This Just in: Palestinian News

[liamconnor]

Too often arguments on the side of atheists here are based on a deficiency of historical imagination: that is, the ability to visualize concrete and historically educated situations.

Here is a complaint from a member

I got news for you - Jesus wasn't significant. A dude is walking around the Middle East that can change water into wine, and raise people from the dead, and walk on water, and not ONE mention of this is made outside of Paul/Saul's writings

The member here thinks it conspicuous that Jesus is not mentioned in any of the daily news from that period in Palestine. I mean, come on, except for the gospels, no Headlines?!

But what are the headlines? What written sources do we have from Palestine during that period?

We have the N.T. and Josephus. That is it. Atheists think there are volumes of daily news on Palestine and that the absence of Jesus is conspicuous. There aren't. There are some volumes from Josephus and a number of letters and biographies, and both of them overlap in certain references, including references to Jesus’ brother, as well as Jesus himself.

“Well" protests our atheist, "at least Roman headlines should read about it!�

Ah yes. No doubt as soon as Jesus healed some people in a backwater village, everyone ran back to their homes and picked up the telephone and called the local news station and

….oh wait.

"Well," he continues, "at the very least they all wrote letters to their state representatives and…."

oh wait.

"Well," another attempt, "at the very least people talked about Jesus to other people who talked to others who talked to still others, and naturally this talk got to Roman officials who were very concerned about the daily life of Jewish peasants, and so naturally when the overheard about some Jewish guy healing some people in some obscure country they thought, “This is most pressing. Tiberius will no doubt want to drop everything he is dealing with right now and investigate this.�

….oh wait.

Are there any other "Well, (another attempt)"?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Thus, we have a violation of your Occam's Razor, that you were so passionate about in other threads. Supposing for a moment there is a God and he did raise Jesus from death...why would he do it in a time and place where little evidence/documentation would be preserved and teach that those centuries or even millenia afterward who do not believe the event ever took place are going to have a negative experience (or just outright obliteration) after they die?
Kinda negates the whole God is good, and loving and all that jazz, if you ask me.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

On a somewhat related note, (the miraculous being "historical")

How 'bout that instance where the saints were resurrected en mass when Jesus was crucified and "appeared to many in the Holy City"? Presumably the city of Jerusalem, then under Roman occupation.

Wouldn't such a mass and miraculous event have gotten the attention of Pilate? Or of any of his officials?

Do you think that tale is to be taken literally, as history? Or was Matthew simply attempting to make some theological point.

And if such a miracle had indeed occured, why no multiple attestation? Why didn't Mark, Luke and John deem the event worthy of note?

Could it be it escaped their notice? Or is it possible that even they didn't believe it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Liam, HOW, as a self professed historian, are you unaware that reasonable, for the time, records WERE kept?

How can you keep asserting this claim, when the least of us can "Google" virtually anything we want to know about any subject?

How can a historian fail to understand, that the primary way you won't be able to investigate something, is if it DID NOT HAPPEN.

The only hope you really have is that, during the Dark Ages, Christians destroyed so many of the works that would have assisted your endeavor.

This is what the Renaissance was all about - many works being re-discovered from other non-Christian countries.

That being said, those things destroyed, are unlikely to support Christianity.

OP closed.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

I agree , its a theological point. What is it Jesus says is most important? Our spirit, that's what, for do not fear those who can kill the body , rather fear those who can kill the spirit. Clearly they killed Jesus' body. The resurrection affirms they could not kill his spirit.
How can the spirit be killed? Any ideas?
It is impossible to kill the spirit because the spirit in Jesus and in everything is of God and God can't be killed. If there is no God (what ever you conceive him to be ) there is nothing. As Paul wrote in Romans 2:15 God is interwoven in the very creation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by dio9]

Now I know the assumptions people make about spirits have allowed you to win arguments by invoking their assumed powers. But assumptions are like snow in the Sahara.

Back in 2008, when the show "Ghost Hunter's" was in flower, the concept of dispersing or harming, or killing ghosts, or spirits came to my mind.
This is the thought-pattern I ran through:

1. If they interact with emf meters, they must be "emit" emf.
2. Since they can not manipulate objects (strongly) they must be weak.
3. Spirit + Body > Spirit.

4. Physical bodies can be slain.
5.1 Coherent things are formed by order.
5.2 In order to be relevant, spirits must be coherent.
6. Order can be disrupted.

So, if spirits existed, and they do not, then emf pulses, such as EMFs or even stun guns should be harmful to the spirits, as they have no material structure to keep their emf ordered.
So that's how a spirit could be slain. Much easier than a body with a spirit...


From here I'll invoke Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

In this case, just one fact, even observation.

I'm listening.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

Thus, we have a violation of your Occam's Razor, that you were so passionate about in other threads. Supposing for a moment there is a God and he did raise Jesus from death...why would he do it in a time and place where little evidence/documentation would be preserved and teach that those centuries or even millenia afterward who do not believe the event ever took place are going to have a negative experience (or just outright obliteration) after they die?

Please look up Occam's Razor.

why would he do it in a time and place where little evidence/documentation would be preserved

This argument would be powerful if Christianity remained a minority religion: it didn't. It seems that it worked quite well; this forum is testimony to its success.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

How 'bout that instance where the saints were resurrected en mass when Jesus was crucified and "appeared to many in the Holy City"? Presumably the city of Jerusalem, then under Roman occupation.

The saints were said not to be resurrected but raised; it is an important distinction in Jewish terminology.

The wording is 'many of the saints'. matthew gives us no more than that identity. We don't know what saints he has in mind.

Wouldn't such a mass and miraculous event have gotten the attention of Pilate? Or of any of his officials?

If this happened (see below for my own position), it would depend on how many is many; πολλὰ σώματα is all we got.

Do you think that tale is to be taken literally, as history? Or was Matthew simply attempting to make some theological point.

The number of O.T. allusions in Matthew from start to finish leads me to surmise that Matthew has had a pretty free-hand with history. I read Matthew mainly for his literary devices which have theological ends--interpreting historical events in light of O.T.; for instance, the entire resurrection scene seems to be told through the lens of Ezekiel. At any rate, I rarely base historical arguments on his work.

And if such a miracle had indeed occured, why no multiple attestation? Why didn't Mark, Luke and John deem the event worthy of note?

Indeed. I am skeptical of much in Matthew.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by Willum]

Liam, HOW, as a self professed historian, are you unaware that reasonable, for the time, records WERE kept?

Please present all the records kept covering 1st c. Palestine between the years 0 through 70 AD.

If we don't have them, please provide allusions to them in extant literature.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by liamconnor]

Please present all the records kept covering 1st c. Palestine between the years 0 through 70 AD.

So the historian believes ALL records are available at the single click of a mouse to we proletariat?
What does the all-mighty historian need to know that this humble "Googler" can find out for him, that he can not himself?

How about lesser figures than Jesus actually having historical records? Where as Jesus has none?
Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

What kind of silly game is that? Asking me to provide all records? All? Why don't you give me all the sports records for 1911? Seems like a fair trade.
Besides, you Christians destroyed so many records, you KNOW it is a fixed game for providing all.

What is something particular you'd like to know... I am not here to educate you - especially not in a field you are supposed to be the master of.

LOL.