Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-21-2010, 11:48 AM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
|
It is doubtful that more than a relative handful of Jews accepted Jesus in the first century A.D. In the book "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that in 100 A.D., there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world. Regarding the New Testament claim that over 3,000 people accepted Christianity after listening to a sermon by Peter, one of Stark's sources basically said that that is a literary exaggeration, and should not be taken seriously. In well-known Christian apologist James Holding's article that is titled "The Impossible Faith," Holding quotes well-known Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."
None of that is surprising since Jesus did not perform any miracles, did not rise from the dead, and obviously did not make any post-resurrection appearances. |
07-21-2010, 07:49 PM | #12 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
|
People were waiting for a messiqh that was going to blow down Rome with a trumpoet, not somone fasting in the desert preaching a renunciation of worldy things and brotherhood.
Love your enemies like yourself would get the modern conservative response to offering the olive branch to the extremists. Enemy in the context of the times would likely be Rome. |
07-22-2010, 05:55 AM | #13 |
Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 14,915
|
Off to BCH.
|
07-22-2010, 07:16 AM | #14 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
It cannot be assumed that "Christus" must refer to Jesus and further parts of Annals 15 may have been interpolated since no apologetic source used "ANNALS" 15 as evidence that Jesus did exist, not even Eusebius used ANNALS 15, he used a forgery Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. Even up to the 5th century, an apologetic source, even though appearing to quote "ANNALS 15, did not include the word "Jesus" in the passage. Plus, the mention of "Christian" does not have to mean "believers in Jesus". There were Christians since the days of the Emperor Claudius who did not believe in Jesus according to an apologetic source. |
|
07-22-2010, 07:43 AM | #15 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
It's not even worth discussing. As I noted on several other posts here - Jesus never applies the title to himself. As Celsus notes "the prophecies agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus."
Jesus wasn't a king, therefore he wasn't the messiah. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|