rob117

The difference is that Smith claimed Mormon lived a long, long, time before himself. Same thing with Dionysus. The gospel authors placed Jesus within a century before their own times, even according to the latest possible dates for the gospels (all of them are attested by c.140 by authors like Papias and Polycarp; most estimates place the writing of them all between c.65 and 110).

Malachi151

What difference does this make?

Read the letters of Paul. Paul doesn't even talk about Jesus as a person at all.

50 years was a pretty long time back then, especially after a destructive war.

These people that converted to this religion had no personal knowledge of ether one of these figures, they were just names and stories by that point.

Koyaanisqatsi

First of all, people did (such as the Greeks and the Jews). Secondly, remember we're not talking about a time where there was mass communication or investigative journalists or even a generally skeptical attitude or intelligent, worldly poeple being preached to.

When we're talking about cult members (which is who Paul was preaching to; aka, the "choir" for the most part) we're talking about profoundly ignorant sheep who will believe just about anything they are told to believe without questioning it.

Consider that this is the case today and extrapolate backwards two thousand years ago and you've got Python's The Life of Brian as a documentary.

We don't have to go too far back into our own history here--hell, our own childhood--to see that stories about one's own relatives still living in your own household can be blown way out of proportion among the storytellers. How many times as a kid did you aggrandize your father's or your brother's or your sister's or mother's etc. exploits to your peer group?

Did any one of your friends ever then dare to ask your Dad to prove whether or not they shot a hundred men in Korea, or saved twenty drowning children in a lake, etc., etc., etc?

No. People, by and large, believe what they are being told; or rather, have no great desire to confirm what they are being told and for those who don't? Well, they don't sit down to put nib to papyri for future generations to read the "dissent" opinion.

What would a first century Thessolonian do, for example? Walk all the way to Jerusalem and knock on everyone's door with the first name of James or Thomas to see if they were the one Paul was talking about?

Of course not.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail, but I'm just so sick and tired of this utter nonsense that blatant lies couldn't be made up about people who actually existed because of some non-existent fear that the lies would somehow be revealed by a first century Woodward and Bernstein.

Hell, back then, I would bet even money you could lie about the person standing right in front of you and chances are good, they would believe it, or say nothing to correct you. The only difference being that back then, my guess is there were fewer fanatics and the issue of "faith" wasn't as divisive.

Everyone believed the dead could rise and the thunder was a god farting, etc., etc., etc. So hearing the same stories with different names wouldn't illicit any desire to prove such claims; just passive acceptance for the most part, unless the new miracle stories didn't "wow" better than the old and judging from the fact that Christianity required brutal military action for it to be accepted (i.e, believe or die), well, clearly the "miracle" of Jesus was not only nothing very exciting, but nothing anyone cared much about.

:huh:

It's necessary for Christian apologists (not that you are one malachi; I read the deprogramming post ) to make it seem as if the whole world doubted the miracle (hence the fiction of "Doubting Thomas") to make it all so unique, but the truth of the matter is, this was nothing new under the sun and the only reason it spread was because the Romans created it....ahem....forced everyone in their Empire to convert. Or die.

The "convert or die" formula didn't even work at first, which is why centuries of "convert or die" (or be tortured or ostracized, etc; let's not get Bede all in a tither again) were absolutely necessary for the "miracle" to spread, so, there's that, too.

This was a pro-Roman/anti-Judaic mythos that preached rejoicing in one's slavery. Of course the Romans created....ahem....promulgated it.

Malachi151

Oh, I certainly agree with you, I was just nit picking due to the pretty much bogus claims made in the OP and following arguments.

I don't think it really mattered much of the people existed or didn't exist at that point. You could say pretty much whatever you wanted and no one had any way to know any better either way.

schilling.klaus

F. Zindler showed that also the spot in FJ referring to John B. is not authentic.

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

Error 1. John the Baptist was not considered a prophet or a Messiah by Flavius Josephus at all.

Error 2. Tacitus and Pliny did mention the name "Yeshua" anywhere in their extant writings.

Would people follow Mohammed or Allah?

schilling.klaus

Marcus Aurelius?
certainly another brick in the Eusebian wall of forged martyriography

Klaus Schilling

neilgodfrey

One of our earliest witnesses to a noncanonical conversion is Justin. He was converted to Christianity as a philosophy. He also traveled a fair bit. We can assume he and his fellow Christian associates were people of some means. Or if he took a penniless philosopher position he no doubt found patrons to support him.

People of means attracted clients who could expect little handouts. Early Christians (I forget the source) offered welfare to the hungry and diseased. If I found free food and shelter by attaching myself to a Christian philosopher I'd be happy to turn up at his early morning prayer sessions too. Might even find it useful to call myself a convert.

I think this scenario is more plausible than the initial one proposed.

aa5874

Not everyone believed the dead could rise, even the NT made the the claim and backed up by Josephus.

Acts 23.8 Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4 Can you imagine that people today still believe in ghosts, angels and that dead people can come back to life when more than 2000 years some people thought such ideas were ridiculous.