul can be confirmed or rejected I think you're being optimistic. Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius can tell us they knew something about people who might have been Christians, generations after the supposed lifetimes of the NT heroes.

Almost certainly the term 'Christian' evolved over time. Beyond that what exactly can be proven?

bacht

Thanks Mary H. One scenario is as you describe: early catholics re-casting their origins in an attempt to justify the retention of the Jewish scriptures. There may also have been a perceived need to obscure the real origins, which might have been considered embarassing (eg did gnostics really start the whole thing?)

ApostateAbe

Yeah, for you, maybe, if it can not be proved with sufficient certainty, then it is speculation, and all speculations are the same. For me, when some so-called speculations have the backing of the evidence, then they can be conclusions and working assumptions.
Sorry, Toto. I didn't mean it to come off as an insult, though I do see how it could be, because I really do believe that I am closer to having the right amount of skepticism than those I call the "highly skeptical." But, it is not actually about who possesses just the right amount of skepticism. The difference is in values. The "highly skeptical" camp seems to value skepticism as an end. That is largely why they identify themselves as "skeptics." Such people may refuse to reach conclusions, instead maintaining that undermining certainty in the established conclusions is good enough. I value skepticism only as a means to an end. I am trying to find conclusions that are most probable, and I use skepticism and criteria of comparison to reach that end. The old "mythicist" or "myther" label doesn't work, because the "highly skeptical" are different from those who have reached a conclusion. "Postmodernist" does not work, because it is too ambiguous and does not quite fit. Nor does the plain old "skeptic" label work, because we are all skeptics. If I call my opposition "skeptics," then it makes me look like a dogmatist. If that is what you would prefer, then I insist on using the label, "highly skeptical," unless you have a better label that I haven't mentioned. Before, as you know, I used the word, "hyperskeptics," and I switched to "highly skeptical" as a downgrade in the level of insult. Perhaps you would prefer no label at all, as spin has suggested, which makes the whole camp immune to criticism of any sort. I suppose "ideologues of skepticism" or "adherents of skepticism" would be more accurate in terms of what I believe and what I am trying to communicate, but I have feeling that would come off as even more insulting. Anyway, if you have any better ideas, I am glad to hear them.
Yes, always a possibility.

aa5874

But, I have contradicted your earlier statement that I am only using Christian sources. You must admit that you were wrong.

How can you claim Justin Martyr had some agenda when you have admitted that it is NOT "proper historical procedure to reconstruct a credible story about early Christianity from Christian texts alone"?

Why must I accept your view of Justin Martyr as credible? You are using "Christian texts to make an analysis of Justin Martyr.

But did not the same writers, Suetonius and Tacitus, write about other people who LIVED decades before them?

Did not Suetonius writer about Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero?

One can only deal with information from antiquity. There is nothing non-apologetic in the 1st century on JESUS of the NT, propagated by the NT and Church writers as a most unprecedented Jewish character, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Creator of heaven and earth and EQUAL to God.

The ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE from APOLOGETIC sources described JESUS as a MYTH.

JESUS, the 12 disciples and Paul were MYTHS until the NT and Church writers change their descriptions and activities.

But, why are you trying to make remarks about the evolution of the term "Christian" when you have already claimed that it "isn't proper historical procedure to reconstruct a credible story about early Christianity from Christian texts alone"....

What proof do you have, outside of Christian texts, that the term "Christian" evolved over time?

Certainly you use Christian texts for your analysis but become terribly upset when others do and come away with a different opinion.

I am of the opinion that there is SUFFICIENT information from antiquity to reasonably deduce that Jesus, the 12 disciples and Paul were fictitious characters of the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple c. 70 CE.

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right in all of that. I certainly would not encourage absolute conclusions. I have used the phrase, "tentative conclusions," because all conclusions in this subject are tentative. Even so, some conclusions really do fit the preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, those conclusions perhaps ought to be evaluated as "better" than the improbable conclusions or the conclusions that run against the evidence.

I think I will keep coming back to my analogy of the best-fit line. If you have five points, then you choose the line that roughly runs through the path best estimated by those five points. You certainly don't choose a line that runs through only one preferred point at an arbitrary slope and ignoring the other four points, which is what the fringe theorists guided by wishful thinking may do. The highly skeptical camp may say, "We don't have enough points, so let's refuse to draw the line." But, if you draw a best-fit line using the mathematical least-squares method, then you will probably have a line very close to the "correct" function.