Tweet
Originally posted by Agathon
They almost always do. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe, given the lack of evidence, that they did in this case. See.. that's reason...
Unless the successors don't struggle for dominance.
They almost always do. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe, given the lack of evidence, that they did in this case. See.. that's reason...
Ah, "almost always." Exactly my point. I give you evidence, you discount it without counter-evidence and say there is no evidence. I'm saying that Christianity had a brief golden age, a few decades in which the leaders acted out of the best motives and did their best to advance the whole at their own expense.
The Book of Acts is about how the members were unified and acted to preserve Jesus' teachings.
Except it is written after the fact and as part of an attempt to codify a religion. They weren't going to write: "the influential members argued, fought and schemed to get their version of the truth accepted by the majority", because that would impugn the divine character of the religion. No religion says "the truth you are about to hear is the one that won out after lots of theological squabbling because its proponent was a better orator and had more allies than its detractors". But that's almost always the truth. You need only look at the development of every single recent fringe religious cult.
No, there is mention of a reoccurring dispute about the changes introduced by Christianity (Acts 15, Gal 2). The doctrine involved is explained in other places without detailing the conflict itself. The conflict is probably the reason why it was brought up.
Also, the text of the Gospels contains discussions of some key conflicts between certain Jewish religious practices and Jesus' teachings. It is unreasonable to expect it to read like a modern research paper.
But that's a religiously inspired record, so you must discard it and substitute your own wisdom.
Not at all. You just cannot take it on its own. It needs independent confirmation. And that is just what early Christianity does not have. If we were honest, we would say that we knew about the state of Christianity by about AD 100, but that we knew almost nothing about it 70-80 years earlier, and we have absolutely no idea of whether the later product resembled the former, since the only record we have is by people who could hardly claim anything else.
But that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
It would seem that your powers of reason are the ones lacking. 80 years earlier it didn't exist yet and Jesus was still an unknown carpenter. 70 years earlier Jesus was still on the rise as a teacher. The date given at the beginning of Jesus' ministry is the 14th year of Tiberius, 28 AD. That places the crucifixion in 32 AD.
We know that essentially all the books in the NT existed in some form well before 100 AD. Marcion listed Luke and all the primary Pauline epistles in 85 AD. If Luke was known and accepted, then by any reasonable account Mark and Matthew were around.
As all the attributed authors except Luke were Jews there is little support to the notion that the remaining books were composed by ghost writers in the post-Jewish era. They treat the Hebrew scriptures the way Jews did. They don't introduce Greek mystical or philosophical ideas. The Greco-Roman infusion clearly post-dates the composition of the books of the NT.
Meanwhile, you completely ignored my case. Xnity was initially Jewish in every way. Jesus' teachings, and the Apostles' in keeping them, were Jewish midrash. They expounded from Hebrew scripture upon the themes in Hebrew scripture. Everything that has been added since the fall of Jerusalem is Greco-Roman and can be easily distinguished.
Utter rubbish. You are talking about Jesus' teachings as if we actually knew what they were. What you should say is: "according to later sources, which may or may not be accurate, Jesus teachings were reported to be..."
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
Again I believe it is your ignorance that is showing. It is as though you are afraid to examine it as evidence. Perhaps you should try reading some ancient midrash texts (as you claim such historical research is your strength) and see that the kind of questions they address and the way they handle Hebrew scriptures is exactly the way Jesus does in the Gospels and the Apostles in the NT.
So, the standards of modern historical research are to ignore the context of the events in question? Then we are to insist that ancient texts be dismissed if they don't miraculously duplicate standards of modern historic recording?
Not dismissed. But treated with scepticism unless there is some independent confirmation. In the case of early Christianity, there is no independent confirmation worth ****, so we should remain sceptical.
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
Your claim to be waiting for "independent confirmation" is BS and your own words betray your extreme prejudice. You refuse to treat the text as worthy of any consideration at all solely because you don't like what it says. That's very shallow and unscholarly of you.
Ah, so where is this fact checking? The Romans didn't record census data by name and occupation. They didn't issue birth certificates, marriage certificates, or keep official records of the sort.
They didn't keep records of criminal accusations, trials, executions, and disposal of remains. The Romans had no official interest in religious disputes among the Jews.
They didn't keep records of criminal accusations, trials, executions, and disposal of remains. The Romans had no official interest in religious disputes among the Jews.
If there's no evidence, remain sceptical.
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
But you aren't skeptical. You dismiss disdainfully. You are the one who isn't making use of the faculty of reason.
We have one guy who wrote about it, but you say that his writings were tampered with and unreliable.
Which is the scholarly consensus. You can read them yourself. The Christian material simply doesn't make sense in the context of what Josephus was writing about, and the fact that Josephus (a Romanized Jew) wrote it.
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
Actually we do. There is a translation of Josephus in Syriac (iirc) from a relatively early date. It has a few minor but important differences compared to the extant Greek versions. But there is nothing to indicate the rest is corrupted.
There's no evidence, besides the Gospels themselves, to believe that the events they describe are true. We also know that they were written long after the facts, and that it is likely that their content had been influenced by subsequent disputes. We also know that the function of the Gospels was not to record history, but to present religious doctrine to new believers.
Again, empty assertions. They can still be weighed as historical evidence, which you refuse to do.
We have absolutely no independent confirmation of the details in the Gospels. What later documentation we do have consists of self serving diatribes by members of the cult (and we know that these sorts of people have a habit of leaving out unpleasant facts).
If a Jewish or Roman historian had written in AD 40 or so "There was a man called Jesus of Nazareth, who was a religious leader. His doctrines were X,Y, and Z, and the stories A, B, C and D, were told about him. He was claimed to be the Christ. He fell afoul of the religious authorities and was crucified in the year P", then we would have independent confirmation of the Gospel story from a non-biased source (or at least a source with a different bias). Indeed, someone tried to create such a source by meddling with Josephus' text, but they weren't subtle enough.
In the absence of such confirming evidence, we have to be extremely sceptical about the early Christian cult, and admit that we are justified in claiming very little about it, and very little about the ideas and life of its leader.
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
If a Jewish or Roman historian had written in AD 40 or so "There was a man called Jesus of Nazareth, who was a religious leader. His doctrines were X,Y, and Z, and the stories A, B, C and D, were told about him. He was claimed to be the Christ. He fell afoul of the religious authorities and was crucified in the year P", then we would have independent confirmation of the Gospel story from a non-biased source (or at least a source with a different bias). Indeed, someone tried to create such a source by meddling with Josephus' text, but they weren't subtle enough.
In the absence of such confirming evidence, we have to be extremely sceptical about the early Christian cult, and admit that we are justified in claiming very little about it, and very little about the ideas and life of its leader.
But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.
Wrong again. There is a Roman source, a report written to Emperor Claudius about the Jewish sect that followed the teaching of one "Jesus" whom the sect describes as crucified under Pontius Pilate. It describes a few doctrines and dispels rumors of improper sexual practices.
Comment