Johnny Skeptic

Message to Ted M: Regarding Josephus and John the Baptist, even if John had Messiah mania, so did some other people. So what? What we need to know is how many people had Messiah mania.

Johnny Skeptic

I wish to revise my arguments. I agree that Micah 5:2 provides ample evidence that Messiah mania existed among the Jews, but that is also gives ample evidence that no Jew with a lick of sense would have accepted Jesus. The verse reads " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The prophecy was given to Jews, they expected a ruler and they didn't get one. To the Jews, the word "ruler" could only have meant someone in control, as one would expect of any ruler.

There are not any good at all for any to assume that the Gospel writers did not dream up the claims of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem in order to agree with the Old Testament. It is important to note that the first written record of those claims did not appear for at least thirty-five years after the fact, possibily a good dead longer.




In addition, there is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

TedM

I appreciate your openness on this Johnny. This was considered Messiac by some. So many verses were considered Messiac, but I'm sure there were a lot of arguments about various interpretations and whether they really were Messiac or not. Here is a very interesting website showing the life's work of a man who compiled Jewish works to determine what passages (some) Jews thought were Messiac. He, I think was a Christian, which could affect some of his own interpretations of course, but it still is an excellent resource.

http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm

The opening quote shows how extremely important this issue was to the Jewish culture. This expectation had centuries to build and build by the time of Jesus:

"THE following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings."


That's true, they could have been made up. However, if people went to the trouble of making them up that is evidence that the culture was very interested in finding a Messiah.

Someone centuries later does say this is recorded in some Roman archives, but I agree that the evidence is very weak.

If the birth stories by Matthew and/or Luke were made up that is still evidence for a culture very interested in finding a Messiah--so much so that it's people made up stories and the culture accepted them.

take care now,

ted

TedM

I absolutely agree with you. However, the fact that the sect that built up based in part on the belief that Jesus was the Messiah survived Jesus' death and the others didn't IMO increases the PROBABILITY that his following early on was at least as good as the avg one. I could be wrong though.

Johnny Skeptic

Ted, you gave more evidence of Messiah mania, but I have already agreed that it was present among the Jews. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Messiah mania would not likely have continued to any substantial degree during the 1st century. If such was actually the case, the early Christian Church would not likely have been able to begin to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of who Christians claim were the still living eyewwitnesses, which would have been late in the 1st century. Until then, people would have said "Hey, we we there and we didn't see any risen Jesus." Eventually the Christian Church did begin to grow more rapidly, but in 'The Rise of Christianity,' Rodney Stark, and a good deal of corroborative scholarly sources as well, adequately account for the growth by secular means.

If there were actually as the book of Acts claims many thousands of Christian Jews, I assume that the writer meant by 40 A.D., wouldn't there likely have been a lot more Jews than that in the 2nd century? If so, then there should be historical evidence that the Messianic Christian movement continued to grow like it did in the first century. I am not aware of any such evidence. If there isn't any evidence, then I think that it is reasonable to conclude that there were not many thousands of Christian Jews in the 1st century by 40 A.D. or even by 100 A.D.

TedM

That may be correct. The death of a Messiac figure would certainly be enough to kill or stall the movement. However, a lot of movements continue on after the death of their founders. In the case of Jesus, if some believers claimed he had been raised--either they saw him or they believed he had been raised, I think it still could have grown even though you are right that people would have said "hey we were there and we didn't see any risen Jesus'. People believe now without having seen him. And, the motivation to believe back then was much stronger--given Messiah mania. It may also be that once claims were made that Jesus had been raised the whole thing quickly snowballed with the rush to find OT passages that seemed to have been fulfilled. The idea of Jesus as the lamb of god sacrificed for them in their Holy City during Passover is a powerful message that would have affected any Jew since Passover was an annual event that went back centuires which involved the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb for the sins of the people: Very strong correlation there..

We must remember that belief in Jesus' resurrection may have been a lot easier for some Jews for the above reasons, and as such it wasn't a big deal that they hadn't actually seen him with their own eyes.


That's a good argument. I think it is possible that growth stalled after the first 20 or so years for several reasons:

1. the early record of persecution
2. the death of the original disciples that knew Jesus personally, and its main evangelizor--Paul
3. doubts when Jesus didn't return as was expected--especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD

Here's a wild guess just playing around with numbers:

initial explosion growing to 5,000 in 40AD as resurrection message is spread
growth due to inclusion of Gentiles primarily due to Paul:
100% growth from 40-50: 10,000
150% growth from 50-60 : 25,000
30% growth from 60-70 as original witnesses begin to die, loss of Peter and Paul and James: 32,500
30% loss from 70-80 due to persecutions and no 2nd coming: 22,800
0% growth from 80-90: 22,800
10% growth from 90-100 due to effect of gospels: 25,000

ted

Johnny Skeptic

But not with hundreds of people saying "We were there, and we didn't see any risen Jesus." It is the first century that we are discussing here. Regarding "a lot of movements continue on after the death of their founders," a lot don't.

But if Jesus did not rise from the dead, did the motivation to believe continue to any great extent in the 1st century? The 1st century is the topic of this thread. If Jesus did risse from the dead, and if there actually were about 650 eyewitnesses, eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony. Such being the case, the 1st century would have afforded Christianity with its very best opportunity for rapid growth, especially in Palestine and the adjacent areas. Matthew 4:24-25 say "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

What good were Old Testament passages without a risen Jesus?

That is not likely. In 'Scaling the Secular City' J. P. Moreland basically says that without the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, the early Christian Church would have had a much more difficult time of growing than it did. If you wish to use Isaiah 53 as evidence, you will refute your own argument. The chapter clearly speaks of a tangible person. No tangible person, no argument.

What persecution? If you are referring to Paul's persection of Christians, we don't know how many Christians there were and how many he persecuted.


But what about the hundreds of still living eyewitnesses? Since Paul never saw Jesus, their testimonies would have been much more important because they were eyewitnesses and because hundreds of them would still have been alive. What about the churches that Paul started? Many Christians claim that the churches that Paul started grew quickly. He died around 62 A.D. His missionary journeys started in the early 50's A.D. So, Paul had about 10 years to help various churches grow until he died. What about the presence of the Holy Spirit?

Why do you believe that Jesus' return was expected? Surely he would not have confused people like that and shattered their hopes when a simple explanation would have prevented any confusion.

[quote=TedM]Here's a wild guess just playing around with numbers:

Initial explosion growing to 5,000 in 40AD as resurrection message is spread[quote=TedM]

Are you claiming that the growth would have occured even if Jesus did not rise from the dead?

There is no external evidence of anywhere near the numbers that you claim.

What persecutions?

Well, it is a question of who is best able to determine what happened thousands of years ago. I'll go with Rodney Stark and a good number of expert corroborative sources.
The bibliography in 'The Rise of Christianity' is twenty pages long, attesting to the fact that Stark is a consummate and dedicated researcher. He has a Ph.D. in sociology and teaches sociology and comparative religion.
He has written over 50 books and publications, and he has received numerous awards. Stark's mentions his expert corroborative sources? What are your expert sources that oppose Stark's estimates? Stark aside, there is no evidence of more than a few thousand Christians through 75 A.D., which was to be expected if Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

TedM

The way I see it is this:

1. Some, maybe hundreds or even thousands of people believed Jesus was or MIGHT be the Messiah while he was alive.
2. After his death for whatever reason SOME people believed he had risen, even if only in spiritual form
3. It caught on for many reasons--most simply because people wanted to believe it.

This doesn't require 500 eyewitnesses.

Not much, but with a Jesus people were SAYING was risen, the OT was a tremoundous factor. Just read Paul's epistles and the gospels and you see many references to the OT as support for a risen Jesus.


Maybe, but NOTE that you said CLAIM, not reality. The claim doesn't have to be true to have an effect. None of the 500 are named, so if people said they didn't see Jesus, others would just assume they weren't among the group that did! I don't know how we can know if Moreland is correct as there are many other factors involved other than HOW many people are said to have seen Jesus at the same time.

Actually, it is very unclear about a life after death.


2 simple reasons. People believed their Messiah had left them but was now resurrected and with God. It only make sense that he would return, as Ezekial and Daniel say. Secondly, it is a widespread belief throughout the Gospels, Luke, and Paul own epistles. Paul wrote at length on the subject in his first epistles, to the Thesselonians. As to whether Jesus ACTUALLY said it or not, who knows? If he believed himself to be the Messiah, it is likely he would have said it and believed it to be true. If he didn't say it, it still makes sense that people believed it, and the evidence is right there in the NT writings.


yes

Ok so Stark has a different number in 100AD. That still doesn't mean his numbers would differ from mine in say 50AD. I think it makes little sense for Paul to have traveleled literally thousands of miles if he didn't have thousands of converts. You might find it interesting to read Paul's epistles, and track the number of people, cities, and distances he writes about.., since I take it Stark didn't do that in his research..

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Gary Habermas diagrees with you. He is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. In 'Did Jesus Rise from the Dead, the Resurrection Debate?,' which was a debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Habermas said the following:

"The key evidence for Jesus' Resurrection is (1) the disciples' eyewitness experiences, which they believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus, (2) the early proclamation of the Resurrection by these eyewitnesses, (3) their transformation into bold witnesses who were willing to die for the convictions, (4) the empty tomb, (5) the fact that the Resurrection of Jesus was the center of the apostolic message, all of which require adequate explanations, (6) the Jewish leaders could not disprove their message even though they had both the power and the motivation to do so.

"Additionally, (7) the very existence of the church, founded by monotheistic, law-abiding Jews who nonetheless (8) worshiped on Sunday demand historical causes as well.

"Two additionally strong facts arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection are that two skeptics, (9) James and (10) Paul, became Christians after having experiences that they also believed were appearances of the risen jesus."

I can easily refute all of Habermas' claims, but as you can see, he affirms my position that eyewitness testimony was
"the key evidence for Jesus' Resurrection."

J. P. Moreland disagrees with you too. He wrote a book titled 'Scaling the Secular City.' William Lane Craig says "'Scaling the Secular City' is the most sophisticated apologetics book I have read. It lays out the issues, arguments, and conrterarguments in a thorough way. Moreland's special strength lies in philosophy of science, and the book makes a real advance in the interface between Christianity and science."

Moreland says "Fourth, if the New Testament picture of Jesus was not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, how could a consistent tradition about him ever have been formed and written? Assume that no eyewitnesses controlled the tradition about Jesus prior to the time the Gospels were written. Assume further that the scattered early believing communities were so caught up with the living 'presence' of the resurrected Christ speaking to them through prophetic utterances in the church assemblies that they lost almsot all interest in the historical Jesus as he really was. Then there would have been almost as many Christologies or portraits of jesus and his significance as there were believing communities. Further, why would the churches tie themselves to four written sources if they could hear Christ 'speak' afresh to them in their assemblies and if they felt free to make up sayings and stories about jesus to meet the needs of their life setting? Eyewitness apostolic control over the tradition is the best explanation for the emergence of a consistent, written portrait of Jesus."

Well, there you have it Ted. Would you care to debate the issue of eyewitnesses any further?

Tybalt

How many is many? 7 can be many.