Protestantism

» Migisi - Migisi

In response to Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:
.
1) ... However, since this is a public Christian forum, I am within the realm of appropriateness to defend the basic tenets of Christianity. That is what I'm doing.
.
Suppose we were discussing this in private - say, sitting down to a casual dinner together. Would you be able to openly and honestly express doubts you might have in some of those tenets? Or are you always locked in defense mode? Just curious.
.
2) In this PARTICULAR discussion, I'm restricting my defense of Christianity to a few very MINIMAL facts or points that pertain to Christianity. In THIS case, I'm arguing simply...
.
a Jesus was a real, historical figure
.
This is a consensus, not a 'fact' because there's no material 'evidence'. What you deem secular evidence is merely hearsay.
.
b There was a sizable FIRST-century community of people who claimed to BELIEVE in Jesus as a God - ...
.
I'm sure you've heard of the Graeco-Roman 'Mystery' religions. There was a very large community of initiates who believed in Isis, Mithra, Osiris-Dionysus, etc. as gods. Does belief in those gods, or the number of believers, prove these were real flesh-and-blood 'historical figures'? If that's the criteria Christians use, then the pagan gods were indeed real too.
.
i.e., the "dogma" of Jesus-as-God began in the FIRST century, and was not a later conspiratorial creation.
.
Why does it matter what century the Christian dogma began? Are you saying the Christian tenets are the same today as in the first century? The later church has had no influence on the religious tenets and rituals?
.
3) Suetonius' writings BOLSTER the argument that Christianity (which was based on Jesus of Nazareth) had spread to Rome by the 40s or at least the 60s AD.
.
There were Christians like Paul in Rome in the first century. There were Jews and believers in the Mystery religions too. So what?
.
I'm arguing that Jesus was a real, historical figure and that people in the FIRST century claimed he was God. THOSE are the points I'm arguing, and the evidence I'm producing (incl Suetonius) supports that.
.
Suetonius didn't identify Jesus by name, and didn't use the title 'Christo' (a mere Christian presumption that this refers to Jesus the 'Christ'). He used the word 'Chrestos'. I've already presented material on the that. His mention of 'Christiani' only indicates there were Christians in Rome. I concede that, and that they believed in Jesus. But it doesn't mean Jesus was any more real than Isis or Mithra. Not all first-century Jesus-followers believed Jesus was God. The Christian Gnostics (who were indeed members of the early and later church) believed Jesus was a divine messenger or an emanation from God.
.
Stop trying to push my argument to an extreme strawman so you can beat it down.
.
Pushing is what I do, Bri. I wouldn't be able to beat a valid argument down, would I?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Another point

In response to 'Historians' simply repeating hearsay posted by Migisi:

The last paragraph in your post takes on the fact that the contemporary historians Philo Judaeus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder didn't record anything about Jesus. This, it is argued, somehow proves Jesus didn't exist.

It proves nothing of the sort. You're IGNORING the fact that historians from the next generation DID speak of Jesus and his followers. You can't ignore that by pointing to the fact that historians AT THE TIME of Christ didn't say much about him.

Remember, Jesus' public ministry lasted about three years. That's it. So, it's not at all surprising that Jesus - AT THE TIME OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY - escaped the attention of people like Seneca. Pontius Pilate, for instance, only seems to pay Jesus notice toward the end of that public ministry.

It is a historical FACT, however, that a monumental movement springs up with Jesus at the center and foundation of it. And that movement has literally rocked the world. Where did that movement come from, Migisi, if there is no historical Jesus?

Good grief, Migisi. Even most of the LIBERAL New Testament scholars don't question the existence of Jesus.

» pink101 - If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized

.
Can either of you say if the apostle Paul is recognized in any historical records?
.
It would seem such a recognition would add to the fact that Jesus was a real person in history.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized

In response to If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized posted by pink101:
.
It would seem such a recognition would add to the fact that Jesus was a real person in history.
.
Why would it? Paul had never walked or talked with Jesus in-the-flesh. Paul never even met him. He simply ~said~ he'd had a supernatural 'vision'. But even then, he never said he saw Jesus. Just a bright light and he heard a voice.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized

In response to If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized posted by Migisi:

.
It seems--to me--that the apostle Paul's existence adds credibility to the existence of Jesus. He DOES appear to be the originator of the Christian religion as we know it today.
.
So, Migisi, is there some claim that Jesus was the manufactured symbol of the Christian religion? Is that something you can tackle?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Another point

In response to Another point posted by BrianTubbs:

.
You're IGNORING the fact that historians from the next generation DID speak of Jesus and his followers.
.
I'm IGNORING that? Aren't we discussing those very people right now... Josephus, Seutonius, and Tacitus? Didn't I also list the others: Mara Bar-Serapion, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Tertullian, etc.?
.
i.You can't ignore that by pointing to the fact that historians AT THE TIME of Christ didn't say much about him.
.
Don't you find it at least a bit puzzling that those historians made NO mention whatsoever of such a popular celebrity - a rising star among them? The Gospels talk of great magnitudes - thousands gathering at one time to hear him speak and witnessing his miracles. That's something to report on, don't you think? The historians recorded far more insignificant things.
.
Pontius Pilate, for instance, only seems to pay Jesus notice toward the end of that public ministry.
.
Heck, we don't even hear about Pilate in the Bible until then. Do you know of any credible secular history written about Pilate's judgment of Jesus - some legal record of proceedings to prove it really happened? Just pondering.
.
Where did that movement come from, Migisi, if there is no historical Jesus?
.
Where did the Mystery religions come from if there was no historical Isis, Mithra, Osiris, etc.?
.
Even most of the LIBERAL New Testament scholars don't question the existence of Jesus.
.
"New Testament scholars" translates into "Christian scholars". As such, of course they don't question Jesus' existence.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized

In response to If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized posted by pink101:

.
It seems--to me--that the apostle Paul's existence adds credibility to the existence of Jesus.
.
Why? Had Paul EVER heard Jesus speak? Had he seen Jesus with his own eyes? Witnessed any of Jesus' miracles? Seen the resurrected Jesus and touched his wounds? Was he hand-picked by Jesus as an apostle? No to all of the above. Paul was a Johnny-come-lately on the Christian scene. Even the eleven Apostles mistrusted his conversion story and claims of divine instruction and inspiration. Barnabas had to vouch for him. Secular historical info on Paul would only prove that Paul existed.
.
He DOES appear to be the originator of the Christian religion as we know it today.
.
That would imply that Paul as the author of Christianity, not Jesus. Right?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Punch A Bunch

In response to If The Apostle Paul Is Recognized posted by Migisi:
.
That would imply that Paul as the author of Christianity, not Jesus. Right?
.
Right.
.
Other than that, you punch a bunch of questions.
.
The apostle Paul was an agent of the temple of Jerusalem, that is, if I have my facts correct. As such, his job was to seek out and to bring all pretenders to task. Wasn't his main job to ferret out followers of Jesus?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Punch A Bunch

In response to Punch A Bunch posted by pink101:

.
You might find this interesting (maybe some food for thought) - albeit it IS off topic.
.
Why did the Apostles Reject Paul?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumra...
.
Some excerpts:
.
"Luke paints a picture of a Paul who is born poor, martyrs Christians before becoming one himself, and who proceeds to live the rest of his life for Christ. Acts attributes several miracles to Paul. The Clementines follow the same basic story line as the first part of Acts, but with some key differences. James is elected the head of the Christian Church following the departure of Jesus. After his conversion, Paul remained on good terms with the Herodian family. He initiated a physical attack on James, in which James was cast down from the Temple stairs, and left for dead. There was, of course, no understanding between Paul and the main Church, and no one gave him permission to preach to the Gentiles.
.
"Josephus's account provides a more comprehensive and consistent explanation of Paul's background than does Luke's. Hillel was one of the most famous Pharisees of all time. His grandson, Gamaliel, was Paul's boyhood teacher. Luke says nothing about how a poor tentmaker's son from somewhere in Turkey could possibly have acquired such a famous teacher. Likewise, there is no mention of why or how Paul was "freeborn" into full Roman citizenship, at a time when the distinction was rare. There is also no explanation of how Paul acquired authority-which he clearly had-to kill Christians (Acts 7:58, 22:20). That a young man should have such power is surprising, that a young man born into a poor and obscure family should have such power is absurd. A more logical and consistent explanation of the facts is the one Josephus provides: Paul was born into a rich and powerful family, was given instruction from the most prestigious Pharisee available, and was later, because of his family connections, given power to persecute Christians in whatever manner he pleased.
....
"Apart from the testimony of those actively engaged in marketing Paul's religion, there is no historical evidence to support the contention that Paul's life was marked by any unusual degree of holiness or personal rectitude. On the contrary, aside from the writings of Paul and a few sectarians (who predominately wrote long after Paul's death), early historians paint a disturbing picture of a man whose driving energy was a strong desire for personal aggrandizement and power."

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - NT Scholars

In response to Another point posted by Migisi:

You're incorrect about New Testament scholars translating automatically into Christian scholars. Most seminaries in the United States do NOT teach an evangelical perspective.