Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.
2. The only people that could have a motive for making up his resurrection were the apostles, most of whom died rather horrible deaths rather than deny that resurrection. While I know that people will die for what they believe in, if the apostles knew that Christ was not risen, why did they die for what they knew to be a lie?
3. His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people. If it didn't happen, why don't we have record of objections to Paul's statements?
4. Jesus was a nobody who appeared on the scene for 3 years and was then killed as a criminal, just like thousands of others were killed by the Romans in the same manner. Yet within a few years of his death, a religion in his name based almost exclusively on his resurrection had spread throughout the Roman empire. What was different about this man to all those others who claimed to be the Messiah?
5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass. The Romans took challenges to their authority about as seriously as any group of people in history. Given that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ, if it wasn't true, why not just torture a few into denial of the fact and kill the movement in its tracks? Pliny the Younger re-counted doing just that a hundred years or so later and was astonished to see how many Christians went to their deaths rather than deny what they also knew to be true.

Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not.

[Mithrae]

Starboard Tack wrote:
Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:


1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.

I asked Starboard to provide legitimate evidence of this, so I was wondering where the evidence of this is in the Posts? (I have been away and haven't searched all the pages I admit). Could Starboard or any one else please refer me to Starboard's alleged evidence?

Thank you

Starboard provided the usual late first century reference to Josephus, and references to second century historians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, which it was pointed out to him are simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories they were telling many decades after the time of Jesus. He DID NOT provide evidence taken from the actual time of Jesus, because there is not any. Begin on page one and catch up. The question at this point is whether Starboard has deserted the discussion or not.

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus of course, even if they wrote later - though of course they were Jewish, not Roman.


Edit:

Thanks very much for that ' Tired of the Nonsense '. I'll try to read all posts but yes typically and from my vast personal experience, these ' hit and run ' people are afraid to hang around after they Post something, because they know that they created the accident (metaph' their false claims) but then they soon run away after knowing full well they were in the wrong and can't face up to Truth and deny the Truth that legitimately exposes them and they just don't want to hear it because their ' bubble ' gets burst and they can't handle Truth & Reality and wish instead to continue to live in a make-believe Story book Fairyland & their comfort zone of errors!

Considering my internet was down last weekend and had major flooding in my neck of the woods early in the year, I personally do not see the merit in little victory dances like this over a couple of days' inactivity in a topic. Does your rejoicing over his lack of reply count as a valid argument against his position in any scenario, or just something that makes you feel good?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus of course, even if they wrote later - though of course they were Jewish, not Roman.

I notice that, despite the fact that you have listed "Atheist" in your usergroup, you seem to have elected yourself to play the devil's advocate for theists and to run interference for Starboard Tack. Starboard Tack should respond for Starboard Tack, and I am not really inclined to play along with whatever game it is you are playing. But I will answer this time.

"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. 110), asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians. Five years later Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (Ad 64) numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions it's authenticity. Suetonius (ca. 125) mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ (impulsore Chresto), were causing public disturbances,' the passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'the Jews should leave Rome.' These references prove the existence of Christians rather than Christ." (The Story of Civilization, vol. III, Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant; pages 554-555).

Whether "Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus," depends on your use of the word, "contemporary."

"con-tem-po-rar-y /[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] "adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.
"noun
4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.
5. a person of the same age as another." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary

For example, I was born in the same century that F.D.R. was president. He died some few years before I was born however, so are we contemporaries? Well not exactly, and I only know of him what I have been told. Paul clearly was a "contemporary" of Jesus, and also he clearly never met the living Jesus, much as I never met J.F.K., despite being a "contemporary" of J.F.K. and alive during his presidency (and assassination). Whether or not the authors of Gospels "John" and "Mark" ever met or were even alive during the lifetime of Jesus is, as you are well aware, an open question.

[Goat]

Starboard Tack wrote:
Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:


1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.

I asked Starboard to provide legitimate evidence of this, so I was wondering where the evidence of this is in the Posts? (I have been away and haven't searched all the pages I admit). Could Starboard or any one else please refer me to Starboard's alleged evidence?

Thank you

Starboard provided the usual late first century reference to Josephus, and references to second century historians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, which it was pointed out to him are simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories they were telling many decades after the time of Jesus. He DID NOT provide evidence taken from the actual time of Jesus, because there is not any. Begin on page one and catch up. The question at this point is whether Starboard has deserted the discussion or not.

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

When it comes to Josephus, well, the first reference (TF) is acknowledged to at least be highly modified, and many people believe it is a pure insertion in the 4th century. There is no evidence it existed before the 4th century, and therefore it is too corrupted to use as evidence.


As for antiquities 19:20, the phrase 'brother of the one called CHrist' very closely mimics Matthew 1:16 and John 4:25. This is a fairly good indication that it mimics those passages, and is not independent from them (and might even be a copier's gloss by a Christian who knew those passages)


As for Pliny the younger.. let's look at what his reference was... This is the letter to Trajan.

Sir,

It is my constant method to apply myself to you for the resolution of all my doubts; for who can better govern my dilatory way of proceeding or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? Whether there be not room for pardon upon repentance?" or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished? In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After some time, as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself and many more cases came before me. A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go. Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you, for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those that are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin already to be frequented; and the holy solemnities, which were long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices begin to sell well everywhere, of which very few purchasers had of late appeared; whereby it is easy to suppose how great a multitude of men may be amended, if place for repentance be admitted.

As you can see, he got his information from the torture of slaves.

[Mithrae]

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus of course, even if they wrote later - though of course they were Jewish, not Roman.

I notice that, despite the fact that you have listed "Atheist" in your usergroup, you seem to have elected yourself to play the devil's advocate for theists and to run interference for Starboard Tack. Starboard Tack should respond for Starboard Tack, and I am not really inclined to play along with whatever game it is you are playing. But I will answer this time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but up top of the page it says "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" not "Is Starboard Tack willing and able to single-handedly answer every objection of every sceptic who posts?" Are you suggesting that the source of an argument affects its reasonability? Or do you have some kind of axe to grind with Starboard?

"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. 110), asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians. Five years later Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (Ad 64) numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions it's authenticity. Suetonius (ca. 125) mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ (impulsore Chresto), were causing public disturbances,' the passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'the Jews should leave Rome.' These references prove the existence of Christians rather than Christ." (The Story of Civilization, vol. III, Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant; pages 554-555).

You may want to double-check that source. From Wikipedia, the Tacitus passage reads:

• Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[84]

It's hard to see how this is considered a reference to Christians and not Christ. Some folk make the claim that this Roman historian may have learned this information about Jesus from Christians, and taken at face value the claims of this despised sect as being worthy for inclusion as fact in his history. I am not convinced.

Whether "Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus," depends on your use of the word, "contemporary."

"con-tem-po-rar-y /[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] "adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.
"noun
4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.
5. a person of the same age as another." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary

For example, I was born in the same century that F.D.R. was president. He died some few years before I was born however, so are we contemporaries? Well not exactly, and I only know of him what I have been told. Paul clearly was a "contemporary" of Jesus, and also he clearly never met the living Jesus, much as I never met J.F.K., despite being a "contemporary" of J.F.K. and alive during his presidency (and assassination). Whether or not the authors of Gospels "John" and "Mark" ever met or were even alive during the lifetime of Jesus is, as you are well aware, an open question.

As I've said numerous times, the question of the thread is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable - and as I said in my very first post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mark was written by Peter's interpretor, the dude who ran off naked in Gethsemane, and that John was written by Jesus' beloved disciple. As I've also pointed out, there's every probability Paul was in Jerusalem during the Passover Jesus was crucified and, as initially hostile to the movement, it's hard to imagine he converted after simply taking the disciples at their word. We don't know how much other background information he had, but your dismissiveness does not seem to be in the interests of genuinely considering the reasonableness of even the evidence, let alone the supernatural conclusion.

When it comes to Josephus, well, the first reference (TF) is acknowledged to at least be highly modified, and many people believe it is a pure insertion in the 4th century. There is no evidence it existed before the 4th century, and therefore it is too corrupted to use as evidence.

As for antiquities 19:20, the phrase 'brother of the one called CHrist' very closely mimics Matthew 1:16 and John 4:25. This is a fairly good indication that it mimics those passages, and is not independent from them (and might even be a copier's gloss by a Christian who knew those passages)

Whether or not there was some untainted original of the TF is mere speculation of course, so I wouldn't use it as evidence.

We've discussed the reference to Jesus' brother previously of course, and to my understanding the majority of scholars see no reason to consider it a Christian insertion.

[catalyst]

Hello Mithrae,

I see that you too have had bad weather your way. Hope things are ok on a personal level. Here, early summer storms have been offering up hail the size of rock melons, and although, my family and I are safe, such destruction of others homes and therefore temp. homelessness of some, needing to be accomodated "quickstix" has brought more work my way. As I always say on here, my RL commitments always come first.

Anyway, onto our interactions:

You wrote:

Only if we assume that p52 is a fragment of the original, first ever brand new version of the gospel. That seems almost absurd.

I don't see why it is not fair to assume that the p52 fragment is of the original. Otherwise, I would just be going on "what if's", which frankly lead people no where but in circles. I am going with the fragment (p52), as it IS the earliest known document that holds anything remotely contained in "John".

Martyr for one makes no mention whatsoever of anything that could be attributed to "John", mere memoirs or otherwise. If it had existed, you'd have to reckon, given his position, he would have grasped it with both hands and at the very least referred to it in some way. He didn't.

Something else about the P52. Further research has been done, and it seems that the date of its writing, could well be pushed out to the end of the 2nd Century CE to the early 3rd Century CE. The initial dating of the document was done in 1935. As one can appreciate, investigative ability has improved leaps and bounds since then. Further investigation has proven, quite telling.

If so inclined, please feel free to google up ""the use and abuse of P52 : Paprylogical pitfalls of the dating of the fourth gospel". It was written by Brent Nongbri of Yale Uni. and published in assorted publications, including the Harvard Theological Review. It's pointless me giving you the link I used, unless of course you want to pay for the paper. It's a 26 page PDF and cost me $30. You may be able to download it free from another site. (I used the Cambridge link). Alternatively, I could always email or (if possible) upload it to you in PM. ( I don't know if it is possible to upload PDF's as one can with IMG)

mithrae wrote:

My point is that Tatian wrote a harmony of four gospels, which already existed. But if one of them (John) had only just been written, why would he use it? The Diatessaron implies that gJohn had already had time to establish itself as fairly authoritative by c170CE.

Odd though how NONE of these gospels were known of by Martyr a mere 20 years earlier?
Come to think of it, Martyr never mentioned Paul, or ANY of the epistles, and they're purported to have been written c. 50CE. One has to wonder, considering Martyr had no clue who John, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul were, if he was actually a "christian" in the name of "Jesus of Nazareth" = "Jesus Christ". Certainly doesn't seem that way, as in the oracles of the apostles he does cite, there is no mention of all the OTT stuff, this "jesus of nazareth" fella has been claimed to have done, and again, if all these miraculous things HAD been done, isn't it logical to assume these followers would have recorded all of THAT stuff? That said, I have to wonder which "messianic model" he was a follower of? There WERE a lot of them, whose followers/disciples/apostles would have left "memoirs" also. THAT has been shown in the discovery of the DSS. Did it ever cross your mind, that much of the info used to bolster this "Jesus of Nazareth" character, may have been in reference to any "yeshu/yeshua" PRIOR to the (IMO) made-up Jesus of Nazareth character? It has crossed mine many a time and I do have evidence to support such a notion.

A lot of what I have written here, I had compiled to pop in a post to Arian on another thread. As the information suits this thread better anyway, I may as well just post it here.

It appears that the whole messianic concept within Judaism, as it is understood today, came to light around the end of the Maccabean period/ beginning of the Hasmoneon Period, so the 2nd century BCE. Just prior to and continued on during the Maccabean period (c 174-135 BCE), the Manual of Discipline was written as well as the Thanksgiving Psalms, were written by the Teacher of Righteousness (from now I will refer to it him as ToR). The term NESER (meaning shoot or sprout) occurs and can be found in writings such as Isaiah 60:20. (DSS reference: 1QH6:15; 7:19; 8:6; 8:;10). This reference, despite what "gentile" christians want to read into it, does not refer to a SOLE Messianic figure, but rather, the community as a whole. The TR did NOT see, nor think of himself as a Messiah and in fact, quite the contrary. Interestingly too, many a serious scholar equate the "john the baptist" character of the NT, with the ToR - "'He who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' (1QH). If that IS the case, then it would be pretty impossible for him to be a contemporary of "Jesus of Nazareth" some 150 + years later, now wouldn't it. What is interesting though is around the time of the ToR, there was a Yeshua(real name Jason - remember, Jesus/Yeshu back then was NOT a name, it was a title given to people, "proven" or shown to be "with" (their) God" and work with (their)"God").He was a Zadokite High Priest (FTR, Zadokites were "branches" of Zoastorism, akin, but also a tad different to Mithrasism).


Moving onto the Hasmoneon Period (134-63BCE) A new generation of Essenes popped up during this time. Persecuted Pharisees entered the group. This is when the 4QTestimonia was written and the Manual of Discipline expanded on. All of a sudden there is full blown messianism (much of the concept probably gleaned from other religions at the time and introduced just prior)"saviour/messiah/christ" theology, but even then, it was not about a SOLE "messiah", but rather TWO: a PROPHET and the priestly (Aaronic), and a royal (Davidic) messiah (1QS 9-11).

It was Pharisees, therefore, who brought this style of messianic expectation to the community of Essenes in the 2nd century BCE, no doubt information gleaned from their travels elsewhere. This is also the time when the basic foundations of the T12P (Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs) was written, with its priestly and royal messiah's. (AGAIN, remember, there were TWO)

Roman/Pompeian Period (63-37 BCE) is represented by the Damascus Document (CD), the oldest copy of which (4QDb) of 75-50 BCE now conjoins the two messiahs into ONE, the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD19:10-11; 20:1; 12:23; 14:19). Now we are getting closer to the N'tzarim - Nazarenes (gee could that possibly eventually refer to "Nazareth"? in 4th Century CE christian writings - which BTW Nazareth did NOT exist at the time "Jesus of Nazareth" is claimed to have lived) this document also foretells a PROPHET who comes back at the end-time with the messiah. 4QarP says:

"I shall send you ELIJAH before......" - cross reference fro the Bible : Malachi (3: 1)

The Psalms of Solomon also derive from this time: ""Annointed of the Lord"" (BTW, that is the begining of the "Christ" concept in Judeo-Christianity. KRST meaning "annointed" comes from Egytpian coffin texts, where people were douced in oils (annointed) dating at least hundreds of years prior to even this STILL BCE point in time). Check any ancient Egyptian coffin. Pretty much all of them are "Krst".

Let us move on:

Herodian Period (37BCE-68 CE) Anti-Roman and Zealot tendencies arise. The War Rule dates to this period and the MD, CD are recopied YET AGAIN repeating the expectation for TWO messiahs (1QM 11:7-8) but the expectation for a single messiah still continues among some of the community and is represented in several Cave 4 texts.(those tending to have embraced the FOREIGN "sole saviour" concept) We now have (4QPatBls 1:34) the Scion of David who will rise with the Interpreter of the Law (prophet) and (4QFlor 1:11) the Scion of David will arise at the end of days (4QpISa). Here is where I reckon the whole separation between the Essenes and the Nazarenes occur, through the Enochian literature which is appended by the "parables" at this time. The Parables of the Book of Enoch merges the "Son of Man," "Elect One," "the Anointed," and the "Just One" into ONE person.

The Elect of God text , also date to this time. All of this conflates to a messianic expectation in both temporal and sacerdotal forms and the revival of the "Son of David" at the time, "Yeshua of Nazareth" allegedly strolled out of "nazareth" in Galilee to be baptized by a former Essene/prophet/Elijah/interpreter of the Law, the ToR, John the Baptist. (who again, is now long dead by at least 150+ odd years).

I could continue on with more information for DAYS, but I reckon this is enough food for thought for you to contemplate and mull over for now.

I suppose though it does go to show just WHY I don't believe in the "Jesus of Nazareth" model, nor do I believe such a character as depicted in the BIBLE, ever walked the fact of the earth, whether as a human being or otherwise.

Agreed that 'good news' isn't the same as 'gospel' as we use it referring to the NT books; as I said, Justin Martyr may be the first Christian known to have done so.

And my point is, he wasn't the first. The latter understanding of "good news" was courtesy of the ToR, back circa 170BCE...again referencing the (1QH) but more specifically, the (1QH14). I have no doubt that those writings are where he got the concept from.

I suggest you read up on the DSS. As I stated before, I sincerely doubt that the "christ" Martyr was into, was actually the "Jesus of Nazareth" character at all, but rather, was taking information from writings, texts and manuscripts, well before such a character was invented.

I've seen quite a few folk mention Eusebius' negative comments on Papias with the apparent purpose (as you have here) of casting doubt on Papias' claims regarding gospels. But Eusebius had no objection to Papias' comments on gospels and, as your link says, his criticism was over Papias' chiliasm (the millenial kingdom of Revelation). Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue which Papias mentions probably refers to the 'Q' sayings source on which Luke and canonical Matthew were partly based.

Also as your link says, Eusebius did indeed suggest that Papias knew a 'presbyter/elder' John rather than the apostle (and your link suggests that was because of Eusebius' dislike of Revelation). Being in a marginally less lazy mood today, here is the full content of Eusebius' information regarding Papias (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... xxxix.html).

If you or anyone can come up with this elusive "Q" document, then it is worth considering. Until that time though, it is just more white noise, speculation and presumption, not only on your part, but also anyone attempting to bring it into the discussion. Some people claim that "Q" refers purely to Pauline "stuff".

I just go with what there is evidence of, as in ancient documentation without the circa 4th Century CE bias attached, courtesy of the "Constanine" time. You will note that the majority of what you claim, is heresay based on 4th century CE writings, as "conveniently", next to nothing prior, remains.

Now, I said prior that I would not trust one iota of what Eusibeus had to say, whether it backs my position or otherwise.

It is so easy to embellish, change, create, invent, so many centuries after the fact, because the ones you are quoting from, are no longer alive to refute such claims.

Unfortunately for Eusebius and those like him, willing to LIE constantly to promote and FORCE their personally perceived "faith", things like the P52 and DSS have surfaced, which put into question EVERYTHING, modern day "accepted" christianity, holds or claims to be "Truth".


Apologies it took so long, but that's all I have to say for now.

Catalyst.

[Goat]

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus of course, even if they wrote later - though of course they were Jewish, not Roman.

I notice that, despite the fact that you have listed "Atheist" in your usergroup, you seem to have elected yourself to play the devil's advocate for theists and to run interference for Starboard Tack. Starboard Tack should respond for Starboard Tack, and I am not really inclined to play along with whatever game it is you are playing. But I will answer this time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but up top of the page it says "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" not "Is Starboard Tack willing and able to single-handedly answer every objection of every sceptic who posts?" Are you suggesting that the source of an argument affects its reasonability? Or do you have some kind of axe to grind with Starboard?

"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. 110), asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians. Five years later Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (Ad 64) numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions it's authenticity. Suetonius (ca. 125) mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ (impulsore Chresto), were causing public disturbances,' the passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'the Jews should leave Rome.' These references prove the existence of Christians rather than Christ." (The Story of Civilization, vol. III, Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant; pages 554-555).

You may want to double-check that source. From Wikipedia, the Tacitus passage reads:

• Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[84]

It's hard to see how this is considered a reference to Christians and not Christ. Some folk make the claim that this Roman historian may have learned this information about Jesus from Christians, and taken at face value the claims of this despised sect as being worthy for inclusion as fact in his history. I am not convinced.

Whether "Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus," depends on your use of the word, "contemporary."

"con-tem-po-rar-y /[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] "adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.
"noun
4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.
5. a person of the same age as another." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary

For example, I was born in the same century that F.D.R. was president. He died some few years before I was born however, so are we contemporaries? Well not exactly, and I only know of him what I have been told. Paul clearly was a "contemporary" of Jesus, and also he clearly never met the living Jesus, much as I never met J.F.K., despite being a "contemporary" of J.F.K. and alive during his presidency (and assassination). Whether or not the authors of Gospels "John" and "Mark" ever met or were even alive during the lifetime of Jesus is, as you are well aware, an open question.

As I've said numerous times, the question of the thread is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable - and as I said in my very first post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mark was written by Peter's interpretor, the dude who ran off naked in Gethsemane, and that John was written by Jesus' beloved disciple. As I've also pointed out, there's every probability Paul was in Jerusalem during the Passover Jesus was crucified and, as initially hostile to the movement, it's hard to imagine he converted after simply taking the disciples at their word. We don't know how much other background information he had, but your dismissiveness does not seem to be in the interests of genuinely considering the reasonableness of even the evidence, let alone the supernatural conclusion.

When it comes to Josephus, well, the first reference (TF) is acknowledged to at least be highly modified, and many people believe it is a pure insertion in the 4th century. There is no evidence it existed before the 4th century, and therefore it is too corrupted to use as evidence.

As for antiquities 19:20, the phrase 'brother of the one called CHrist' very closely mimics Matthew 1:16 and John 4:25. This is a fairly good indication that it mimics those passages, and is not independent from them (and might even be a copier's gloss by a Christian who knew those passages)

Whether or not there was some untainted original of the TF is mere speculation of course, so I wouldn't use it as evidence.

We've discussed the reference to Jesus' brother previously of course, and to my understanding the majority of scholars see no reason to consider it a Christian insertion.

It doesn't matter if they think that or not. There is a good chance it is an insertion, and even if it is not, the fact it uses the phrases so close to the Gospels indicates that the phrase was influenced by the Gospels. Plus, I will also point out that that particular passage did not discuss the resurrection at all.

And, like I said before.. for the T.F. .. since it is acknowledged that the T.F. is acknowledged to be at least modified, they have to provide evidence it DID indeed exist before the 4th century. So far, no such evidence has been forthcoming.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You may want to double-check that source. From Wikipedia, the Tacitus passage reads:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[84]


It's hard to see how this is considered a reference to Christians and not Christ. Some folk make the claim that this Roman historian may have learned this information about Jesus from Christians, and taken at face value the claims of this despised sect as being worthy for inclusion as fact in his history. I am not convinced.

Writing about the year 110, Tacitus makes a reference to "Christus," mistaking the title of Christ for the man's name. The Gospels, with the possible exception of Gospel John, had already been written by 110. Tacitus is simply reacting to Christians and the story Christians were in the process of spreading.

As I've said numerous times, the question of the thread is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable - and as I said in my very first post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mark was written by Peter's interpretor, the dude who ran off naked in Gethsemane, and that John was written by Jesus' beloved disciple.

Papias, in the second century, referred to Mark, the author of the Gospel, as the interpreter of Peter. Papias also said specifically that Mark "did not know the Lord." This represents the earliest and closest thing we have to evidence on the otherwise anonymously authored Gospel of Mark.

[51] "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[52] And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." {Mark 14).

This is in fact an excellent example of the Christian tendency to make the information conform to their expectations by simply declaring and then confirming amongst themselves that of course it MUST be true and therefor IS true. Christians insist that the identity of this "certain young man" mentioned in Gospel Mark must be a reference by the author of the Gospel to himself. This despite the fact that the mysterious naked young man is never identified. Coincidentally, and using the same system of fact by declaration, Christians seek to identify the individual John Mark, cousin of Barnabus mentioned in Acts, as being the author of Gospel Mark. Admittedly would all be very tidy and convenient, but in fact there is nothing to connect the John Mark mentioned in Acts to the author of the Gospel of Mark, other then the name Mark, a name as commonly used then as today. There is nothing to connect the "certain young man" to ANYONE, since he is never identified. The same system of fact by declaration has been used for identifying the author of Gospel John as the apostle John. There is no direct link to be found connecting the author of the Gospel to the apostle John, except the name John. Oh, and the 2,000 year tradition of Christian's declaring that of course it must be so in accordance with God's plan, praise the Lord.

[Mithrae]

When it comes to Josephus, well, the first reference (TF) is acknowledged to at least be highly modified, and many people believe it is a pure insertion in the 4th century. There is no evidence it existed before the 4th century, and therefore it is too corrupted to use as evidence.

As for antiquities 19:20, the phrase 'brother of the one called CHrist' very closely mimics Matthew 1:16 and John 4:25. This is a fairly good indication that it mimics those passages, and is not independent from them (and might even be a copier's gloss by a Christian who knew those passages)

Whether or not there was some untainted original of the TF is mere speculation of course, so I wouldn't use it as evidence.

We've discussed the reference to Jesus' brother previously of course, and to my understanding the majority of scholars see no reason to consider it a Christian insertion.

It doesn't matter if they think that or not. There is a good chance it is an insertion, and even if it is not, the fact it uses the phrases so close to the Gospels indicates that the phrase was influenced by the Gospels. Plus, I will also point out that that particular passage did not discuss the resurrection at all.

And, like I said before.. for the T.F. .. since it is acknowledged that the T.F. is acknowledged to be at least modified, they have to provide evidence it DID indeed exist before the 4th century. So far, no such evidence has been forthcoming.

Since it was written some twenty years before Antiquities for a nominally Jewish audience, I don't think we can really rule out the possibility that Josephus may have come across Matthew's story of Jesus at some point in the first place. But more importantly, the phrase which is 'so close to the gospels' consists of three common words expressing a fairly mundane concept; Jesus, "who was called" Christ. I wonder how many simple ways would have been possible by which a Jewish author could identify this Jesus as one called Christ? Three? Four? I think it's grasping at straws to suggest that it's a significant similarity which counts as evidence for borrowing.

And then of course there's the fact that Origen (c220CE) quoted that passage three times in two of his works, leaving a comparatively narrow gap in which these alleged Christian scribes could have done their work. The likelihood of early Christian scribes working on a Jewish history rather than their own propaganda is not so high in the first place, and whether as a scribal gloss or deliberate interpolation this rather obscure, neutral phrase from Matthew would be the last thing we'd expect from a Christian pen. We have the TF as a point of comparison for what a known Christian modification might look like, after all! And on top of all this, even if some Christian scribe between 100 and 200 CE had worked on a copy of Antiquities and deliberately or accidentally inserted this bland, neutral description of Christ, it's even more unlikely that this bland, neutral description of Christ would have been seamlessly worked into all other copies of the work also. Even in the case of the TF there's evidence of less blatantly Christian translation into Syriac; but there appears to be no manuscript evidence of alteration in the James passage, and I personally consider a three-word parallel in a neutral description of Jesus to be woefully inadequate grounds for further speculation.

Of course, as you note it says nothing about Jesus' death, merely that he and his brother existed, and his brother was killed with some others.

---

You may want to double-check that source. From Wikipedia, the Tacitus passage reads:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[84]

It's hard to see how this is considered a reference to Christians and not Christ. Some folk make the claim that this Roman historian may have learned this information about Jesus from Christians, and taken at face value the claims of this despised sect as being worthy for inclusion as fact in his history. I am not convinced.

Writing about the year 110, Tacitus makes a reference to "Christus," mistaking the title of Christ for the man's name. The Gospels, with the possible exception of Gospel John, had already been written by 110. Tacitus is simply reacting to Christians and the story Christians were in the process of spreading.

All four gospels show that the man's name was Jesus and he was considered the Christ. So it is your assertion that this Roman historian, whose contempt for Christians is manifest, simply took their claims about Christ on face value and included them as fact in his history?

Is that the full extent of your evidence for the claim that it's "simply reactions to the existence of Christians"?

As I've said numerous times, the question of the thread is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable - and as I said in my very first post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mark was written by Peter's interpretor, the dude who ran off naked in Gethsemane, and that John was written by Jesus' beloved disciple.

Papias, in the second century, referred to Mark, the author of the Gospel, as the interpreter of Peter. Papias also said specifically that Mark "did not know the Lord." This represents the earliest and closest thing we have to evidence on the otherwise anonymously authored Gospel of Mark.

[51] "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[52] And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." {Mark 14).

This is in fact an excellent example of the Christian tendency to make the information conform to their expectations by simply declaring and then confirming amongst themselves that of course it MUST be true and therefor IS true. Christians insist that the identity of this "certain young man" mentioned in Gospel Mark must be a reference by the author of the Gospel to himself. This despite the fact that the mysterious naked young man is never identified. Coincidentally, and using the same system of fact by declaration, Christians seek to identify the individual John Mark, cousin of Barnabus mentioned in Acts, as being the author of Gospel Mark. Admittedly would all be very tidy and convenient, but in fact there is nothing to connect the John Mark mentioned in Acts to the author of the Gospel of Mark, other then the name Mark, a name as commonly used then as today. There is nothing to connect the "certain young man" to ANYONE, since he is never identified.

I don't know what Christians insist regarding the young man, but to my mind it's an oddity in the story which appears in no other gospel. Textual critics and the scholars to whom we refer in this thread at times furnish all kinds of theories and speculation on far less obvious and interesting oddities than this one.

The question of the gospels' anonymity is not one with a simple solution in any scenario; if they were written by minor nobodies a good case could be made that we'd expect them to have bolstered their authority by claiming apostolic authorship, yet they don't. In fact the fourth gospel does claim to be an eyewitness account, yet even then the author doesn't identify himself by name. The third gospel is universally acknowledged as the work of a second-generation Christian, yet it also does not explicitly state the author's identity. The first gospel also doesn't name its author, yet somehow managed to pick up the name of disciple Matthew even though it too was a second-generation work. If the second gospel was universally acknowledged as the product of Peter's interpreter, rather than Peter himself or some other apostle, I'd say that fact alone can't be dismissed as circumstantial evidence that there was some basis to the attribution.

Papias says that Mark "neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him"; whether that precludes a brief meeting in Gethsemane one evening is more a matter of opinion than history. But to the best of my knowledge there's nothing about the gospel which casts any serious doubt on the early tradition (alluded to by Justin Martyr also) that the gospel was written by Peter's interpreter. Without knowing more on the subject his alleged poor knowledge of Palestinian geography may cast doubt on him being the naked guy and/or John Mark. Or perhaps it simply reflects his well-known poor Greek grammar; did he really mean Bethpage then Bethany in 11:1?

While I haven't looked at it in detail, I suspect the balance of evidence suggests that the author was Peter's interpreter. That doesn't stand or fall with the naked guy and/or John Mark of course, but it's interesting to speculate further. Acts introduces John Mark as though he's someone who should be known to his readers, and with an implied connection between his family and Peter even then (12:12). The connection between Mark and Barnabas is suggested in Acts (15:37-39), but it's only in Paul's epistles that we find they were cousins (Colossians 4:10). Balanced against the geography argument, the author of Mark does seem familiar with Semitic language/expressions (eg. 5:41, 7:11), so a Jewish identity of the author is not particularly strange. And if it were the case that the gospel was written by the John Mark whose family was prominent in the very early church, then it does indeed furnish us with a sound explanation for the oddity of the naked young man in the garden.

The same system of fact by declaration has been used for identifying the author of Gospel John as the apostle John. There is no direct link to be found connecting the author of the Gospel to the apostle John, except the name John. Oh, and the 2,000 year tradition of Christian's declaring that of course it must be so in accordance with God's plan, praise the Lord.

Some people would say that mid-second century historical attribution of a late-first century document is not quite the same as "fact by declaration," your mockery notwithstanding. We also have both Paul, Acts and the synoptics identifying Peter and John as Jesus' key surviving disciples, and Peter clearly wasn't the 'beloved disciple' who wrote the gospel.

---

Apologies it took so long, but that's all I have to say for now.

Catalyst.

No worries, and thanks for the reply. I hope you don't mind if I return the favour - I'm about written-out at the moment

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 164:

I offer the following for informational purposes regarding the many statements in Miss catalyst's obviously well researched post...

P52 Fragment.

Martyr for one makes no mention whatsoever of anything that could be attributed to "John", mere memoirs or otherwise.

In the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr (whose writings span the period from c. 145 to 163) mentions the "memoirs of the apostles", which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. However, of the gospels later accepted into the canon, Justin only appears to be aware of the synoptics " Matthew, Mark, and Luke - but not of John.
...
In addition, he refers to an account from an unnamed source of the baptism of Jesus which differs from that provided by the synoptic gospels:
When Jesus went down in the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him. The apostles of our Christ wrote this.

It would seem Mr. Martyr was not the best of researchers.

Something else about the P52. Further research has been done, and it seems that the date of its writing, could well be pushed out to the end of the 2nd Century CE to the early 3rd Century CE. The initial dating of the document was done in 1935. As one can appreciate, investigative ability has improved leaps and bounds since then. Further investigation has proven, quite telling.

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand.
...
Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.

If so inclined, please feel free to google up ""the use and abuse of P52 : Paprylogical pitfalls of the dating of the fourth gospel". It was written by Brent Nongbri of Yale Uni. and published in assorted publications, including the Harvard Theological Review.

Here ya go. (As presented by Google's "read as html" feature.)

...
the Manual of Discipline was written as well as the Thanksgiving Psalms, were written by the Teacher of Righteousness (from now I will refer to it him as ToR).

Wikipedia: Teacher of Righteousness.

Some of the things mentioned by Miss catalyst, from Wikipedia...

Maccabees.

Hasmoneans.

Ancient Jewish History - for the Roman / Pompeian Period.

Damascus Document.

Herodian Dynasty.

Again, I make no warranty regarding the various links, as they are offered by me as informational only.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

All four gospels show that the man's name was Jesus and he was considered the Christ. So it is your assertion that this Roman historian, whose contempt for Christians is manifest, simply took their claims about Christ on face value and included them as fact in his history?

Tacitus mentions Christians and their beliefs early in the second century, yes.

Is that the full extent of your evidence for the claim that it's "simply reactions to the existence of Christians"?

This is a good point in fact. Instead of simply inserting yourself into an established discussion that has been progressing for two weeks now, if you had actually READ through the progression of the discussion, then you would not be asking questions such as "Is that the full extent of your evidence." If reading two weeks worth of posts is too much bother, then I will make it even easier for you. The subject at hand here is: "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" Instead of doing your best to hijack the discussion by branching out with a foray into detail and minutiae, how about first answering the central question I posed to Starboard Tack yourself. Do you consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be both plausible and reasonable? Does the evidence move us inexorably to the undeniable conclusion that the corpse of Jesus must have actually returned to life, and that it ultimately flew away up into the sky? Since the obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse would normally be that it was a result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, would a reasonable person be within his rights to question the opposite conclusion? Starboard Tack agreed that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. If belief in the resurrection is not reasonable then, well, everything else is really nothing more than useless detail and minutiae anyway, isn't it?

Some people would say that mid-second century historical attribution of a late-first century document is not quite the same as "fact by declaration," your mockery notwithstanding.

No mockery intended. I have been told my entire life by Christians that, of course the author of Gospel John was the apostle John, there can be no doubt, all in accordance with God's plan, praise the Lord. Since it was all part of God's plan from the beginning, no further evidence is required. And the "mid-second century historical attribution of a late-first century document," that you mention, Papias, does not name the author of Gospel John as the apostle John at all, as you well know. But before we jump to the identities of the authors of the Gospels, why don't you first answer the question above, which is after all central to the entire thread.