Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 05-16-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This isn't quite what Stark says. He says that the evidence is explained by a growth rate based on social contact that is not typical of new religions (it is "exponential" because that's what growth rates are by definition.)

He explains the growth of the church not by Christian witness, but by their care for the sick, taking in foundlings, and other social practices. . .

Isn't christian witness caring for the sick, taking in foundlings, giving food for the hungry? Remember the parable of the good samaritan?? :huh:

Quote:

A Double Take on Early Christianity
An Interview with Rodney Stark

. . .You describe the everyday misery of the ancient world. Did Christianity change that?

RS: It made it a lot more bearable. The Church didn’t clean up the streets. Christians didn’t put in sewers. So you still had to live with a trench running down the middle of the road, in which you could find dead bodies decomposing. But what Christians did was take care of each other. Their apartments were as smoky as the pagan apartments, since neither had chimneys, and they were cold and wet and they stank. But Christians loved one another, and when they got sick they took care of each other. Someone brought you soup. You can do an enormous amount to relieve those miseries if you look after each other.

You also argue for steady growth by individual conversions rather than by mass conversions. Why?

RS: We don’t have a single documented case of mass conversion. Yes, there’s the passage in the Book of Acts, and I’m not one of these people who say, “Don’t trust the Bible.” But you’ve got to understand what people meant by numbers in those times. Numbers were rhetorical exercises. You’d say a million when you really meant a hundred. What you’re really saying is “lots.” In Acts, I think the numbers are meant to say, “Look, wonderful things are happening.” If the historical demographers are right, Jerusalem had about 25,000 people in it at the time. So if you start talking about eight or ten thousand converts, that’s a little bit out of scale.
http://www.jknirp.com/stark.htm

Toto · 05-16-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Isn't christian witness caring for the sick, taking in foundlings, giving food for the hungry? Remember the parable of the good samaritan?? :huh:

...

The topic of this thread is the historical evidence for Jesus. If that is how you define witnessing, it has nothing to do with the evidence for Jesus.

Clivedurdle · 05-17-2009, 03:16 AM

Maybe Luke 5 is very relevant.

Quote:

One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing. 18 And some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. 19 But not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus. 20 Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” 21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” 22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? 23 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24 “But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—“I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.” 25 Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God.

http://biblebrowser.com/luke/5-21.htm

But

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...er=E&artid=478

Quote:

ESSENES

(print this article)

By : Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

A branch of the Pharisees who conformed to the most rigid rules of Levitical purity while aspiring to the highest degree of holiness. They lived solely by the work of their hands and in a state of communism, devoted their time to study and devotion and to the practise of benevolence, and refrained as far as feasible from conjugal intercourse and sensual pleasures, in order to be initiated into the highest mysteries of heaven and cause the expected Messianic time to come ('Ab. Zarah ix. 15; Luke ii. 25, 38; xxiii. 51).

Quote:

Their Communism.(comp. B. M. ii. 11).
"No one possesses a house absolutely his own, one which does not at the same time belong to all; for in addition to living together in companies ["ḥaburot"] their houses are open also to their adherents coming from other quarters [comp. Aboti. 5]. They have one storehouse for all, and the same diet; their garments belong to all in common, and their meals are taken in common. . . . Whatever they receive for their wages after having worked the whole day they do not keep as their own, but bring into the common treasury for the use of all; nor do they neglect the sick who are unable to contribute their share, as they have in their treasury ample means to offer relief to those in need. [One of the two Ḥasidean and rabbinical terms for renouncing all claim to one's property in order to deliver it over to common use is "hefker" (declaring a thing ownerless; comp. Sanh. 49a); Joab, as the type of an Essene, made his house like the wilderness—that is, ownerless and free from the very possibility of tempting men to theft and sexual sin—and he supported the poor of the city with the most delicate food. Similarly, King Saul declared his whole property free for use in warfare (Yalḳ.,Sam. i. 138). The other term is "heḳdesh nekasim" (consecrating one's goods; comp. 'Ar. vi. ; Pes. 57: "The owners of the mulberry-trees consecrated them to God"; Ta'an. 24a: "Eliezer of Beeroth consecrated to charity the money intended for his daughter's dowry, saying to his daughter, 'Thou shalt have no more claim upon it than any of the poor in Israel.'" Jose ben Joezer, because he had an unworthy son, consecrated his goods to God (B. B. 133b). Formerly men used to take all they had and give it to the poor (Luke xviii. 22); in Usha the rabbis decreed that no one should give away more than the fifth part of his property ('Ar. 28a; Tosef., 'Ar. iv. 23; Ket. 50a).] They pay respect and honor to, and bestow care upon, their elders, acting toward them as children act toward their parents, and supporting them unstintingly by their handiwork and in other ways"

Xianity does look like a classic syncretist cult picking and mixing from many of the ideas around at the time.

Including going a magical route that to the ordinary Jew would look like witchcraft.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-17-2009, 06:21 AM

Message to Arnoldo: Do you intend to reply to my post #84? I assume that you refused to reply to it because you know that my arguments are good.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-17-2009, 06:26 AM

Message to arnoldo: Do you intend to reply to my post #84? I assume that you refused to reply to it because you know that my arguments are good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Isn't Christian witness caring for the sick, taking in foundlings, giving food for the hungry? Remember the parable of the good samaritan?

That is evasive, and off-topic. This thread is about documentation of the life of Jesus.

Do you value eyewitness testimony? If so, do you know of any eyewitness claims in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? John was written too late to be of mucyh use to Christians.

What non-biblical, first century evidence do you have regarding the miracles that Jesus performed, and the Resurrection?

Regarding "Isn't Christian witness caring for the sick, taking in foundlings, giving food for the hungry?," if you wish, we can discuss that issue at the General Religious Discussions Forum. I would like to include a discussion about the fact that the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by persecution, murder, and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory.

andrewcriddle · 05-17-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Some lurkers are perhaps also unaware that Eusebius openly advocated pious fraud in the cause of furthering the faith. Here is an excerpt from his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31:

Quote:

....it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

FWIW I posted here http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...=235465&page=2 my suggestions of how to interpret Eusebius in the light of Origen's Homilies on Jeremiah

Basically I suggested that Eusebius is concerned about justifying passages in Scripture which are not true in the literal sense, rather than with excusing lying by Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 05-17-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Some lurkers are perhaps also unaware that Eusebius openly advocated pious fraud in the cause of furthering the faith. Here is an excerpt from his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31:

FWIW I posted here http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...=235465&page=2 my suggestions of how to interpret Eusebius in the light of Origen's Homilies on Jeremiah

Basically I suggested that Eusebius is concerned about justifying passages in Scripture which are not true in the literal sense, rather than with excusing lying by Christians.

Andrew Criddle

FYI, I have thrown the Prep.Ev. quote back at Roger because I am aware of his discussion with Richard Carrier some time ago. Roger says regarding the title of XXXI. chapter ('That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach.'):

The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of 'lie' in mind, rather than that of educational fiction. Pseudos usually has this meaning, it is true. However we have seen that the word 'pseudos' has been rendered otherwise even to translate Plato. Plato seems to have an idea of deception in mind, but is it necessary to presume that Eusebius has?

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...s_the_liar.htm

Now, I don't know where Roger or you want go with this. I know I would not go there with you. To my mind, Eusebius is knowingly / methodically advocating something other than the truth for the greater good.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle · 05-17-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

FYI, I have thrown the Prep.Ev. quote back at Roger because I am aware of his discussion with Richard Carrier some time ago. Roger says regarding the title of XXXI. chapter ('That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach.'):

The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of 'lie' in mind, rather than that of educational fiction. Pseudos usually has this meaning, it is true. However we have seen that the word 'pseudos' has been rendered otherwise even to translate Plato. Plato seems to have an idea of deception in mind, but is it necessary to presume that Eusebius has?

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...s_the_liar.htm

Now, I don't know where Roger or you want go with this. I know I would not go there with you. To my mind, Eusebius is knowingly / methodically advocating something other than the truth for the greater good.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

IMO Eusebius is saying that it is sometimes appropriate for God to deceive humans. I don't think this implies advocacy of humans deceiving other humans.

Some might suspect that someone who publicly claims God is entitled to deceive people, is likely to privately believe that it is sometimes OK for people to deceive people. Whether or not this suspicion is legitimate, my point is that whatever Eusebius may or may not have privately believed, I don't think he is advocating people deceiving people. What he is arguing is that God in the Bible acts in a way of which Plato would approve.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 05-17-2009, 02:23 PM

Where does Eusebius talk about God? He is listing the items that Plato supposedly got from Moses.

rcscwc · 05-17-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcscwc

That too about a much prophecied[allegedly] figure. Krishna WAS prophecied, and His birth is recorded in DETAIL.

Recorded long after the fact.

In case of Jesus, it is accepted even by xians that the "gosples" were written much later, as late as 300 AD.

Buddha gets noticed by contemporary Hindu authors.

Buddhists never contested the claims of historicity of Krishna and accepted it as the GIVEN. Ditto with Greeks.

(Lord Raglan's profile)

Quote:

Quote:
Such profiles are fictious. It was invented to discredit historicity of Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir. If Jesus cannot be proved, damn it, none can be.

rcscwc, don't make me laugh. First Lord Raglan wanted to discredit the historicity of Jesus Christ, then he wanted to discredit the historicity of Krishna, Buddha, and Mahavira. Where will it end?

I don't know what he wanted tyo do, but those who want to extrapolte it to Krishna and Buddha are either shut eyed types or don't know a thing about them.

Estopplel is easy. Stop extrapolating alien notions to Hinduism.

Quote:

Quote:
Recall, Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir were born in royal families. The latter two were heir apparents to the thrones they renounced. Krishna's father Vasudev was a noble, but not a king.

The latter two were well known during their life times. Hindu sources attest to that.

Quote:

What Hindu sources, and how securely are they dated?

Well, Library of Congress did not exist, nor its catalog. So nothing there. Publishers audited books too were not there.

They are as secure as the astronomical observations recorded therein. If astronomy is secure, then you can safely bet someone DID observe them.

As for WHAT, I humbly suggest to DIY survey.

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

05-17-2009, 06:21 AM	#84
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Arnoldo: Do you intend to reply to my post #84? I assume that you refused to reply to it because you know that my arguments are good.

05-17-2009, 02:23 PM	#89
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Where does Eusebius talk about God? He is listing the items that Plato supposedly got from Moses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.