The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

What I really don't understand here is why you are griping so much about me not accepting this one sentence as being reliable when I do think that there likely was a real person that the Jesus character in the gospels were based on. Why exactly are you so obsessed over this one sentence? It's as if your entire belief system hinges on this one sentence being a reliable source of information.

2 possibilities, you pick which is more likely:

Possibility Number 1)  jmfcst’s entire belief in Christianity, something he was been debating for 10 years on this forum, has all hinged on Tactius’ statement.  Which is why even the testimony of his conversion in Oct 92 is full of references to Tactius.

Possibility Number 2)  jmfcst has been arguing with a purposely blind idiot who is too afraid to admit the obvious

For crying out loud, you take things too literally - I didn't literally mean that your beliefs rely solely on Tacitus, just that you seem overly obsessive over a single sentence all things considered.

Again, I'm not saying Tacitus was not a good historian, just that in regards to that single sentence it doesn't seem like he did much research on the man himself. As I've pointed out and you have willfully ignored, there are scholars (including believers in Jesus) who do not support your assertion of reliability in regards to that single sentence. Are you saying they are blind idiots too?

[Sibboleth]

What's the point of this thread?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

What's the point of this thread?

Well clearly it's an excuse for me and jmfcst to get into another pissing match - can't you tell?

[True Federalist]

there is no evidence that the authors of the NT performed a coup upon some supposed “original” Christians.

There is considerable evidence that the First Jewish Revolt did the coup, with the more Judaic branches of pre-Revolt Christianity largely crushed between the Roman rock and rhe Zealot hard place.

Indeed, one could argue that Judaism died in the Jewish Revolts, with two successor religions Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism being founded out of the ashes.
 

[asexual trans victimologist]

The NT has attributes of an unfolding text anyway. You have to do some historical digging to understand a lot of what's going on in it (which jmfcst is pretty good at, even though I disagree with many of the theological conclusions that he draws from this). It's silly to claim otherwise.

Sorry if I am putting words into your mouth, but I don't agree with that statement in regard to some areas - I don't believe one has to have in depth knowledge of history to understand the NT, at least not doctrinally.   You might have to have some knowledge of geography to follow the geographical setting of the story, and you might have to understand terms like “legion” and “Centurion” to understand what is being described…but such knowledge is not needed for doctrinal purposes.  

The doctrines of the NT are meant to be universal, both in time and place…therefore understanding the setting and context of many of the books of the NT is irrelevant.  In fact, many of the books of the NT don’t include such information.

My wife’s old cult used to claim, “such and such passages can’t mean Paul was saying Christians are free from Moses’ dietary law, because all the churches of the NT followed Moses’ dietary law.”

It is very easy to nullify what the scripture says by assuming a context not given in scripture

Again, sorry if I am reading into your statement, I’m just very sensitive to claims that external knowledge is needed to understand the bible.

Oh, I understand this; I'm not saying that it's doctrinally or spiritually necessary, just that it's helpful if you want to engage in discussions about the text like we're doing now. I certainly don't think that a knowledge of Roman history is necessary for salvation, don't worry. Even I'm not that much of an academic elitist!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble,

you need to spend this weekend having your mental transmission checked, for you can't seem to make it up the slightless of hills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7BpxZhk-0#t=0m10s

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Dibble,

you need to spend this weekend having your mental transmission checked, for you can't seem to make it up the slightless of hills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7BpxZhk-0#t=0m10s

So your best refutation to my pointing out that there are serious, respected scholars who agree with me on the subject (with names you can check no less) is to assert that I have mental problems? Ad hominem is the last resort of the desperate, you know.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

there is no evidence that the authors of the NT performed a coup upon some supposed “original” Christians.

There is considerable evidence that the First Jewish Revolt did the coup, with the more Judaic branches of pre-Revolt Christianity largely crushed between the Roman rock and rhe Zealot hard place.

Indeed, one could argue that Judaism died in the Jewish Revolts, with two successor religions Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism being founded out of the ashes.
 

70AD is MUCH too late for a coup.  As we have seen in the discussion of this thread, Christianity was already widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, with the NT accurately portraying the scope and method of the spread.

Much of the NT was written prior to 70AD, especially books like Galatians and Romans…but those attempting to mix Moses’ Law with Christianity have always been around: pre-revolt, post-revolt, and even to this day (like the church my wife used to attend)…but the argument for the Law of Moses being superseded originates in the OT, not the NT.

So, if the “true” Christianity was supposed have included the Law of Moses, then why does the entire NT argue against it?  And if the NT doesn’t represent the original Christianity, then why does it so accurately portray its spread?

[The Mikado]

It's interesting to note that according to tradition (and in the case of James, possible corroboration by Josephus) the three most prominent Apostles/Church Fathers are all executed in the years immediately prior to the Revolt (Peter and Paul in Rome, James in Jerusalem by the Jewish authorities).  The traditional dates for all of their deaths are in a fairly narrow 60-62 AD range. 

jmf, what Nathan's getting at is that James' church in Jerusalem (pretty much all converted from Jews, and as the Book of Acts argues, a flock extremely susceptible to Judaising) died alongside the Jews of Jerusalem during the Roman sack of the city.  Again, it's not a coup so much as the wiping out of the Jerusalem Church ending their side of a dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christianity by causing the latter ceasing to exist, leading the latter to become preeminent by default.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I know this task is a ridiculous waste of time, before I even attempt it, but I will go the extra mile and take and refute just the first argument from your “scholars”:

2. There are real scholars who express the same doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Tacitus

There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[56]

1) Tacitus didn’t cite a source for each and every statement in his works…so, to object to his acceptance of Jesus’ existence based solely on him not citing his source is extremely hypocritical and dishonest, especially in light of the fact no objection to Jesus’ existence by unbelievers is ever raised, either in nonChristian historical accounts, not in the book of Acts, with the book of Acts containing all other arguments against the claims of Christianity.  

2) Tacitus records his own rejection of Jesus’ resurrection, and that rejection obviously was shared with many within the Roman government, including Nero.  So, if there was rejection Jesus’ existence within the Roman government, why did Tacitus accept Jesus’ existence?  Tacitus was in perfect position to know if the Roman government doubted the existence of Jesus, yet Tacitus’ statement about Jesus’ life and death was given as a matter of fact, showing that those facts were widely accepted in his experience within the Roman government and were without question.

---

But, like I said, this is a waste of time because your hackishness and the hackishness of these “scholars” is too hypocritical and illogical...and you have now joined Link on my ignore list.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's interesting to note that according to tradition (and in the case of James, possible corroboration by Josephus) the three most prominent Apostles/Church Fathers are all executed in the years immediately prior to the Revolt (Peter and Paul in Rome, James in Jerusalem by the Jewish authorities).  The traditional dates for all of their deaths are in a fairly narrow 60-62 AD range.  

jmf, what Nathan's getting at is that James' church in Jerusalem (pretty much all converted from Jews, and as the Book of Acts argues, a flock extremely susceptible to Judaising) died alongside the Jews of Jerusalem during the Roman sack of the city.  Again, it's not a coup so much as the wiping out of the Jerusalem Church ending their side of a dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christianity by causing the latter ceasing to exist, leading the latter to become preeminent by default.

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

[True Federalist]

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

First off, the date of when Luke-Acts and the Epistle of James were written is disputed, and by no means is there anything close to agreement that they were written pre-Revolt.  I'll concede that point for now, as it does not help your argument in the least.  The people who followed a Jewish Christianity and thus their documents and traditions would be largely destroyed in the Jewish Revolts.  Arguing that an absence of evidence implies evidence of absence is not good logic.  Indeed, Paul's own letters indicate that there were a wide variety of early Christians, hence his need even at that early date to warn against what he viewed as error.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Jmfcst - I've taken to creating a poll with it's own thread for the Tacitus issue, as this thread is being a little too dominated by our spat.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

First off, the date of when Luke-Acts and the Epistle of James were written is disputed

Haven’t we gone through this before?  Weren’t you the one who claimed that the dating of the book of Acts, written as a history of the early church, has nothing to do with where the historical account of the book ends (with Paul awaiting trial)

The accuracy of the historical context of Luke and Acts

---

, and by no means is there anything close to agreement that they were written pre-Revolt.  I'll concede that point for now, as it does not help your argument in the least.  The people who followed a Jewish Christianity and thus their documents and traditions would be largely destroyed in the Jewish Revolts.  Arguing that an absence of evidence implies evidence of absence is not good logic.  Indeed, Paul's own letters indicate that there were a wide variety of early Christians, hence his need even at that early date to warn against what he viewed as error.

I have NEVER claimed there weren’t a bunch of heresies floating around the early church, of which included the topic of the Law of Moses.  In fact, my own testimony has me receiving the Holy Spirit after reading the book of Galatians…so I was born into the argument concerning the Law of Moses.

And it doesn’t matter if the documents of the Judaizers survived or not – the argument for and against have long been known.  And except people like Herbert Armstrong, a racist who committed incest with his own sister and authored a whole line of heresies, the argument for the continuation of the Law of Moses has been flatly rejected.

But if Luke-Acts and Paul writings weren’t the shared opinions of Peter/James/John, then how do you explain the accuracy of their historical content?  If they didn’t attain their info from being in the right hand of fellowship with the leadership of the church, then how did they glean it?  You think they gleaned their info by being stowaways in a Christian caravan and copying down secretively what they had heard and then went off and formed their own story using an accurate historical context but writing in their own theology?  

Either there was a coup against church leadership very very early on in church history, like around 40AD, or the NT represents the beliefs of the early church.

[True Federalist]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

only because you acted as if I wasn't aware of the history of Judaizers…not only am I aware of their recorded history in the NT, I also have had modern contact with them.

---

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

Then please paint us a “corrected” historical record which allows Judaizers to be the real Christians and the writers of the NT to imposters.

In fact, why don’t you just skip straight to the scriptural proof and start with the OT and show how the current theology of the NT in regard to the Law of Moses being superseded is in error.

[True Federalist]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

only because you acted as if I wasn't aware of the history of Judaizers…not only am I aware of their recorded history in the NT, I also have had modern contact with them.

Well if your modern contact with Judaizers has only been with Armstrongites, I can understand why they would leave you with an unfavorable impression.

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

Then please paint us a “corrected” historical record which allows Judaizers to be the real Christians and the writers of the NT to imposters.

In fact, why don’t you just skip straight to the scriptural proof and start with the OT and show how the current theology of the NT in regard to the Law of Moses being superseded is in error.

I think we already had this debate over whether when God says something is perpetual or everlasting, does He mean it? Of course, the Law of Moses was established for the Hebrews, not humanity in general (save for its regulations concerning non-Hebrew interactions with Hebrews).  So Paul is correct that the Gentiles need not become Jews in order to receive God's grace, but it is an error to then go beyond that and assert that the Jews are no longer bound by the perpetual ordinances that were established for them, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well if your modern contact with Judaizers has only been with Armstrongites, I can understand why they would leave you with an unfavorable impression.

it's along the lines of the same erroneous argument., Armstrong just added a bunch of other stuff on top of it.

---

I think we already had this debate over whether when God says something is perpetual or everlasting, does He mean it? Of course, the Law of Moses was established for the Hebrews, not humanity in general (save for its regulations concerning non-Hebrew interactions with Hebrews).  So Paul is correct that the Gentiles need not become Jews in order to receive God's grace, but it is an error to then go beyond that and assert that the Jews are no longer bound by the perpetual ordinances that were established for them, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.

If God intended the Jewish Christians to keep the Law of Moses, then why has God kept the Temple destroyed for 1940 years?  That a pretty big gap for something that was supposedly perpetual, and it is no accident that those lasting ceremonial were symbolic of what Christ did by dying 1910 years ago. .

Is Jesus not the Passover Lamb for Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians?  Why would Jewish Christians continue to offer lambs as sacrifice once the real Lamb of God was sacrificed.


Your picture of the NT church would have a room full of believers, both Jew and Gentile, with the Jewish believers getting up and sacrificing lambs and spreading around the blood of animals, while the Gentile believers eat popcorn and watch the Jewish believers prove they understand nothing about what Christ has already done:

Exo 12: 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 “This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover.
 12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.
 14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD—a lasting ordinance.


…23 When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.
24 “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25 When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony.
 

What exactly would be the purpose of continued animal sacrifice?  And are you saying you don’t believe in the Lord’s Supper, which was supposed to be done in memory of Christ fulfilling what these animal sacrifices foreshadowed?

And did it ever occur to you that these “lasting ordinances” symbolized what Jesus would personally do for all eternity?

obviously, I understand this whole argument isn’t going to persuade you, because your position is not based on logic – that’s the thing about Judaizers, they rather continue to observe the Law to make themselves feel important, rather than give all importance to Christ:

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

But…hey…more power to you.
 

[True Federalist]

The lengthy gap in the temple observances doesn't bother me as it does you.  There have been previous gaps during the periods that the Jews turned away from God, such as when the tabernacle was captured and the period between the first and second temples.  Leviticus 26:27-45 conveys God's warning to the Jews of what will happen when they turn away from Him, and his promise to honor the perpetual covenant when they return to Him.  They just haven't returned, and until they do, there can be no third temple.

Incidentally, the bolded parts of your quote of Exodus 12 show up what I consider one of the weaknesses of the NIV translation.  Most other translations use "perpetual" or "everlasting" there to translate עוֹלָם (Strong's H5769).  That word occurs numerous times in the OT and always in the sense of forever, not in the sense of a long but not endless time as "lasting" would suggest as a possibility.

As for your popcorn example, if we Gentiles are there, then Numbers 15:14-15 is generally applicable.  We Gentiles are not obligated to participate in the ordained Jewish rituals, but if we attend, then we participate in the same manner as the Jews.

There have always been those who insist on following their desires in how to worship God instead of following His ordinances.  The incident of the Golden Calf despite having heard God Himself forbid idolatry is one example.  Nadab and Abidu were consumed for offering unsanctified fire. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed up by the earth for disputing Aaron's selection to the high priesthood.  When the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to build the Second Temple, the offers by the Samaritans to help were rebuffed.  We Gentiles are not part of God's chosen priesthood.  Pauline Christianity conveniently forgets that point.  Armstrongites embrace the silliness of Anglo-Israelism to get around that point.  And why?  Because people mistakenly assume that being part of God's priesthood means that one will be more highly valued by God.

But that one is not part of the priesthood does not mean that one cannot fully partake of God's grace.  The priesthood is an office, but it does not carry any special exaltation on the part of the holders.  That was a crucial error the Jews were making by the first century.  They were presuming their status as the chosen priesthood of God unto the nations made them superior.  They also had come to worship the laws that had given them rather than worship God, effectively turning them into a second brazen serpent.  Yet the Biblical text indicates quite the opposite.  God chose them because they were a motley bunch, and thus if they succeeded it would be an example of God's power.

The purpose of the Last Supper was not to institute a replacement for the Passover, altho the timing of the crucifixion was chosen to point out that a sacrifice was being made.  Rather, the communion of the Synoptics and the foot-washing of John both serve to reinforce a central tenet of Jesus' teachings, that one's station in life is not a reflection of the value God places upon one.  It is also a central theme of the Old Testament, along with relating the continuing unbelief in the universality of God's love, regardless of birth or station.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

since you disagree with a translation, then you need to be specific...which commands of the Law of Moses are you calling "perpetual or everlasting" and insisting that Jewish Christian, but not Gentile Christians, must still follow?

[True Federalist]

I'll work you up a complete list of them when I have time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'll work you up a complete list of them when I have time.

you're going to parse the Law of Moses into two groups:  laws still in effect for Jews, laws no longer in effect for Jews?!

on what basis, exactly, are you parsing it?

[True Federalist]

Covenants and ordinaces qualified by עוֹלָם (Strong's H5769) in the first five books of the OT to be perpetual.

Genesis 9:12,16 - The covenant to never flood the earth again.

Genesis 13:15, 17:7-8 - The promise that the land of Canaan would belong to Abraham's descendants.

Genesis 17:13 - The covenant of circumcision for Abraham, his descendants, and their slaves.

Genesis 17:19 - The covenant that will be made with Isaac. (Uncertain, but I take this to refer to Genesis 22:17-18.)

Genesis 22:17-18 - (by way of Gen 17:19) The descendants of Isaac will possess the gates of their enemies, and all nations shall be blessed by Isaac's descendants.

Genesis 48:4 - (as recounted by Jacob to Joseph) The promise that the land of Canaan would belong to Jacob's descendants specifically out of Abraham's descendants.

Exodus 12:14,17,24 - Jews are to celebrate the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

Exodus 27:21, 28:43, 29:9,28, 30:21, 40:15 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Exodus 31:16-17 - Jews are to celebrate the Sabbath.

Leviticus 3:17 - Jews are to eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 6:18,22, 7:34,36, 10:9,15, 24:3,8,9, 25:32,34 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Leviticus 16:29,34, 23:31 - Jews and Gentiles residing among them must do no work on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Leviticus 17:7 - No Jew is to make a sacrifice except at the altar in front of the tabernacle.

Leviticus 23:14 - No Jew in the land of Israel is to eat bread or grain until the offering of first fruits has been made at the temple.

Leviticus 23:21 - Jews are to celebrate Shavuot (aka Pentecost).

Leviticus 23:41 - Jews are to celebrate Sukkot.

Numbers 10:8, 18:8,11,19,23, 19:10,21, 25:13 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Numbers 15:15 - Gentiles may offer sacrifice in the same manner as the Jews. Gentiles residing in the land of Israel are subject to the same laws as the Jews.


Not a lengthy list of perpetual requirements for the Jews unless you want to go into details of the priesthood.  Keep the three festivals, keep the day of repentance, keep the sabbath, don't eat fat or blood, and circumcise.

If עוֹלָם does not mean perpetual but only until Jesus came, you may want to consider buying a big boat, since we could have another flood at any time in that case.

I won't claim that there might not be other perpetual requirements that used other language to assert that.  While I have been going through the Bible for a careful perusal of its contents, that perusal has not yet reached Deuteronomy, which doesn't use עוֹלָם very much. (I could have included Deuteronomy 23:3,6 in my list above, but I doubt regulations concerning the Ammonites and Moabites have much relevance when they no longer exist as peoples.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you lost me....what scripture gives you the right to keep some of the Law of Moses and yet ignore other parts of the Law of Moses?

Joshua1: 7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.  Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you?"

[True Federalist]

I'm not saying that's it's my right to change any of the law.  Quite the contrary.  What I am pointing out are those portions which according to the Bible, God Himself said were perpetual and thus would not be subject to later revisions by Him.  Hence, any later statement that purports to revoke those portions is indicative either of error or of a capricious God who cannot be trusted to keep His word. For what I hope are obvious reasons, I choose the former. I do not believe in a capricious God.