TedM

Johnny, check out this link:

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah....html#overview

Notice how many of the claimants lived in the 1st century!

Now, of course this list could be skewed in some way and maybe people he lists don't really qualify as Messiah claimants, but at least on the surface this would seem to be strong support of the Messiah mania concept.

My conclusion in the end is that the growth similar to as portrayed in Acts is not at all unlikely and is even probable, even without an actual supernatural Pentacostal event.

ted

Rick Sumner

Would it? How many "Messiahs" have we had this century?

Do we have Messiah-Mania?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

I will just say that the idea that Christian numbers were low in say CE 40 compared to later times due to very rapid growth in the period from say 70-110 CE (growth never paralled before or since) is a very different argument from Stark's.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

How many claimants there were is one matter, but how well they were received is another matter entirely.

John the Baptist is not evidence. He did not write any of the New Testament, and there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to conclude that writings about him were based upon 1st hand evidence, or even upon 2nd hand, 3rd hand or fourth hand evidence

Regarding Josephus, the Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says “As a historian, Josephus shares the faults of most ancient writers: his analyses are superficial, his chronology faulty, his facts exaggerated, his speeches contrived. He is especially tendentious when his own reputation is at stake. His Greek style, when it is truly his, does not earn for him the epithet 'the Greek Livy' that often is attached to his name."

It is well-known among scholars that writers in antiquity frequently used hyperbole and exaggeration. I can quote scholarly sources if necessary.

Regarding Philo, who was a contemporary of Josephus, where did he get his information from? A writer is only as good as his sources, and we need to know who Philo's sources were.

The book of Acts was written much too late for anyone check out its claim of “many thousands�? of Christian Jews.

Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and hence there were not any still living eyewitnesses, then an increased rate of growth from as you said 70-110 CE was to be expected, but not the kind of increases you claim. Until then, people would have said "Hey, we were there and we didn't see any risen Jesus."

TedM

I'm not sure what kind of comparison you are trying to make, Rick. Assuming 10 Messiah claimants out of 1 million population, that would equate to 2500 Messiah claimants in our nation. Yet, are we even looking for a Messiah? No. If you are trying to suggest that by my logic it could be said we have Messiah mania here in the US, I really don't see any comparisons that come close.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

The number of claimants now or back then is irrelevant. All that matters is how many people accepted one particular claimant back then, namely Jesus.

TedM

True, but why would Josephus lie about him? Why would his story about JTB seem quite independant from the Gospel portrayals? What would he have to gain?

Sure. If you want me to agree that you MIGHT be right, I do agree. However, I prefer to go with the preponderance of the evidence on the presumption that overall it contains much truth even if there are areas that are clearly questionable.

Yep, but scholars find much of it to be very accurate and Luke, Paul's companion, is likely to have authored it.


Johnny, you are definitely a skeptic. For some reason you seem hardnosed against a very reasonable naturalistic explanation for fast early growth, which I have given with a number of evidences. I don't know why this seems so unlikely to you when the numbers we are talking about are not even that large anyway. It really just sounds like you are looking for support for your preconceptions like "the author of Acts is a liar", instead of looking for the truth. Evidence to me of that is that fact that you either ignore or argue against my points as if to say "there is no way that is true" instead of "yes, that may be true, but so might this". In other words, it is from your tone that I say this. You tone and the fact that your arguments to my points often are not even relevant to what I was saying as I pointed out clearly yesterday.

As best as I can figure out, Johnny, you are using argumentation to support a mindset that requires 100% proof of things. No argument without proof will convince you otherwise, not even that something is likely. As such, what's the point of pretending to discuss issues when in fact you are really just saying there isn't proof? Almost everyone here already knows that, and so the debates here more typically are with regard to the probability of something being true or not. Is that a concept you are not comfortable with? Let's see:

What do you think is the probability that there was Messiah mania?

What do you think is the probability that a man named Jesus walked this earth and was crucified?

What do you think is the probability that Christianity grew to 10,000 people by 60AD?

What do you think is the probability that Josephus wrote part of the TF?

What do you think is the probability that Josephus accurately reflects information 80% of the time?

ted

TedM

That's simply a ridiculous thing to say Johnny. The more claimants there were, the more probable it is that people followed and accepted them, and the more numbers of people that would have followed and accepted any one of them on average, including Jesus. It's not provable and it MAY not be true for Jesus, but it is a true statement with regard to probability.

Why, you ask? It's basic human nature: We are to a great extent products of our environments and cultures. Most likely, a bunch of Messiah's wouldn't pop up in a culture unless that culture produced them. And, most likely the culture wouldn't produce them unless it had high Messiac expectation. Make sense?

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Some claimants were not successful in attracting a lot of followers. In the 1st century, Jesus might have been such a claimant. Surely there are historical examples of claimants attracting a small number of followers.