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)"?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by 1213]

You really don't read the Bible, do you?

Jesus, Matt and Luke, at least, all advocated for Caesar and the Roman government.
Rome captured him, and tried to save his life (washed their hands).
But the Jews, because he had violated so many of their laws were rioting and ready to cause trouble, so Pilate turned him over to the mob for justice.
Remember Jesus was so disgusting to the Jews for his deeds,tht they chose to let a known criminal go, rather than him.

So, no, they killed Jesus because they were the only ones allowed to execute anyone, in the judgment of the Jews, and to prevent a dangerous religious riot.

How is it religious folk know so little about their Holy Book?

[1213]

Jesus, Matt and Luke, at least, all advocated for Caesar and the Roman government.

Sorry, I don’t see that to be true, especially if we notice that according to the story Herod wanted to kill Jesus right after he was born and had not yet done anything (Matt. 2).

[rikuoamero]

Jesus, Matt and Luke, at least, all advocated for Caesar and the Roman government.

Sorry, I don’t see that to be true, especially if we notice that according to the story Herod wanted to kill Jesus right after he was born and had not yet done anything (Matt. 2).

Why do you think that in Willum's scenario, Herod would have been told about Jesus? Or that the 'Massacre of the Innocents' story would have been an indictment against Rome? It was Herod, a client king who was native to Idumea (south of Judea), who supposedly did this.
Not a Roman prefect or anyone like that.

[1213]

...
Not a Roman prefect or anyone like that.

Wikipedia says:
“Herod was granted the title of "King of Judea" by the Roman Senate.[27] As such, he was a vassal of the Roman Empire, expected to support the interests of his Roman patrons.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

That is why I think Herod represented Rome.

[rikuoamero]

...
Not a Roman prefect or anyone like that.

Wikipedia says:
“Herod was granted the title of "King of Judea" by the Roman Senate.[27] As such, he was a vassal of the Roman Empire, expected to support the interests of his Roman patrons.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

That is why I think Herod represented Rome.

I'm not disputing that Herod was beholden to Rome. That's why I called him a 'client king'. He was king over a nation, but taking orders from another nation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by rikuoamero]

And another faithful, who didn't read the Bible:

Herod didn't slaughter all the babies in the hopes of getting little Jesus because he was a Roman thrall.

[Kenisaw]

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)"?

Just so everyone knows, that "member" that wrote that was me. Liam then went on in the thread that contains that quote to ask me what other Palenstine publications there were at that time. I replied that there was no reason to limit ourselves to Palestine, because the Persians and Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, etc were more than happy to document all sorts of stuff. Some of the NT was written in Turkey after all, and Coptic Greek was used for texts several times. So obviously we don't need the neighborhood news when this was front page world news stuff we are talking about.

Why all that subsequent information didn't make it into this new thread I can't say....

For the record I want to note that after I pointed out that Liam's OP contained only part of the story, he failed to return to this thread and offer an explanation...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 27 by Kenisaw]

For the record I want to note that after I pointed out that Liam's OP contained only part of the story, he failed to return to this thread and offer an explanation...

For the record, I simply cannot keep up with every single response in every single thread. If this constitutes a "failure", then fine, I failed.

As for the quote: I do not see how I misunderstood the inference: Jesus was clearly not important because we don't hear about him from numerous sources.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by liamconnor]

For the record, I simply cannot keep up with every single response in every single thread.

I know the reason why liam. Can you enlighten the rest of the class as to why?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 28 by liamconnor]

For the record, I simply cannot keep up with every single response in every single thread.

I know the reason why liam. Can you enlighten the rest of the class as to why?

Of course. I post a few things. Then I go about my day. Then I return, and a lot has happened. Perhaps I remember my posts and go looking for replies. Often I forget one or two or even all; or, I find that the thread in which I posted has taken such a different course that it seems out of place to rewind the thing just for my sake.

Not sure what the cryptic invitation for explanation is all about.