Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker, I assume that only a relative handful of people believed that he actually performed miracles. As I said before, in "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D., and that in "The Impossible Faith," James Holding quoted 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."

If Jesus did not perform miracles, it is not surprising that Christianity was so small during the first century since his miracles were so widely discredited by local people. Why would people who lived in subsequent centuries be more likely to become Christians than people who lived during the first century? What was different about subsequent centuries? How did people change in subsequent centuries?

The texts say that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, throughout all of Galilee, throughout all of Syria, that vast multitudes of people sometimes followed him, and that he performed many more miracles that were not recorded. The writers obviously intended for their audience to believe that Jesus made a big splash indeed, certainly not a little splash, or a moderate splash. If the accounts were true, Jesus' exploits would have been unprecedented in human history (the Ten Plagues in Egypt would have been unprecedented in human history too, but only the Bible mentions them), and he would easily have been the biggest celebrity in the Middle East. First century, non-Christian history does not indicate that that happened.

I hope that you understand that many people are skeptical of the Bible because it makes many false and suspicious claims, and that many people who have died without accepting the Bible honestly searched for the truth. What more can a man do than honestly search for the truth?

aa5874

I think you are confusing "multiple attestation" with "multiple repetition".

Once the authors of the Jesus story were anonymous, writing decades after the supposed events, and that there was no external attestation of the Jesus story, then all we have is most probably "multiple repetition" or what is commonly called "Chinese whispers".

It would appear that the anonymous authors REPEATED the parts of the Jesus story that they liked or the parts that were compatible with their own beliefs at that time.

spamandham

The mere existence of multiple attestation is not very meaningful, unless it can be shown that those making such attestations are in the know, reliable and reasonably independent of one another.

The gospels are not reasonably independent of one another, and the writers of unknown character. Whether or not they were in the know is possible but doesn't seem likely given the highly legendary nature of the stories.

Joan of Bark

Also, the claims for miracles come from Christians who were writing propoganda. They were trying to convert others, so their claims are about as reliable as those of a card-carrying neo-Nazi writing about Hitler.

darstec

How can there be multiple attestation when nobody wrote during Joshua's supposed lifetime? Hell, there isn't even a single attestation. There is no evidence that anything in the NT was written in the first century. There is not one single document on a Joshua the oiled one nor a movement started by him that has been radiocarbon dated prior to the third century, and probably not even that early.

show_no_mercy

Well, there's Philo writing that the Logos is the first-born of god the father :constern01: I think it's quite possible that Philo inadvertently created Christianity.

darstec

Hellenistic thought at its finest. Still no mention that Joshua or his followers said that .

andrewcriddle

Just out of interest do you accept the authenticity of the references to Christians in the letters of Pliny to Trajan ?

I know that these letters are 2nd century CE (c 112 CE) but the Christian movement involved is presented as going back a number of years before that time.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

I said "I think that you understand the difficulty in claiming that there is reasonable evidence that Jesus said and did everything that the Gospels say that he said and did." Traditions do not reasonably prove what Jesus said and did.

If Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker, I assume that only a relative handful of people believed that he actually performed miracles. As I said before, in "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D., and that in "The Impossible Faith," James Holding quoted 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."

If Jesus did not perform miracles, it is not surprising that Christianity was so small during the first century since his miracles were so widely discredited by local people. Why would people who lived in subsequent centuries be more likely to become Christians than people who lived during the first century? What was different about subsequent centuries? How did people change in subsequent centuries?

The texts say that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, throughout all of Galilee, throughout all of Syria, that vast multitudes of people sometimes followed him, and that he performed many more miracles that were not recorded. The writers obviously intended for their audience to believe that Jesus made a big splash indeed, certainly not a little splash, or a moderate splash. If the accounts were true, Jesus' exploits would have been unprecedented in human history (the Ten Plagues in Egypt would have been unprecedented in human history too, but only the Bible mentions them), and he would easily have been the biggest celebrity in the Middle East. First century, non-Christian history does not indicate that that happened.

Isn't it true that self-interest is the main reason that you find textual evidence to be convincing, not multiple attestations? Surely you would not accept the Bible if its promises did not appeal to your self-interest. If multiple attestations are actually convincing, they would be convincing no matter what they promised. I know that this issue is better suited for some other forum. Would you like to discuss it at another forum? If you do not want to discuss the issue, that is fine. At least I know that I have a valid argument that cannot be successfully refuted by biblical criticism.

aa5874

The authenticity of the Pliny letters are really irrelevant with respect to Jesus of Nazareth. The Pliny letters do not say that the Christians were followers or believers in JESUS.

The words JESUS, JESUS CHRIST, JESUS of Nazareth, JESUS the offspring of the Holy Ghost, and Jesus the Creator of heaven and earth cannot be found in the Pliny letters.

Further, even if Jesus did exist, it can be found in the NT Canon, where he said, "Many will come and decieve in the name of Christ.

It cannot be shown that the Christ that was worshiped by the Pliny Christians was not a deceiver.

And even an apologetic source, Justin Martyr, has already made it known in "First Apology" that people were called Christians since the time of the Emperor Claudius c.41-54 CE who did NOT believe in or followed JESUS.

Without the name JESUS, the Pliny letters are really irrelevant OR AMBIGUOUS.