waxm

The New Testament is full of text that specifically addresses complaint and dissent over material presented. At the time, people wanted proof of this story, unlike many today who simply accept it without factual background.
Passages like Matthew 1:22 (Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the lord by the prophet, saying,) were obvious attempts to decry complaint over inconsistency with prophecy already given. One funny note is that this particular passage was written to prove that the Messiah would be called Emanuel by his mother, unfortunately Mary called her son Jesus, not Emanuel.
Historians such as Pliny and Josephus give a reiteration of the life of Jesus, yet always include a disclaimer and dismiss the unsupported claims of his divinity.
The Romans do not offer supporting evidence of his life in any way, a very damning fact.
Each instance of non support in itself is easily dismissed or overcome, yet taken as a whole the weight of the evidence against support is overwhelming!
BTW: Your claim of text being placed within twenty five years of his death are overly optimistic, there are no text traced to as early as 55A.D., that offer reference to Jesus. The dead sea scrolls are contemporary to the time and from the essenic community of Qum'ran, but I'm afraid that these do not support the story of Jesus in any way, in fact, they offer the most compelling dispute of his story to date.
The Essenes practiced a version of "the last supper" for hundreds of years prior to Jesus. The text,"This is my body, shed for you." was in reference to Abraham, not Jesus.
The text, "This is my blood, shed for you." was in reference to the prophet Isaiah. Perhaps, not suprisingly, the Essenes believed in the distribution of wealth and a life of personal poverty, they referred to God as "the father" and themselves as his children, saying that one was a son of God was widespread at the time Jesus taught.
It would seem almost certain that Jesus was simply an Essenic teacher who was not interpreted correctly after his death, probably due to Saul/Paul's claims of knowledge.
There can be no doubt that Jesus and the Essenes had a dramatic impact on their contemporary population.
Remember that it was 60 AD that the Jews actually tried to lead a revolt against Rome and got their ass handed to them.
Rome didn't play any games when it came to local dissent, the nine hundred Jews who felt safe on the mountain fortress of Massada learned that lesson very well. Rome simply built another mountain, moving more earth in six months than the stone that exists in the three great pyramids of Egypt, and entered Massada.
According to Roman record, only one woman and five children survived from over nine hundred who took refuge there.
And it is perhaps this Roman connection that provides the most compelling evidence against Christian claims.
Remember that Rome did persecute the Christians, yet Christians have never given a proper explanation for this.
Contrary to popular opinion, Rome did not persecute local religions when they conquered a population.
Rome could care less what Gods one worshipped, as long as Caesar was given his due. Jesus openly supported taxation proclaiming, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's', give unto God that which is Gods'."
So the claim that Christians tried to interrupt the tax process, something that would certainly damn them in the eyes of Rome, must be considered insupportable.
Yet there are a number of things that Christians do claim that Rome would feel compelled to correct.
A: The process of Roman census was not something that one would be allowed to lie about, yet Christians claim that Rome not only declared a census at the time of the birth of Jesus( a census that according to Roman record, never took place), but then claimed that Joseph was required to return to his homeland of Bethlehem, in order to register for this census. This would be considered a lie about imperial procedure by the Romans.
Rome would never require such a stupid and completely useless thing during census.
What good is a census if one does not register in the town that they lived!?!
Rome couldn't care less what town you were born in, where in the hell are you now?
B: The Bible makes all sorts of assertions about the government of Israel during the time of Jesus' life, with Pharisees running around making all sorts of decisions as though...well as though they were in charge!
Roman rule was Roman rule, imagine the audacity of these uppity Jews claiming otherwise!
C: To make matters worse, according to the Bible; Jewish "leaders" were able to gather crowds of people in the very streets of Jerusalem, to DEMAND anything they wished of Roman governors, to PROTEST Rome herself!
There are not many mobs recorded in lands where Rome ruled, riots were very rare for a reason.
Any large gathering had better be cheering the feats of Caesar and keeping their mouths shut about any other concerns.
Yet the Bible claims that the Jews could demand the release of a prisoner during certain times of the year, anyone they wanted!
Imagine Rome allowing this little morsel of information being spread about the kingdom. Let me assure you that it never happened, a governor acted on the authority of Rome, on the authority of Caesar himself!
Changing a sentence after it was passed would have been a slap in the face of Roman rule and we have evidence that a number of persons were proven to be innocent after another was caught for that particular crime. Both were killed for the crime, the innocent being an example of Caesar's supreme authority.
So, in conclusion, the one source that should have supported the story of Jesus, does not.
In fact, Rome openly condemned the claims made, and tried to rid the system of such outrageous lies.
Remember that Rome was pretty damn good at integrating local populations, they openly persecuted very few groups, and none without a reason.
They did persecute the Christians, they did have a reason.

Muad'Dib

Whose claim are you referring to?

CX

A)Please, for the love of Mike, use paragraphs.

B)Whose claim?

C)What about the early Pauline Epistles? If you are going to discount them please tell us why.

-DM-

Evidence?

This is not what is obvious to me or obvious to many other much more highly-qualified individuals than either your or me. What seems obvious to many is that there was a very transparent (and fairly clumsy) attempt to make Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecy (or Old Testament passages which weren't necessarily even prophecy) and that they often did so with the stroke of a pen, so to speak. The prophecy needed to be fulfilled in order to make Jesus the Messiah, not necessarily to overcome complaint over inconsistency with prophecy already given.

Apologists will tell you that the two names (Emmanuel and Yeshua, or Jesus) -- which seem completely different to us -- both mean "God with us." (I'm not saying that they are right. In fact, this seems contrived to me, but the point is that to the author of Matthew and to apologists there seems not to have been an obvious inconsistency.)

The so-called testimony of Josephus (which is considered spurious by many scholars) would make Joseph a believer himself (in fact, that is one of the main reasons that it is thought to be spurious). In other words, if you are going to talk about Josephus giving a reiteration of the life of Jesus (which he may or may not have actually done) then I think that you are also going to have to accept that Josephus believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

With regard to Pliny, so far as I know he did NOT give "a reiteration of the life of Jesus" at all. So far as I know, all that he did was to report to Trajan (~AD 112) that "Christians appear to be harmless people who meet at daybreak and sing hymns to the honor of the Messiah as to a god." [Note: this tells us only that there were Christians in AD 112. It tells us nothing about Jesus.] If you know of something more, than you should let us know about it.

True, that we know of, the Romans do not offer supporting evidence of Jesus' life. This is, of course, an argument from silence and not particularly convincing to some. On the other hand, had Jesus done what the Gospelists have him doing, it would seem that his fame should have been widespread even at that time and there would therefore be some corroboration of his life outside of the Bible.

I tend to agree that there is little support, but what is the conclusion?

Whose claim?

True, no such text that we know of.

Perhaps. But opinion on this seems to be somewhat divided (from what I have read).

What Christian claims? (Keep in mind that you just said, above, that the Dead Sea Scrolls "offer the most compelling dispute of his story to date.")

--Don--

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

waxm

Wax- Good posts. First, I must say that I am sorry for my haste in submitting this topic, it was taken from another conversation, in which I was never answered, hence, the reference to claims already made.

Don- Evidence? (To supposed dissent of text)

Wax- The evidence that I wished to to present followed my statement: Passages like Matthew 1:22 (Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the lord by the prophet, saying,) were obvious attempts to decry complaint over inconsistency with prophecy already given.,
Your answer: This is not what is obvious to me... very transparent (and fairly clumsy) attempt to make Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecy... not necessarily to overcome complaint over inconsistency with prophecy already given.:
was a very good one, yet there are a couple of things that lead me to disagree with this simple explanation.
First, many older examples of texts do not inlude these disclaimers, this is not always the case, but at least a number of them.
Secondly, the disclaimers are usually found at the very end of verses, a small and seemingly inconsequential(sp) fact, I know, but the easiest place to slip in an editors note without much notice.
Thirdly, though the concept of anticipating dissent is not out of the question, the assumption that these would be brought up after the original text was written, simply makes more sense to me. Of course, you are right in pointing out that I should have stressed my own opinion, rather than make my text appear as if others had the same objection.

Don- ....the two names (Emmanuel and Yeshua, or Jesus) --...both mean "God with us."

Wax- The problem that I see with that arguement, is that Jesus was a common name at the time.
Of course, meanings can be changed over time, but the meaning of the name at the time that he supposedly was born would be of import.
Yet you are correct, we could probably both find a reference that "claims" the meaning has not changed through antiquity.
Still, common sense and expected human behaviour would dictate that Mary not substitute one word for another if she truely felt that it was a directive from God. In other words: If I understood that God commanded me to name my son Clever, I wouldn't risk naming him Smart, or Ingenious, simply because the words can be substituted.
Also, there are a number of passages in the Biblical text, in which people question Jesus concerning his authority, yet there are no references to the fact that his name, itself, was considered to mean that God entered the room whenever he walked in!

Don- The so-called testimony of Josephus...would make Joseph a believer himself

Wax- Oh...I don't know. While Josephus did give both the Christians and the Essenes a glowing review, he remained a purely Jewish historian.
His writing style "in my opinion" was not very desirable for a historian, as he always seemed to address the issue of culture from a first person stand point. I have often considered the possibility that he was, in fact, writing history as someone else cited it to him, from their own personal viewpoint. You may have access that I do not, my contact with his writings have been limited to acedemic text found with internet searches.

Don- With regard to Pliny, so far as I know he did NOT give "a reiteration of the life of Jesus" at all.

Wax- I will try to find the reference that gave me the idea, it is always possible that I may be in error.

Don- ...had Jesus done what the Gospelists have him doing, it would seem that his fame should have been widespread even at that time and there would therefore be some corroboration of his life outside of the Bible.

Wax- Agreed, and I do believe that lack of evidence found, does not equal lack of evidence that exists.

Don- I tend to agree that there is little support, but what is the conclusion?
What Christian claims? ..you just said, above, that the Dead Sea Scrolls "offer the most compelling dispute of his story to date.

Wax- I find the Roman connection to be very compelling as well, but they are subjective conclusions that can be dismissed by someone who does not want to listen.
The Romans simply did not persecute on the basis of religion, and according to Biblical text, Jesus himself told his followers to, "Give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars..." so there is no indication that early Christians refused to pay tax: The only proven reason for such persecution.
Yet there are a number of claims that the Christian text make, that would explain Romes anger.
A: That Roman soldiers could be payed to lie about what they saw, or paid to claim that they fell asleep during guard duty (an admission that could easily, in fact likely, get them killed!).
B: That Herod carried out the murder of every child under the age of two years old. An act that would have required Romes knowledge, if not its support.
C: That subjects could make demands on local Roman rulers. The New Testament claims that mobs of Jews gathered regularily in the streets to demand Pilate release prisoners, and complain about punishments that Rome rendered.
I find this part of the text to be frightening in the anger that it would inspire in Rome!
D: That persons were not only allowed, but required, to travel to their place of birth, for, alternately, a Roman census: Roman taxation.
Rome would have found this extremely seditious, what good is a census if you don't know where people actually live? What good is taxation if the money isn't collected where it is earned?
E: That the convicted person could be released from sentance by offering Roman leaders a little cash!
Jesus was crucified, not hanged or simply executed.
Crucification was a very effective means of notifying the populous of things that would not be tolerated, yet, if the body is allowed to be removed from the cross....
My point is, that the body was left where it was placed until the bones fell away.
A Roman ruler represented Rome itself, once a sentance was passed, there was no appeal accept to Ceasar.
A PBS documentory once remarked that if sentance was passed on one man, and the true offender was found after, both men were likely to be killed for the offense, rather than admit that the wisdom of Rome may have been faulty.
Yet the New Testament would have us believe that Joseph of Arimethea(sp?) not only purchased the body of Jesus from the cross, but that the criminal Barrabas was released from sentance because of Jewish demands!
A group of subjects in this period of Roman history, had better have a reason to be there, and they had best talk quietly amongst themselves, or better yet, keep their mouths shut!
Yet the Christians claimed otherwise in their books, and they spread these books throughout the Roman empire!

To me, it is simply beyond belief. Yet, as I said, I can not prove that none of these things ever took place, or that any one of these claims are beyond the possibility of occuring.
But all of them happening in one provence?
We know that Pilate was not a weak ruler, he squashed a number of revolts started by the Jews. And we also know that Rome kept a firm hand and severe control over the entire region.

While I realize that much of this post is simply reiterating what I have already said, it is the evidence provided by Christian authors which most likely condemned them.
I try to devide my arguement between dispute and evidence...IE: The dead sea scrolls are contemporary writings that offer a dispute of later claims, whereas my own observations about the unlikely behaviour and claimed reactions to this, are evidence to be presented and critiqued.

So in the end, the conclusion is that the Biblical text can not be claimed to be accurate.
Any faith must then be based on nothing more than hopes of its validity, or assumption that the claims made may turn out to be correct.
Unless, of course, Jesus and God actually converse in real time with these few lucky individuals that claim a relationship with them.
In which case, the rest of us have a legitimate case for neglect!

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: waxm ]</p>

Kosh

Apologists will simply argue, based on the
embarassment principle, that this validates it's
truth. Otherwise,it never would have been written.

waxm

Kosh,
Not so. To remove a referance that already has existed for quite some time is an editors nightmare.
Remember that the Bible was constructed using texts that were already in widespread use.

Asha'man

I think this is the real reason behind the multiple synoptic Gospels: Rather than try to correct the errors in the first one (Mark), a new and improved version (Matthew or Luke) was “found,” a version that better supported the version of events that the preacher wanted to convey. When the preachers wanted to change things further, yet another version of the story was “discovered.” (John) I suspect that the audience was expected to forget the earlier Gospels and focus on the one at hand. The lack of general literacy and the rarity of written copies would only make this easier.

If you want to know what the issues of the time were, look at the material that was added, changed, or deleted between the versions.

Kosh

I agree with you. However, the Apologists
when confronted on the topic will use the
embarrassment principle.

Kosh

A perfectly reasonable strategy on their part,
considering that even today, most Christians don't
notice the problems even with them bound together
in one book.....