Posted on 04/09/2005 3:59:58 PM PDT by churchillbuff
I said it would be close, no matter who won. I believe you said the gap would be wide in Bush's favor. I can't find the post. If you can and I'm in error, please let me know. I consider three points to be close. Five or more would be wide. I believe in the post I noted where the gap between close and wide victory lay.
Thank you for your response on the other.
Actually I called it pretty well. Here's my memory: You said he'd lose, I said he'd win decisively. You asked me what I meant by "decisively" and I said 4 points. You said you didn't consider that decisive, and I said it was, given the current electorate.
Jay Sekulow is fabulous...I had often wondered if he was Jewish....mystery solved!
Niether of us were on the mark. An I believe I did say that Kerry could win or it would be close.
Why I do not believe Jesus ever existed:
No one bothered to record the year Jesus was crucified. To Christians, this was the pivotal event in human history, yet no one remembered exactly when it happened.
Matthew and Luke give two different dates for Jesus' birth which cannot reconciled. Matthew implies it was about 6BC and Luke implies 6AD. Christian apologists speculate that perhaps Luke was writing not about the census of 6AD but some other census that there is no record of. However, Luke mentions the census again in the Book of Acts and leaves no question he meant the one in 6AD.
Elements of the Jesus story sound suspiciously like Greek mythology. When Hercules is a baby, the jealous queen Hera seeks to kill him. When Jesus is a baby, the jealous king Herod seeks to kill him. This smacks of fiction.
There is no record of Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" in any Jewish or Roman writings. If it actually occured, Josephus should have known about it.
Three Zoroastrian magicians supposedly find Jesus' house by following the stars. Absurd! If the Zoroastrians had that kind of knowledge, we should all be Zoroastrians.
There were at least three previous "sons of God" who were worshipped in Jerusalem at various times:" Baal, Tammuz and Dionysus. Sons of various gods were worshipped just about everywhere in those days. What are the odds that this particular "son of God," Jesus, was real?
There is no Jewish or Roman record that mentions a tradition of letting a prisoner go free on Passover. The prisoner who is set free is named Barabbas, which means "son of the father" in Aramaic. This entire episode seems more like an ironic literary device than a true story.
No details of Jesus life are mentioned in the New Testament outside the Gospels. No one reminisces about his experiences with Jesus. Thousands of people supposedly met Jesus, yet after the Gospels, these people seem to disappear.
The entire city of Jersualem supposedly turned out to greet Jesus with palm fronds and cries of "Save us!" when he entered the city, yet the Gospels say that the Jews did not believe in him. The priest's soldiers took Jesus in the dead of night because they were supposedly afraid of his many followers yet, at his trial, all the people were against him. None of this makes any sense.
Jesus makes a violent insurrection at the Temple, turning over the tables of the korban-sellers, yet this is never mentioned at his trial. Why not?
Paul was supposedly in Jerusalem when Jesus entered the city to great fanfare, yet Paul never indicates any personal recollection of it.
Jesus left no writings and no one bothered to record anything he said in the original language, Aramaic. Who ever heard of a rabbi who never wrote anything?
If God actually sent his son to earth, it would be crucial what he preached when he was here. Yet his main exponent Paul seemed to know virtually nothing about what he preached and seemed to care little about it. Paul never quotes any of Jesus' preachings that are recorded in the Gospels. (Perhaps that is because Jesus' sayings in the gospels were made up AFTER Paul wrote his epistles?)
Peter supposedly traveled with Jesus for many months and Paul met Jesus only in a vision, and yet Paul seemed to know more than Peter about whether or not it was necessary to observe Jewish law. How can this be?
"Nazarene" does not mean someone from Nazareth. We have known since the Nineteenth Century that the followers of John the Baptist (who still exist) call their priests Nazarenes. Nazarene is the transliteration of the Aramaic natzorei, which comes from the word natzorot for secret knowledge. It means someone who purports to know secrets about God that are not in the Bible. The Nazarenes were a gnostic cult.
There is no contemporary record of Jesus outside the Gospels. It was thought that Josephus mentioned him, but this reference has turned out to be a later forgery. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived about the time Jesus supposedly lived, did not know of him. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus. The earliest undisputed Roman reference to Jesus is a passage by Tacitus, written about 115 AD, in which he says that Christians follow a man named Christ who was executed by Pilate. Tacitus may have merely been repeating what Christians told him. There is no record of ANYONE saying ANYTHING that is in the Gospels before the Gospels were widely circulated, so nothing in the Gospels can be independently verified.
Jesus is supposed to be a replacement for the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. However the Passover Lamb was not a sin offering. The Passover Lamb was to be slaughtered as quickly as possible, roasted and eaten. It was never meant to suffer. Its blood was supposed to be smeared upon doorposts and gates. None of this could possibly relate to Jesus and the sacrifice of a man goes against everything in the Old Testament.
In the time Jesus supposedly lived, thousands of Jews were crucified. Most of them were guilty of nothing more than wanting freedom from Rome. Some of them undoubtedly could have escaped the cross by ratting on someone else. What exactly was unique about Jesus' sacrifice?
Paul's Epistles predate the Gospels -- Corinthians and Ephesians, both from circ. 50 I believe.
Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He also described their actions and practices thusly:
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. Pliny then records how Christians received their punishment.
Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?
Although a few critics in the previous centuries claimed otherwise, there is really no doubt about the genuineness of this reference. Van Voorst notes that the "style matches that of the other letters" in the same book, and the letters "were known already by the time of Tertullian (fl. 196-212)." [VanV.JONT, 27] That the letter is some kind of Christian creation is a position that is not taken seriously today.
Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?
Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference more valuable than we might suppose. Wilken, although saying that Pliny's knowledge of Christianity was "largely second-hand," also points out [Wilk.ChrRom, 6] that Pliny, prior to being a governor, held a position as a state priest - the same position held somewhat earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a quote from Cicero (ibid.), those who aspired to this position ought to be distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the good administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard the wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the know" about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something about it in order to fulfill his duties! It is therefore likely that, while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand, he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus' existence.
More important here, however, is the testimony by Pliny that Christians died for their faith. This was extremely unlikely to have happened if Jesus had not existed. The martyrdoms of second-century Christians does not support the historicity of Jesus. Pliny also wrote that many people had renounced Christianity years before his interrogations.
This may be granted to an extent. Wilken [ibid.] also writes:
Even in this early period of Christian history, not everyone who become a Christian remained a Christian for the rest of his or her life. Some people initially joined the Christian sect because they found the figure of Jesus attractive, others because they were persuaded of the superiority of the Christian way of life by the behavior of a friend, others because they had married Christians. But in an age when religious distinctions were often blurred, people changed allegiances often and sometimes belonged to more than one religious group in the course of a lifetime. Consequently, there was much movement in and out of religious associations and across organizational lines... But ultimately, this objection misses the point. Even though some people left Christianity, there were also many who did not, and died because of it - and if there was any hint that Jesus was a mythical figure (and such arguments would certainly have been passed on by the Jewish and pagan enemies of Christianity) it is extremely unlikely that anyone at all would have suffered persecution or martyrdom for His sake. That some did deny Jesus is quite irrelevant, as is the movement between religious associations common in that time: As Wilken explains, those who found that Christianity did not meet their needs or expectations simply lost interest and left - such is the fickle side of human nature. And as Momigliano indicates [Momig.PagJC, 164], in that time period, "to know to what religious group you belong to is not identical with knowing what you believe." In the syncretistic world of the Roman Empire, a "buffet table" approach to religion was not uncommon. There were undoubtedly those who, as happens today, walked into a church, liked the company, ate the delicious food, and settled in - until the going got rough; then the untough got going! But when a Christian professed Christ and would not recant, even in the face of persecution and execution, that indicated that a final choice had been made.
A mythical Jesus and a historical Jesus would be indistinguishable to those living in the second century. Arguments about the number of second-century believers and martyrs is therefore beside the point. Furthermore, Origen admits that there weren't that many martyrs in the first place.
This objection is rather an unfair one, and gives short shrift to the historical context of the martyrdom issue (as well as ignoring the fact that Tacitus and Josephus indicate that mid-first-century Christians ALSO died for their faith!). Yes, Origen "admits" that there were very few Christian martyrs; and this objection uses this "admission" to give the impression that few Christians of the time took a principled stand, and therefore, the Christian faith is in doubt, for it was probably only adhered to by a few masochistic nuts! But this objection fails on a number of accounts.
First, sheer numbers of martyrs lose their meaning, however, when we realize that Christians composed a small minority (as little as 2% as late as 250 AD; lower percentages prior to that!) of the Roman Empire's population of 60 million in the first two centuries after Christ.
Second, persecution did not automatically equal martyrdom. As Fox writes, "By reducing the history of Christian persecution to a history of legal hearings, we miss a large part of the victimization." [Fox.PagChr, 424] Some Christians, we may acknowledge, had their freedom bought by wealthy benefactors. But even then, Christians could expect social ostracization if they stuck by their faith, and that is where much of the persecution Fox refers to came from - rejection by family and society, relegation to outcast status. In the legal arena, the number of possible martyrs was reduced by Roman magistrates with softer hearts who would pass on executing Christians and instead sentence them to banishment, or to "work in mines and quarries, where they served, their heads half shaven, under constant threat of the lash." (ibid., 434) In all, it was not an easy time to be a Christian; and without surety of the existence of the Founder they followed, it is quite unlikely that anyone would have gone the distance suffering for the Christian faith. This objection simply ignores too many realities of human nature and of the historical moment.
Many people have died for a lie they thought was the truth. Sincerity of belief does not constitute evidence for that belief.
This objection, too, misses the point. We are, indeed, talking about people, as it is said, who think that what they are dying for is the truth and although it is fashionable in skeptical circles to assume the complete stupidity of ancient peoples (i.e., commit "chronological snobbery"), the fact is that the early Christians most assuredly would have been in a position to know - with the same moral certitude that we have - whether Jesus actually existed or not. Just as much as we living in modern times, ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully . They had libraries, which contained histories from earlier times. The governments of that time kept records. So did religious authorities. To make the sort of objection enlisted above demonstrates an incredible level of historical naiveté.
Many of these Christians wanted to be martyred. It was seen as a way to get on the road to glory. Why should what they did matter?
True, as testimonies from that time show, some of the martyrs concerned did rejoice in their portended deaths for the sake of Christ. However, "on closer inspection, the majority of known 'voluntary martyrs' turn out to be more understandable." [ibid., 442] As Fox puts it:
Almost all of then were secondary martyrdoms, sparked off by the sight of news of fellow Christians who were being tried, abused or sentenced...Elsewhere, the urge was more immediate. In the heat of the moment friends and spectators declared their common loyalty with the poor victims of injustice...Whole groups gave themselves away, in surges of indignation at unjust decisions... In the heat of the moment, martyrdom proved infectious... In short, these martyrdoms were similar in nature to the public protests of the modern civil rights movement. As with that movement, there were those who did seek persecution for their own glory and ego; but the majority were principled people standing up for their belief. In any event, the practice of voluntary martyrdom was warned against by some church leaders, including Origen, and Clement of Alexandria. It was not the standard practice that some critics would imply. Indeed, Jesus had Himself given the general theme of "when they persecute you in this city, flee to another," as Paul did, and as the Jerusalem church did. It just got more difficult as the Church began to put down roots, and as urban merchants became outspoken for the faith.
In closing, we may acknowledge that the charge that martyrdom doesn't count as evidence is technically true - under the same assumption that scholarly consensus does not count as evidence. But, by the same token, it counts as historical data (not evidence) that also has to be explained by whatever theory we adopt. The wholesale endorsement of the Christian faith by intellectuals and intelligent merchants (indeed, as shown by Stark and Meeks, a greater percentage of these than is in accord with the population as a whole) gives a prima facie credibility to their testimony. There are radical differences, too, between the Koresh-type martyrs and the apostles (e.g., constant interaction with the culture vs. exclusion; the considerable content-continuity with the Jewish mainstream; the radical growth thru conversion of a wide range of personality-profiles; the lack of heavy authority structures and punitive systems of hierarchy; etc.). The Christ mythicists, as we have demonstrated, would have an exceedingly difficult time accounting for this problem of martyrdoms on behalf of an allegedly non-existent personage!
"If Pliny had been interviewing the worshipers of Serapis or Apollo they might reasonably have confessed that they sang hymns to Serapis or Apollo, but surely this does not prove that these pagan gods existed as men." [Cutn.JGMM, 111]
True, but nor would Pliny say that Serapis and Apollo were sung to "as (or, as if) a god." Obviously, there would be no need for this distinction, since Serapis and Apollo were known as gods! The phrase here would indicate that someone who would not ordinarily be perceived as a god (in Roman eyes) was here being accorded the status of deity, and this points to someone who was (again, in Roman eyes) a known, supposedly mortal person. (For more on this point, see our response to G. A. Wells.)
And so, we have some valuable testimony from the hand of Pliny the Younger. He knew that Christianity was a "cult," and refers to investigations in which "several forms of the mischief came to light" - and since he refers to it as such, he was already aware of its nature to a degree. He also knows that it is religious in nature because he takes the tactic of having the persons suspected of Christianity offer libations and worship to the statue of the emperor and the gods, and then curse Christ. Clearly Pliny shows that he knows how to distinguish who is a Christian and who is not [Benk.PagRo, 10] - which would be impossible unless he had some previous idea what it was that they believed! There is a limitation to this, of course: We are not told when or where Pliny learned all of this; he COULD have just found out about all of this from his underlings a week before writing to Trajan! But a very plausible suggestion is that he had learned about Jesus and the Christians at an earlier time in his position as a state priest.
This item has been the subject of extensive response from the SecWeb's grand master, Jeff Lowder. Lowder responds offering first the words of Richard Carrier:
...Priests were NEVER involved in investigating Christians and would have had no interest in someone else's cult. Only magistrates are involved. And as Pliny opens the letter, it is clear as he says himself that he has never been involved in trials or investigations of Christians, and in the closing he explains where he learned about the cult: the ex-Christian witnesses explained it, and the tortured deaconesses completed his source of information. I find it astonishing that Carrier goes to the extreme of saying that priests were "NEVER" involved in such things. Where is the justification for this sort of absolutism? What of the need for expert witnesses -- did magistrates have religious training also? And what of the need to safeguard religion, combined with Pliny's evidently conscientious nature? I do not think it is too much to say that Pliny would conduct his own research (or use what he already knew) in order to do his job to the best of his abilities. He did not get into the Emperor's good graces or into high positions by being lazy or unprepared. Nor would getting firsthand knowledge of Jesus' existence have required a full-scale "investigation" of the sort done by magistrates. Personal research would have been sufficient, and perfectly in line with the sort of conscientious and concerned person we know Pliny to have been. Carrier's rebuttal neither refutes nor contradicts anything that I have written.
In an update to this point, Lowder quotes me above only as far as the word "absolutism" (ignoring the rest of the paragraph) and adds these words from Carrier:
Consider, for example, Plutarch, a prominent priest and elder contemporary of Pliny, whose voluminous writings almost entirely survive--and of those that don't we still have all the titles: never once does Plutarch ever mention Christians, even though he went out of his way to write on many religious subjects, even to attack popular superstitions and foreign cults. What does Plutrach have to do with anything? As far as we know, Plutarch never had a situation like Pliny's to handle, where he had to make judgments upon Christians. Beyond that, since the historicity of Christians is itself not open to question, Plutarch's silence about them is as meaningful as his silence about Jesus -- which is to say, it carries no meaning. (Beyond that, I would like to see some direct proof that Plutarch went "out of his way" -- whatever that means in this context -- to attack such things. I wonder which work in particular [The Age of Alexander? One of his biographical works? The one on Sparta?] would have offered an appropriate venue to mention Christianity. In response to this charge, Carrier did provide a listing of Plutarch's works in which that worthy attacked various superstitions, including Judaism; we'll look at these latest responses in a moment.
Also of note is the conspicuous absence of priests presenting evidence for Pliny's prosecutions, even though Pliny mentions (and no doubt exaggerates) the decline of attention to local temples as a result of the Christian fad. How is this of note? Carrier simply throws this in the air without explaining why it is significant or relevant to this issue. Why were priests specifially needed to present evidence in this particular case? The point here is that Pliny, as a former priest, would have information helpful to him in his new job as an investigator. He would not have needed help from other priests to make a determination; he was an "expert witness" already!
Instead, Pliny has no accusers at all, only anonymous lists, and must investigate the matter himself, on the spot. To which I can only ask, "So?" If there's an answer, I'll wait for it. This seems to me to indicate that Pliny was knowledgeable enough to handle the cases on his own in terms of the religious aspects -- which is what I have been arguing all along.
Also worthy of note is the college of silversmiths in Acts: the priestesses of Artemis are again conspicuously absent, and it is only the smiths, who make her statues, that get all riled up (although even they make no effort to "investigate" Christians but simply seek to trump up charges against them). To which again I can only say, "So what?" The priestesses of Artemis were hardly in any position to complain; as Christianity at this time had not been pronounced illegal (for it was still considered by the Romans to be part of Judaism and protected by their exception clauses), they could hardly complain about a recognized religion gaining converts. The silversmiths, though, were losing money (although they also may have been exaggerating!), and when one's pocketbook is hurt, rational investigation tends to go out the window...and beyond that, what need, power or knowledge did silversmiths have (as opposed to Pliny) to conduct investigations, especially since they were not in official positions answerable to the Emperor? What were they going to do once their investigation was complete? Did the KKK perform "investigations" of any sort before lynching innocent victims? This is yet another handful of confetti in the air.
[Furthermore,] Holding seems to have ignored the contrary evidence in Pliny's letter itself: Pliny directly says he knew nothing UNTIL he was compelled to torture the two deaconesses. This solidly refutes any conjecture that Pliny had prior information. Somebody seems to have missed the fact that I already responded to this point against James Still:
Regarding the example Still cites, of the deaconesses, here is the actual quote from Pliny. After listing those rites that the Christians in question adhered to - meeting on a certain day before light, binding themselves by moral oaths, what looks to be taking the Eucharist - Pliny explains: Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I therefore judged it so much more the necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition. It is clear, however, that rather than being "wholly ignorant" of Christianity, Pliny knew a good deal about it! He previously (that is, prior to torturing the deaconesses) knew that Christianity was a "cult," for he refers to investigations in which "several forms of the mischief came to light" - and since he refers to it as such, he was already aware of its nature to a degree. He also knows that it is religious in nature because he takes the tactic of having the persons suspected of Christianity offer libations and worship to the statue of the emperor and the gods, and then curse Christ. Clearly Pliny shows that he knows HOW TO DISTINGUISH who is a Christian and who is not - which would be impossible unless he had some previous idea what it was that they believed! (What he is unfamiliar with is the legal limits to be observed in interrogating and punishing them - NOT their beliefs!) There is a limitation to this, of course: We are not told when or where Pliny learned all of this; he COULD have just found out about all of this from his underlings a week before writing to Trajan! But he is FAR FROM being "wholly ignorant" of Christianity, and a very plausible suggestion is that he had learned about Jesus and the Christians at an earlier time in his position as a state priest. And what of the political edge? Pliny became suspicious of political activity ONLY when the edict against political associations connected with the apostatizing Christians abandoning their practices! He therefore attempted to determine if there was some political factor at work - and in Roman society, where the emperor himself, the lead political figure, was worshipped, any group that disdained this practice would have to have had (to Roman eyes) SOME political overtones - refusing to worship the emperor (unless you had a special dispensation, like the Jews) amounted to high treason! The apostatizing church members, upon publication of the edict, evidently realized the political implications of Christianity in the context of Roman society might cause them some problems, and so when the time came decided in favor of saving their own skin. This caused Pliny to suspect, apparently, some further political ramifications, but he found nothing of the sort; only nothing more than "superstition" - i.e., religious/cultic practice! In the latest and greatest edition of Lowder's response, these points are thrown in:
Holding objects that prior to torturing the deaconesses, Pliny "knew that Christianity was a 'cult,' for he refers to investigations in which 'several forms of the mischief came to light.'" However, Pliny's reference to 'investigations' is a reference to his interviews of Christians during the trials; Pliny had no knowledge of Christians prior to those trials. This, of course, fails to answer the entirety of what I have outlined above, and therefore constitiutes no answer at all. Then we are told:
Finally, consider Pliny's off-hand reference to Christian belief: "For whatever the nature of [the Christians'] creed might be." These are not the words of a man with prior knowledge of Christianity. Actually, once we look at these words in their context, we find that they are not the words of a man with no prior knowledge of Christianity, but rather, the words of a man who is covering his butt in case he made a mistake. Let's look at this quote again:
In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel not doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither. Note that Pliny immediately follows our key words with a point that the "bad attitude" the Christians had towards his authority was such that he argues that they deserved a smack or two -- in other words, he is saying, "Trajan, just in case the creed these people hold to doesn't deserve punishment to the extent I punished them, i.e., just in case I fouled up, I want you to know that they did something that deserved a smack anyway!" This is no "off-hand" reference indicating ignorance, but a bureaucrat covering his ample posterior!
Then, we are told:
Second, if it were really true that priests would have investigated Christians, Holding should be able to provide multiple examples of Roman priests investigating Christianity. He has produced nothing of the sort. I should be able to provide this? Why? How many writings are there left over from Roman state priests who lived during the key Christian era? Carrier has named Plutarch, and that is fine, but here is what he says of that:
Consider, for example, Plutarch, a prominent priest and elder contemporary of Pliny, whose voluminous writings almost entirely survive--and of those that don't we still have all the titles: never once does Plutarch ever mention Christians, even though he went out of his way to write on many religious subjects, even to attack popular superstitions and foreign cults. On Superstition and Advice to Bride and Groom reveal a serious concern with superstitions and unsavory religions and a desire to elaborate and oppose them. On Isis and Osiris, On the E at Delphi, On the Oracles of the Pythia, On the Decline of Oracles, On the Slowness of Divinities to Anger, On the Demon of Socrates, etc., prove his interest in researching or discussing foreign or exotic religious views. Platonic Questions, On the Repugnant Beliefs of Stoics, Against the Stoics, Against Colotes, Table Talk, and so on, all show Plutarch to have had a keen concern to investigate and attack theological opinions opposed to his own. This is all quite fascinating and educational, but it means nothing in this context. As I have noted, we all agree that Christians existed during Plutarch's life, so his lack of mention of them has no bearing on the question of Pliny. Maybe Pluty considered the Christians to be a Jewish sect, and so would have considered his material on the Jews to have covered the subject. Who knows? The point is that Pliny's double career as priest and governor is what occassioned the letter to Trajan in the first place. Plutarch didn't become governor of a province, and so there was no call for him to have to make the same sort of legal decision about Christians. Either way, an appeal to Plutarch here is no more than an argument from silence, and of no relevance. But Lowder says to this:
...this is irrelevant to Holding's claim that Pliny, as a former state priest, would have had prior knowledge of Christianity. This is only relevant to Pliny's role as Governor which, as we've seen, provides no support for Holding's conjecture. The only response I have to this -- the only response that this really deserves -- is, Of course it's relevant! Was Pliny a two-dimensional character who forgot his past when he changed jobs? In short, nothing here, as yet, answers the basic points I have made. I have made the point that state priests were the safeguards of Roman religion, and that this, combined with the conscientious character of Pliny, makes it highly likely that he would have sought knowledge of any system of religious thought that was considered a threat to Rome. All that Lowder can do in response -- as usual! -- is beg an exception!
What do we learn about Jesus and/or Christianity from this historian/writer?
We learn that Jesus was worshipped, and that believers died for belief in Him, in the early second sentury. This must receive a plausible explanation that the Jesus-myth circle cannot provide. We learn of several aspects of worship that correspond with the NT: Worshipping on a fixed day, practice of the Eucharist (?), and the ethical grounding of Jesus' teachings.
Me: There is no record of ANYONE saying ANYTHING that is in the Gospels before the Gospels were widely circulated,
You: Paul's Epistles predate the Gospels -- Corinthians and Ephesians, both from circ. 50 I believe.
I believe your dating is correct but Paul says virtually nothing that is in the Gospels. Paul knows Jesus was crucified, but that is about it.
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. Pliny then records how Christians received their punishment.
Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?
The only thing this proves is that these people believed in Jesus. None of these people actually WITNESSED Jesus in life.
to all the nice folks who responded to my rant...
true - some Jews lacking any knowledge in their history, misled by empty suit "reformers, conservators, re-constructors" will wonder to other faiths.
but what any self respecting and yes honest Jew will tell you is that we LOATHE proseltyzers who prey on young Jews, confusing them with the "jesus was jewish" bull$78t, and gradually ripping these ignorant young people from their heritage, lineage and future...snatching their soul.
if your down with Jesus and think he is the one...then great, I am happy for you, but leave the Jew alone. Dont love us so much. the clandestine missionary activities funded by so many churches at quietly, yet delibrately and methodically pulling Jews away from their Jewish heritage is nothing less than a spritual genocide.
laugh at will, but the I take solace in the fact that all proseltyzers believe in the afterlife, and the G-d of Abraham dont take too kindly against those who attack his covenant physically or spritually.
You said: "I believe it will be Kerry in a squeeker. [sic]" and "I believe Kerry will prevail." See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1094279/posts?page=155#155
Also see your absurd post #24 on that thread, which was what I reacted to in the first place: "...this election is slipping out of Bush's hands...we are in big trouble. Kerry is running a sharp campaign...the flip flop issues do not matter. Kerry is out kicking ass and his campaign is going somewhere...Bush is not running an effective campaign, it is time to face it. Whatever one thinks of polls, he is behind in every one...It is not going well and we need to stop rationalizing it away."
So you can say "neither of us were on the mark" if you like, but actually you were dead wrong on the outcome AND the analysis; I was a percent off on the tally — and this prediction was made MARCH 15, before any political analysts were making any specific calls whatsoever — but you could have taken my analysis to the bank. I was badly off on the electoral college, but overall, any bettor would pick my position, not yours, if he or she wants the money.
Rule of thumb: doom and gloom on Republican prospects based on polls and media reports is almost never justified.
Unless, of course, we're talking Bob Dole.
We'll find out who is right.
Until that day I maintain that Jesus is Lord, and the Jewish Messiah.
1 Corinthians 11
Institution of the Lord's Supper
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
Matthew 7:15-16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Its a reference to all 4 gospels, dispelling your nonsensical claim.
Amazing.
What a narrow-minded, bigoted jerk you are. I've seen people banned for less offensive posts than this.
Many Jews converted to what is now called Christianity, but they prefer to be called "Believers", as do I. The word Christian was meant to be derogatory, but wasn't to Believers.
If you notice, Noah and Abraham became justified(found favor), in God's eyes, not because they were good, but because they "believed" God.
The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about the revealing of Jesus to the world. Either you believe He sent His Son, or God is a liar.
Jesus fulfills completely, ALL, Jewish prophesies on the subject. When Jesus said on the cross,"It is finished", It means He is done with His work. You either believe or don't. He won't beat you into submission to believe. He calls, He woos, He pursues, but He won't force.
One of the most striking stories to the Jews has to be the Story of Abraham and Issac. Who do the Jews think the lamb was that was provided by God?
I said Paul did not know much about what Jesus preached. I don't consider the blood-drinking ceremony to be a major part of his preaching, do you?
Are there many instances when Paul quotes the preaching of Jesus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.