Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 08-17-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

"Matthew is a pun on "disciple" (mathetai)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Did Price really say this?

That is what he said.

TedM · 08-17-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to TedM: You mentioned evidence, but the title of this thread says external evidence. What I am asking for is external evidence of the claims and activities of the disciples that was not written by Christians. Otherwise, we cannot rule out the possibility of propaganda. The supposed 500 eyewitnesses were much more numerous than the disciples were, so their testimonies would have been much impressive than the disciples' testimonies. What external, non-Christian evidence is there of their existence?

You gave quotes by a very liberal scholar regarding his theory that the 12 disciples were really clones of a small group of 3 or 4, and several of them being 'brothers' in some way to Jesus. This appeared to appeal to some external evidences in part. I was asking for evidence to support this theory. This seems quite in line with a discussion of external evidences. The bottom line is that we don't have much evidence of a whole bunch of things in the first 50 years of Christianity. The most we have is not external, but it 'internal'--reflecting the activities and concerns of the early church communities, and is therefore subject to claims of 'propaganda'. It is also the most likely place to get ANY information on early christian acitivity--including information on disciples.

Christians will always be able to answer you by saying one of things:

1. I believe in the supernatural
2. There are some historical records (Josephus, the Talmud, Pliny, etc..) that support the Christian story. (Most don't know of the objections or care)
3. It's all right there in the bible.
4. The church traditions support it, along with the record of martyrdom.
5. It's still around. It makes sense to me. It sounds authentic when I read it. It comforts me. So, despite various objections about lack of evidence, I like what I do see, so I believe it anyway.

The only people you are likely to reach with your string of objections are the small percentage who are interested in the history of the times and are more interested in finding the truth using intellectual means over emotional.

Best of luck,

ted

Johnny Skeptic · 08-17-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You gave quotes by a very liberal scholar regarding his theory that the 12 disciples were really clones of a small group of 3 or 4, and several of them being 'brothers' in some way to Jesus. This appeared to appeal to some external evidences in part. I was asking for evidence to support this theory. This seems quite in line with a discussion of external evidences. The bottom line is that we don't have much evidence of a whole bunch of things in the first 50 years of Christianity. The most we have is not external, but it 'internal'--reflecting the activities and concerns of the early church communities, and is therefore subject to claims of 'propaganda'. It is also the most likely place to get ANY information on early christian acitivity--including information on disciples.

Christians will always be able to answer you by saying one of three things:

1. I believe in the supernatural.

So do the followers of some other religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. Since so little material survived back then, I wouldn't expect much external corroberation, though we have reports by Josephus, the Talmud, Pliny, etc.

All the more reason not to accept uncorroborated claims of miracles, including the Resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. It's still around.

So are many other religions. Islam is growing faster than Christianity is, it has over one billion followers, and Christianity got a 600 year head start on Islam.

Quote:

It makes sense to me. It sounds authentic when I read it. It comforts me. So, despite various objections about lack of evidence, I like what I do see, so I believe it anyway.

And so say the followers of all religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The only people you are likely to reach with your string of objections are the small percentage who are interested in the history of the times and are more interested in finding the truth using intellectual means over emotional.

Those are exactly the people who I am trying to influence, although their numbers are not nearly as small as you suggest. Today, there are over 20 million atheists and agnostics in the U.S., an all-time record numerically and percentage wise. A gallup poll showed that in the age group category 18-29, 61% approve of same sex marriage, clearly proving that young people are becoming more liberal in greater numbers than ever before. Same sex marriage is at least temporarily legal in Massachusetts, and it might become legal in California in the near future. Same sex marriage was recently legalized in Canada, and it has been legal in Denmark for a number of years. Physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Parts of the Western World, including the U.S., have undergone and continue to undergo dramtics changes in attitudes towards social issues, so your "small percentage" argument is not valid.

You said that Dr. Price is a liberal scholar. Do you prefer the arguments of conservative scholars? If, so, which ones? You do not believe that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Am I correct that you also do not believe that Jesus spiritually rose from the dead? If so, then do you oppose both liberal and fundamental Christianity, or do you feel that historically, Christianity and other religions have been harmless? Your viewer profile says "God is all that is good but has not revealed himself formally, life is a gift." Why do you assume that God is good? Do you believe that God will one day reveal himself formally? What do you believe happens to people after they die?

TedM · 08-17-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Those are exactly the people who I am trying to influence, although their numbers are not nearly as small as you suggest.
Today, there are over 20 million atheists and agnostics in the U.S., an all-time record numerically and percentage wise. A gallup poll showed that in the age group category 18-29, 61% approve of same sex marriage, clearly proving that young people are becoming more liberal in greater numbers than ever before.

I think the greater influence to take people away from Christianity is a growing acceptance of ideas Christianity disapproves of, not rational discourse regarding missing external data. But do what you want, of course.

Quote:

You said that Dr. Price is a liberal scholar. Do you prefer the arguments of conservative scholars?

No, I welcome his views if they include the kind of external evidence you support, and not far-fetched speculations.

Quote:

Your viewer profile says "God is all that is good but has not revealed himself formally, life is a gift." Why do you assume that God is good?

Probably because I want to. I believe God is our creator (through evolution or whatever other means), and that since we strive for "good"--which furthers our survival and happiness, that is an attributed given to us by our creator, and likely reveals to us the nature of God. But, let's not dispute it or talk about human suffering and evil. An argument certainly can be made that God is cruel or indifferent too. I may be very wrong in believing in the goodness of God.

Quote:

Do you believe that God will one day reveal himself formally?

Yes, after we die.

ted

Johnny Skeptic · 08-17-2005, 10:30 AM

Message to TedM: Since you believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically or spiritually, I do not understand what you are arguing. Do you care what liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians believe? The point is, do exteranl records provide us with sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? You say no, I say no, and the vast majority of the people in the world say no, including the vast majority of historians.

Almost no skeptic would oppose a proven, loving extra-terrestrial being even if he made an unverifiable claim that he was a God as long as he provided them with eternal comfort. Christians have a perceived vested interest in the Bible being true. Skeptics most certainly would too if there were sufficient evidence of God's existence and goodness. Evidence of God's existence would not be nearly enough without reasonable proof that he is perfect and good.

Toto · 08-17-2005, 11:23 AM

TedM -

First of all, I am not sure how to interpret a brief, casual note from Robert Price, who usually has a lot to say on any question.

But to understand what he is talking about, he is referring to the work of Robert Eisenman, which he reviews here. Eisenman's ideas about the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls have been invalidated by carbon dating, but there may still be something in his methodology.

Quote:

Second, Eisenman has developed a keen sense for the "name game" played in the sources. Most of us have sometime scratched our heads over the tantalizing confusions latent in the strange redundancy of similar names in the New Testament accounts. How can Mary have had a sister named Mary? Is there a difference between Joseph Barsabbas Justus, Judas Barsabbas Justus, Jesus Justus, Titius Justus, and James the Just? Whence all the Jameses and Judases? Who are Simon the Zealot and Judas the Zealot (who appears in some NT manuscripts and other early Christian documents)? Is Clopas the same as Cleophas? What's going on with Jesus ben-Ananias, Jesus Barabbas, Elymas bar-Jesus, and Jesus Justus? What does Boanerges really mean? Is Nathaniel a nickname for someone else we know of? And so on, and so on. Most of us puzzle over these oddities for a moment—and then move on. After all, how important can they be, anyway? Eisenman does not move on till he has figured it out.

. . .

His working hypothesis is that the confusions, alterations, and obfuscations stem from an interest in covering over the importance, and therefore the identity, of the desposyni, the Heirs of Jesus, who had apparently functioned at least for Palestinian Christianity as a dynastic Caliphate similar to the Alid succession of Shi'ite Islam or the succession of Hasmonean brothers. It is a commonplace that the gospel texts treating Jesus' mother, brothers and sisters either severely (Mark and John) or delicately (Luke, cf., the Gospel according to the Hebrews) are functions of ecclesiastical polemics over their leadership claims as opposed to Peter and the Twelve (analogous to the Companions of the Prophet in Sunni Islam) or to outsiders like Paul. It is equally well known that the Synoptic apostle lists differ between themselves and between manuscripts of each gospel. Why? Eisenman connects these phenomena with another, the confusion arising among early theologians over the siblings of Jesus as the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity became widespread. They had to be harmonized with the dogma, so brothers and sisters became cousins, step-siblings, etc. And characters became sundered. Mary suddenly had a sister named Mary because the mother of James, Joses, Simon, and Judas could no longer also be the mother of Jesus. And so on.

The Gospels give prominence to an inner circle of three: Peter, John son of Zebedee and John's brother James. And Galatians has the Three Pillars in Jerusalem: Peter, John son of Zebedee, and Jesus' brother James. What happened here? Surely the gospels' inner group of three is intended as preparatory for the Pillars, to provide a life-of-Jesus pedigree for the Pillars. But then why are there two different Jameses? Mustn't they originally have been the same? Eisenman says they were, but certain factions wanted to play up the authority of the shadowy college of the Twelve against the earlier authority of the Heirs and found it politic to drive a wedge between James the brother of Jesus and the Twelve, so James becomes James the Just on the one hand and James the brother of John on the other.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-17-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Yes, often enough, but why?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Mostly a collection of loose circumstances. Nathaniel is mentioned only in John, Bartholomew only in the synoptics. Bartholomew (Bar-Tolomai) means "Son of Tolomai" and so may have been a sobriequet rather than a proper name. In addition, Nathaniel is introduced to Jesus by Philip in John's Gospel and all of the synoptics list Bart's name along side of Philip. Many have therefore concluded that Nat and Bart, both arguably associated with Philip, are really the same guy, Nathanael, Son of Tolomai.

I grant that these are not strong arguments but you asked what they were so there you are.

TedM · 08-17-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

TedM -

First of all, I am not sure how to interpret a brief, casual note from Robert Price, who usually has a lot to say on any question.

But to understand what he is talking about, he is referring to the work of Robert Eisenman, which he reviews here. Eisenman's ideas about the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls have been invalidated by carbon dating, but there may still be something in his methodology.

Wow. It would take a lot of digging to make sense of all those name switches/comparisons with Josephus, etc..

Toto, would you please tell me what you meant about the invalidation of Eisenmans' ideas about the identity etc..

thanks,

ted

Chris Weimer · 08-17-2005, 03:06 PM

Eisenman thought that the DSS were written after 30 CE, and most actually were not, thus his claim the the Moreh Tzeddik was John and the Wicked Priest was Jesus is quite blatantly false.

Peter Kirby · 08-17-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mostly a collection of loose circumstances. Nathaniel is mentioned only in John, Bartholomew only in the synoptics. Bartholomew (Bar-Tolomai) means "Son of Tolomai" and so may have been a sobriequet rather than a proper name. In addition, Nathaniel is introduced to Jesus by Philip in John's Gospel and all of the synoptics list Bart's name along side of Philip. Many have therefore concluded that Nat and Bart, both arguably associated with Philip, are really the same guy, Nathanael, Son of Tolomai.

I grant that these are not strong arguments but you asked what they were so there you are.

Thanks for the info.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2005, 10:30 AM	#25
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to TedM: Since you believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically or spiritually, I do not understand what you are arguing. Do you care what liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians believe? The point is, do exteranl records provide us with sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? You say no, I say no, and the vast majority of the people in the world say no, including the vast majority of historians. Almost no skeptic would oppose a proven, loving extra-terrestrial being even if he made an unverifiable claim that he was a God as long as he provided them with eternal comfort. Christians have a perceived vested interest in the Bible being true. Skeptics most certainly would too if there were sufficient evidence of God's existence and goodness. Evidence of God's existence would not be nearly enough without reasonable proof that he is perfect and good.

08-17-2005, 03:06 PM	#29
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Eisenman thought that the DSS were written after 30 CE, and most actually were not, thus his claim the the Moreh Tzeddik was John and the Wicked Priest was Jesus is quite blatantly false.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.