Talk Elections

I'd like to hear nonbelievers thoughts on this...

since it is a historical fact (verified independently outside of the bible) that Christianity had spread throughout the Roman empire by 60AD, to the extent that, both in geography and in number, it was recognizable to the authorities. (In fact, the book of Acts not only describes in accurate detail the geography, places, names of the 1st Century Mediterranean world, it also accurately describes the breath of Christianity up to 60AD.)...

...So, based on the rapid spread of Christianity as recorded in history (in both biblical and nonbiblical sources), both in Judea and throughout the Roman empire…is there any reasonable argument against the existence of a man named Jesus, and that that “(from Wiki...)Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire”?

Now, obviously you can disagree that he preformed maricles and rose from the dead…but is there any reasonable argument about the basic historical facts as quoted above from Wiki?

---

And if you don’t believe in even the existence of the man known as Jesus, what is your theory to explain the rapid spread of Christianity from ~30AD through 60AD if the man himself was merely a myth?

Playing devil's advocate here, what are the independent sources you speak of regarding the spead of christianity by 60AD?  Josephus?  Who or what else?

Roman authorities thoughout the empire recorded dealing with Christians (e.g. Roman historian Tacitus documented Nero's persecution of Christians after the fire of 64AD)

Fair enough.  Don't take this the wrong way, but I would avoid using the Bible as a self authenticating sort of reference if you're looking to debate non-believers.  From their perspective (perhaps not just theirs), just because the Bible (...Book of Acts etc) says Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, crucified by Pilate...died and was buried...3 days he rose from the dead etc...doesn't mean from that perspective it happened.  Just that the Bible says it did.

You're better off using sources like the one you cited above, if you wish to be persuasive with this group...assuming the independent source isn't getting his information from the "disputed" historical source or what not.

That's all I have to say about that.

my point is that since Jesus was portrayed as someone well known to both the public and to the authorities (both Roman and Jewish), how could such a myth gain acceptance?  After all, would you buy into a story of a man who supposedly was well known yet no one you know had ever heard of him?  Now, such a tell might possibly sell in BFE, but not in Roman ruled towns that were hooked into the goings on.

Also, the book of Acts documented several non-believers arguments used to attempt to discredit Christianity, but none of them deny the existance of Jesus, and there are several nonChristian references to the very same arguments against Christianity echoed in the book of Acts.  And, not surprisingly, the Jewish Talmud never denies the existance of Jesus, nor does the Jewish historian Josephus...in fact, Rome itself acknowleged Jesus death and confirms the spread of Christianity from Judea to Rome, just as the book of Acts states:

understood. I am simply stating that:

1) Jesus' existence and death in Jerusalem was not in question, not to 1st Century Christians and not to 1st Century nonChristians.

2) The book of Acts account of the spread of Christianity up to 60AD fits the nonChristian historical record.

There's little doubt that Christianity had spread far and wide throughout the Hellenized eastern half of the Empire and had begun to build a small but visible presence in Rome itself by ~60 CE.  Absolutely.  Whether the early church is anything jmfcst would have recognized as Christian is a different matter.

As for Jesus' historicity, I've never really doubted it myself, but Jesus without the Resurrection is not a God.

Agreed, different topic needing different thread.

---


The purpose of this thread is not to establish the validity of the miracles (of which there will not be historical evidence), rather it is to establish the historicity of Jesus’ existence and death.

actually, let's go ahead and deal with that here under the assumption you’re saying that the NT doesn’t reflect 1st Century Christianity (if you’re questioning whether my beliefs match the NT, then that is an entirely different topic and shouldn’t be discussed in this thread).

So, are you saying the NT doesn’t represent the beliefs of the early church?  If so, then what is the theory for its divergence?

May I field that for a moment? I think Mikado might be referring to the fact (or idea, rather, since it's hard to pin these things down historiographically) that there were various sources either available to the early Church that are no longer available to us (the 'Q source', for instance) or that parts of the early Church accepted as canonical that were later decided not to be, along with various differences of practice and ritual. Am I close, Mikado?

Here's my answer from that other thread.

well, even if you throw out all four gospel, you still have wide academic consensus on the authenticity of 7 of Paul's letters (Romans, 1&2Cor, Gal, Philippians, Philemon, 1Thes)...heck any one of them could be used to paint a picture of the early church.

True. I think we should wait for Mikado to elucidate what exactly he meant.

Is there anyone who seriously doubts the 'person' Jesus Christ?

I'm not disputing the influence of Paul.  However, it's worth pointing out just how much of Paul's epistles are devoted to correcting "errors" in churches that he and his people had set up throughout the Empire.  People had begun believing in wildly divergent themes within Christianity straight from its birth, and Gentile Christianity's primary early demographics (in Rome, at least) of slaves and women didn't contain a particularly large number of educated people.  Add to that Christianity's status as an Eastern "mystery faith" in the eyes of many, and it had an attraction to the 1st century equivalent of BRTD: joiners and mystics desperate for spiritual truths whether they were coming from Isis, Mithra, or Jesus.

In Greece, at least, Christianity had a nice established base to grow on in the Godfearers, or Greek Gentiles who believed in and worshipped the God of the Jews but did not want to go through the difficult process of converting to Judaism.  They tended to convert en masse to Christianity, especially after 70 CE when the Romans burned down Jerusalem and being associated with Judaism no longer seemed a good political decision.

Prior to 70 CE, you also have the huge community of Jewish Christians that Jmf would probably consider Judaizers, providing a big counterbalance to Gentile Christianity.  It's only after many of the Jewish Christians die alongside the Jews in the First Jewish-Roman War and the remaining ones are marginalized that Rome and Greece finally truly eclipse Jerusalem as the center of Christianity.

about 2-3% of scholars.

Let me just say this out loud, 'cause I wanna get this straight...

So, you’re saying that Tacitus, who believed that Jesus existed and was executed by order of Pontius Pilatus…was full of crap?  I'm right about that, right? That's your story?

The man you just mocked, the nonChristian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117), studied rhetoric in Rome to prepare for a career in law and politics…he was known to love hunting and the outdoors…he married the daughter of the famous general Agricola, …and started his career (probably the latus clavus, mark of the senator) under Vespasian…and around 81 or 82, under Titus, entered political life, as quaestor…and advanced steadily through the cursus honorum, becoming praetor in 88 and a quindecimvir…and was a member of the priest college in charge of the Sibylline Books and the Secular games…and gained acclaim as a lawyer and an orator…was known for his skill in public speaking…who from his seat in the Senate became suffect consul in 97 during the reign of Nerva, being the first of his family to do so…who during his tenure reached the height of his fame as an orator when he delivered the funeral oration for the famous veteran soldier Lucius Verginius Rufus…who prosecuted Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa, for corruption and sent him into exile…who in 112 or 113AD held the highest civilian governorship, that of the Roman province of Asia in Western Anatolia…who authored such works as  De vita Iulii Agricolae (The Life of Agricola), De origine et situ Germanorum (Germania), Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue on Oratory),  Historiae (Histories), and Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals)…

…you’re telling me that this man, my chief witness… considered to be the greatest Roman historian…just decided, out of the clear blue sky to get sloppy when reporting the origins of Christianity and the official actions of a Roman Procurator?
I think your emotions have you in denial, sir.

jmfcst, when dealing with ancient historians it's important to remember that none of them are all that trustworthy in the way you and I would define 'trustworthy'. Tacitus isn't the worst offender by far, but he still is prety worthless as a chief witness for the defense. In general anything beyond direct eyewitness acounts from antiquity can be disregarded if it isn't corroborated by other sources and/or archaeological findings.

But it is corroborated!  That’s my point - If nonChristian (both Roman and Jewish) accounts are wrong, then why does Acts have the same objections being presented by nonbelievers as indicated in both the Roman and Jewish records?!

Doesn’t the fact that we have 3 differing historical groups (Christian/Roman/Jewish), who have no reason to agree on this subject, all agreeing on the nature of the argument, prove that these were indeed the arguments of that day?


When they all agree on what was being argued, and when they all accept Jesus existence and method of death as a given…That’s pretty conclusive to me that the historicity of Jesus existence and death can not be reasonably questioned, unless you are complete hack with an axe to grind.

In fact, you’ll find Jewish nonChristians historical sources, like the Talmud, making the exact same arguments against Christianity as recorded in the NT – the NT gives MANY accounts of the argument s of nonbelievers.  In fact, the Talmud boldly admits, “[yeah, we handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified.  And we’d do it all over again given the chance]”
 

"On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, 'Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.' But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God]says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government” (Talmud - Sanhedrin 43)

Mikado, I'm interested in learning more about the Godfearers; do you know of any good academic texts on them, in a historical or theological context?

I won't disagree with that. Just don't overtly rely on Tacitus alone in your argument. (Which is a bit on the trivial side, but that isn't that important.)

How do you explain so many buying into the existence of a previously unknown gospel written down on golden plates never shown publicly?  The fact is that it's not at all uncommon historically for religions to grow quickly despite being considered a myth by the vast majority.  The rapid growth of Christianity in general, and the Pauline version of it in particular is but one example of many.

Except that the majority didn't consider the existence of a religious leader named Jesus (Christ) a myth.

Let's examine a few things, shall we? First, the passage from the account given in Annals:


Let's analyze the facts, shall we?

1. Tacitus was born around 56 AD, after the crucifixion would have taken place, so he wasn't an eyewitness. Therefore he had to get his information from other sources after the fact.

2. Annals was not written until about 116 AD. This is AFTER the gospels were in circulation. The singular mention of "Christus" in the account constitutes one sentence with only a brief summary of what happened to Jesus. No source for this information is given.

However, some scholars have pointed out that if Josephus had used official historical archives as his source he would have likely gotten Pontius Pilate's title correct - Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator. Interestingly the gospels have the same error. There is only a single sentence on the matter, and it could have easily been him simply echoing what Christians themselves had to say on the subject.

Also, it's clear that Tacitus doesn't think much about the importance of this "Christus", otherwise he would have given more information - rather the surrounding passages in question seem to be more about early Christians, which is where the real historical value of his work in the matter lie. But on the subject of Jesus there's no source and no information he couldn't have gotten directly from Christians themselves, so on the subject of the historicity of Jesus the passage is pretty much useless.


Yeah, and you're perfectly calm, as indicated by your staunch defense of the historical veracity of a single sentence.

Neither Jew Nor Greek: Constructing Early Christianity by Judith Lieu is pretty good.  That book takes a glance at an issue I hadn't seen discussed before: how well would Gentiles who believed in the Jewish God but weren't willing to convert to the Jewish faith fit into Christianity? 

Godfearers have been something of a controversial topic because there's some controversy about just how many of the traditional model of a Godfearer sitting at the edge of the synagogue, eager to learn but unwilling to go the mile with circumcision and Jewish dietary law there actually were.  That said, even if the revisionist position that there were far fewer of them than were traditionally believed is correct, there were a larger group of people relatively familiar with Judaism and its doctrines thanks to the widespread publication of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) in the Roman Empire of the period, and quite a bit of public interest in this ancient, quirky faith.

And the majority believed in the existence of Joseph Smith as well.  But did the majority in the 1st century AD believe in the miracles attributed to him and his apostles?  No, and that was the point I was making.  And even of those who did believe in the miracles, it is far from from clear that a majority of them believed that they were because he was the literal son of God.

Other than a few kooks who don't deserve to be called scholars, that Jesus existed is not in doubt.  That the doctrines he preached correspond to Pauline Christianity is in doubt.  There are a number of parallels that could be drawn between early Mormonism and early Christianity, tho how valid those parallels are, we can never be certain of, mainly because we have far less historical knowledge of Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth than we do of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, or for that matter of Bahá'u'lláh and Báb to name a third example so that you don't think that the parallels I mention are solely between Mormonism and Christianity.

What Christianity's official position was on a number of major doctrinal points wasn't really "settled" until the 6th century, either (it's only Christianity becoming the official faith of the Roman Empire in the 4th century that really begins the process of making those decisions, though certain heresies like Gnosticism were already in decline by that point).  My favorite example is always Origen, the third century theologian who was a strong proponent that even the obvious metaphorical language should be taken literally.  He saw the passage "There are eunuchs who became eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" and...well...became a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

 
Dude, this thread isn’t about proving the miracles, rather it is about proving that Jesus’ existence and nature of his death were accepted as fact, not just by Christians, but by two nonChristian groups who were in position to have known better – the Jews and the Romans.

It’s a slippery slope, because if it is admitted that the historical context of the NT is accurate, then one is forced to explain how separate and disconnected groups of believers concocted a singular story that so efficiently and profoundly meshes with the OT, without even the need for the NT to point out, much less explain, 99% of the connections.

fine, but let's learn how to walk before we attempt to run - let's just attempt to use this thread to to lay a foundation that Jesus was real and that the NT historical context is correct.

::) Yet he was an expert of Roman history from 14AD to 96AD.  Had access to the official Roman records and to the highest members of Roman government, and he lived in a period of time where he would have had mentors who would have known if Rome had no knowledge of the existence and death of Jesus Christ…and he treated Jesus existence and death as a given

---


You figured this out on your own?

---


Yet, it does prove that Tacitus, who was mentored by those who would have known, and who was unequaled in his day regarding Roman 1st Century history, accepted the reality of Jesus existence and death as a given.

---



Dibble, you have proven that you are not only focused on Christianity (which is odd because usually people don’t focus on something they don’t believe in), but you have also proven that you are also incapable of being honest on the subject of Christianity: you keep insisting on proof of the invisible (God), yet you can’t even accept recorded history of things that were visible (the life and death of Jesus Christ).

---
So, allow me to summarize this thread:

The nonChristian historical record is EXACTLY as one would expect if the historical account of the NT were true: 

1)   since Jesus was not leading a rebellion, he was simply a footnote to those who didn’t believe in his deity (both Roman and Jew), yet his existence was accepted as fact by Roman and Jewish authorities.

2)   the points of contention regarding Jesus as recorded in the historical record of the NT, match perfectly with Roman and Jewish records.  In fact, the points of contention recorded in the NT are STILL being argued today.

3)   The NT historical geographical record of the spread of Christianity accurately matches the historical records from nonChristian sources.

Thus proving that the NT, even if one doesn’t believe the NT miracles, accurately portrays the existence and death of Jesus, the arguments surrounding those events, and the geographical spread of Christianity.

So, even without examining the supernatural claims of the NT, the NT historical record of the interactions between Jesus, his followers and the rest of the world is spot on and beyond reasonable doubt.

if the NT accurately portrays the existence and death of Jesus, the arguments surrounding those events, and the geographical spread of Christianity...then how can you say the NT doesn't accurately portray Christian doctrine within the early church?

In other words:  If the NT was written by imposters who weren’t representative of early church doctrine, then how did they get the history of the early church correct?

The Roman Empire was a wee bit bigger that what's mentioned there.
No.

The idea is that the NT was written by people who were representative of the strand of early church doctrine that won out at the later councils and such (hence why its writings became, well, the NT), not that they were imposters.

Dibble,

On the Prefect/Procurator question, let’s examine corroboration between the sources.

We have 5 sources that state Pilate was governing Judea at the time of Christ’s death – The NT, Josephus, Tacitus, Philo, and the Inscription (the one calling Pilate Prefect of Judea)….so, on this point, all 5 are in agreement.

From the array of writings of Josephus and Tacitus and Philo, they used both terms (Prefect/Procurator) many times, so these 3 men knew the difference between the terms and were more than capable of using the terms correctly….also, from their writings, it is beyond question that the 3 used official Roman records in their research and described many governors of Judea…so there is no reason to conclude either one used Christian sources in their description of Pilate as procurator.  Any claim that they did is simply laughable.

So, of the 5 sources, 1 calls Pilate a Prefect, and the other 4 call him a Procurator.  It’s the inscription that is the old man out, that is what you are holding up as the standard while the rejection the 4 other sources.  And I can guarantee you that if the NT was the odd man out and you had corroboration between 4 other nonNT sources, you’d be screaming that the NT was in error.

Also, Josephus uses the word “propraetor”,  showing that he as in depth knowledge of Romon titles.  In fact, Tacitus even uses the word “propraetor” in his writings (Annals Book 6: “on the death of Flaccus Pomponius, propraetor of Syria”), showing that he had knowledge of the distinctive terms used by Augustus when he set up rule over Judea prior to the birth of Christ, as described by Dio Cassius.

Once Flaccus Pomponius died, there was a span of 6 years of Pilate rule in Judea without a Syrian legate in place (Emperor Tiberius appointed a replacement to Pomponius, Aelius Lamia, but Tiberius kept Lamia in Rome)

The fact that Dio Cassius/Tacitus/Josephus/Philo all demonstrate deep knowledge of Roman structure, terms, and lingo…shows that they were all familiar with the source of official Roman records.  Also, it is highly unlikely that Tacitus, whose diligence is not questioned in the fact that he has been proven to have accurately described the titles of hundreds of other Roman officials, including the propraetorship of the Syria, wouldn’t know Pilate’s title.

Also, there is a mountain of evidence to prove that Roman officials could maintain multiple titles – they did not have to go by a single title – some Syrian “propraetors” also carried the title of “legate” and “governors”...Pilate could have easily been both a prefect and a procurator, or he could have been a prefect or a time and a procurator for another span of time.

So, in regard to the Pilate’s title, we are left with corroboration between the NT and 3 other highly regarded sources.  To claim that these other sources relied on the NT for their knowledge of Pilate is laughable in light of their body of work.  

True, even in the history recorded within the NT, there were doctrinal fires that had to be put out in almost every congregation – in fact, most the epistles were written for this very purpose.

But, given the fact most books of the NT can be proven to have been in widespread use by the early 2nd Century, and given the fact of the historical accuracy of the NT we’ve been discussing in this thread, there is no reasonable argument for the NT not representing the viewpoints of the original movers and shakers of the early church…and there is no evidence that the authors of the NT performed a coup upon some supposed “original” Christians.

1. Being an expert does not mean his work would be flawless and beyond reproach, which you admitted earlier in the thread. And yet you are insisting I treat it like it is.
2. The relevant question is whether or not he just accepted the account given by Christians or if he did actual research on the existence of Jesus.


Weren't you going to mind your manners?

Anyways, I pointed it out because it's relevant to context - if he didn't think much about the "Christus" person why would he put any research into it? He's basically just saying "They worship some guy who got crucified". It's a rather mundane claim at that point, and he may have just accepted it at face value because it was mundane and not of interest for him to verify. Can you with intellectual honesty say there's no reasonable doubt here?


1. My 'focus' on Christianity is due to the fact that I live in a majority Christian country and it happens to be Christians I have the most interactions with. If my goal is to convince a religious person that their religion isn't based on rational thinking or facts I'm not going to discuss some other religion. What would be the point of that? If you were a Muslim I'd talk about Islam with you, but you happen to be a Christian so it's blatantly obvious that I'd talk about Christianity with you.

2. As you damn well know not all recorded history is accurate, and if we're looking at something that doesn't sound like a reliable source on the subject in question I'm not going to accept it as reliable. It's the same standard of evidence I use elsewhere.

3. Given your long, long follow up on the minor issue of the prefect/procurator issue I think it should be obvious to everyone here that you are heavily emotionally invested in your beliefs - if you don't think it ever clouds your judgment you're deluding yourself.




I do hope you're being facetious.

Well, no. I'm not saying that, and I doubt that's what Mikado is saying either; but in terms of practice and to a certain extent doctrine, there certainly were some features of the early church that you and I would have a difficult time intuitively recognizing.

Dibble, almost nobody seriously involved in Biblical scholarship or Roman history doubts or proceeds from a position of doubt on the historicity of Jesus as a person any more, if they ever did, no matter how devoutly secular they may be.

Please remember that my original post said that I think someone the stories in the Bible are based on did likely exist - we're just sketchy on the exact details of that person's life because all writing on the subject comes well after his death.

My point on arguing over Tacitus's passage is that it's just not a reliable source for the reasons I've pointed out because jmfcst tried to pull it out like it's some kind of useful weapon to bludgeon me into submission.

Dibble,

the body of work of Cassius/Tacitus/Josephus/Philo/NT is 100k times greater than the single stone inscription referring to Pilate as a Prefect...yet somehow you believe that inscription is somehow more accurate.

Also, that stone inscription your banking so much of your Prefect argument on, was found inscribed on the bottom of a seat within a theater in Caesarea that was built by decree of Herod the Great...that fact that it was used as the flipside of a stone supporting someone's butt could very well mean it was written in error, discarded, then later used in the maintenance of the theater due to usefulness of the value of the stone it was written upon.

All right. 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.

Did I not just call this a minor issue? And yet here you are, focused intently on it. Again, you delude yourself if you think you aren't emotionally invested.

This is a topic for another thread and is more an argument for not buying into tradition, but I will address it here:

1)   Go through the NT and make a list of doctrines taught within the NT.
2)   Go through the NT and make a list of the doctrinal fires being put out.
3)   Now take List 1 and List 2 and see if there are parallels to each item on both lists to the teachings within the OT.

Fact:  If everything on List 1 & 2 has a parallel within the OT, then there is no evidence the early church taught anything in contradiction to the OT.

Heck, this fact is taken as a given within the NT:

Acts 17:11 “They examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”

Acts 24:14 “I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,”

Rom 3:21 “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.”

---

Now, compare the scope of List 1 (what was taught) to the scope of List 2 (what was corrected) and you'll notice that the congregations screwed up just about everything the Apostles taught.

If this is the case, then why do you say, “there certainly were some features of the early church that you and I would have a difficult time intuitively recognizing”?

---

Look at it this way – if the epistles are proof that the early congregations screwed up every doctrine taught by the Apostles, even simple concepts like the resurrection of the dead, what makes you think there is some doctrine of some complicated ritual that didn’t have to be corrected?

See, that’s why the letters that make up the books of the NT were intended to be circular (which is why they survived), because the congregations were all screwing up and the lessons of the screw ups of each congregation were applicable to every congregation, because the problems being addressed were universal in nature because the Gospel in itself is universal.

But, some denominations claim that there were original teachings beyond the simple teachings stated in the NT, teachings which all the congregations kept and didn’t screw up, which were passed down through tradition…and this claim serves as the justification of many complicated rituals based on tradition rather than on scripture.

So, the next time someone tells you, “xyz is what the apostles taught and it has survived through tradition”, respond with, “Then why doesn’t the NT have an example of a church screwing up xyz, because the epistles of the NT show them screwing up everything else?”

I understand what you're saying, but that wasn't really the point I was making, which was historical rather than doctrinal; as you said, this is really something for another thread. I'd be interested in that thread, but for now let's get back to the subject at hand.

I never said I wasn't emotionally invested, after all it is my religion.  But I am not the one being accused of being a hack - most posters, religious or otherwise, find your rejection of Tacitus' acknowledgement of Jesus' existence and death to be completely absurd.

And most of them understand that the early and rapid spread of Christianity across such a vast area saturated with Roman rule and Jewish synagogues,  would have been impossible if Jesus’ existence, rejection by the Jews, and death at the hands of the Romans wasn’t accepted as a given by both Romans and Jews, because both the Romans and Jews had networks to communicate the events in Judea across the Roman world and across the Jewish synagogues.

The fact that both the Roman rule and Jewish synagogues acknowledged Jesus’ existence and death provided the Apostles with someone to argue with, which created a scene that drew in many more passersby’s and thus helped spread the gospel.  If both the Roman and Jews had simply said, “Hey, we have no idea what they’re babbling about”, then there wouldn’t have been much of an argument to draw attention to.

But the fact that his existence and death was recognized by both Rome and Jews, meant that both were pulled into the argument – which is EXACTLY what you see taking place in the book of Acts time and time again.

---

Look at it this way – if you didn’t acknowledge the existence of the bible, would you even be spending time discussing it with me?  You would quickly lose interest and leave me to argue with myself.

So, the mere fact that Jesus’ life and death were acknowledged as a given, meant that the claims about him were of great interest to many people. 

true, but the scope of the NT, both in doctrinal agreement and geography, is strong evidence that it was written by the bigwigs of early Christianity.

If the NT just represented a small cross-section of Christianity and not the main vein, then it could hardly have such a huge historical scope.
 

@Dibble,

Continuing the “accepted as a given” theme, but this time in relation to Paul…the fact that Paul was a known member of the Pharisees, made him a good candidate to spread the gospel, because no matter where he went, the synagogues were eager to confront him.  The fact that Paul was a known entity meant he had a huge target painted on his back.  And being a target greatly helped in spreading the Gospel, because when you’re a target, you attract attention, which causes a scene, which causes crowds of onlookers to gather, which provides an audience to hear your message.

1. "Most posters"? Where did you get this data from? I see you and maybe one poster who may or may not have been being facetious. There's maybe Nathan, but he seemed to be more objecting to the notion that I was proposing Jesus didn't exist at all. (which I wasn't) On the other hand belgiansocialist warns you not to use Tacitus as a primary witness. So you've got no basis for claiming that most of the other people on this forum support you on the matter - if you want some real data about that then make a poll or something. If you'd like I can go ahead and do it for you.

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

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



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.



I'm sorry, but... what? You start with saying that it's about something being accepted as a given, and then you talk about Paul being a target- I'm not making the connection here, and I don't see how you're connecting the two. It seems you wrote this rather in a hurry (saw the incomplete bit you edited out) so maybe you didn't notice that this might not be a complete thought in text form. Care to elaborate?

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.

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?

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?

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.
 

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!

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 (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.

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?

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.

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”:


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.

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.

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.

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

---



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.

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.

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.

---


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.

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


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.

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

---


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:


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.
 

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.

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?

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?

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.)

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?"

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.

but what passage allows you to parse the Law of Moses when the scripture is clear it is to be treated as a whole?

Joshua 1:7 “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?"

Dt 27:26 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Lev 18:5 "Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

---


so, you're admitting that nothing in the bible gives you permission to parse the Law of Moses, and that therefore you have no basis in doing so?  In fact, you're admitting that you don't even trust the scriptures?

While I disagree with jmfcst regarding how some of the contents of the New Covenant are to be applied, he's entirely right on this, and that he admirably has never tried to pick and choose from the Mosaic Law.

Understood.  You claim the whole of the Mosaic Law is superseded.  Problem is, this contradicts what the Old Testament says.


I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.  The contradictions between what he wrote concerning the Mosaic Law and what is in the received Pentateuch are so great, that the only logical alternative is to believe that major errors are in the received Pentateuch.  Problem is, once one does that, if one claims major errors in the Pentateuch, then one has thrown out everything certain about the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that all one is left with is a bunch of unrigorous nonsense.  (Which might be fine for a Universalist, but not for me.)

But...but...how does Christianity even work if you throw out Paul?

Contradicts the OT?!  The OT states point blank that the Law of Moses will be considered broken and superseded by a New Covenant:

Jer 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
   “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
   I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
   to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them,”
            declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
   after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
   and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
   and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
   or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
   from the least of them to the greatest,”
            declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
   and will remember their sins no more.”

---


Well, if you reject that the Law of Moses was superseded, you have to throw out the ENTIRE NT, not just Paul’s writings.

Mat 26: 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins….Mat 27: 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.  51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Mark 14: 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luke 22:20 “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

The fact that the curtain of the Temple which hid the Holy of Holies, the most holy place in the OT church, the abode of the presence of God, where the blood was placed on the Ark of the Covenant on the Day of Atonement, demonstrated that the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses was over.

So, that’s 3 out of 4 Gospels…

---

…and here’s Johnny:

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus stated the true worshippers of God will no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and come to Jerusalem once a year – thus declaring that observance to the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer required of God’s people.

Then, in addition to the 12 letters of Paul and the 4 Gospels, you’d have to throw out the Book of Acts, because it approved of Paul…then you’d have to throw out the book of Hebrews because it states the whole Law of Moses has been superseded...and then you have to throw out the rest of the NT.

You will not find a single scripture, either in the OT or in the NT, which parses the Law of Moses.  Both OT and NT treat the Law of Moses as an indivisible unit.  And you certainly won’t find a passage which states only parts of the Law of Moses will be superseded.

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?! 

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.   There were suspensions in the temple observances before the destruction of Herod's Temple during the periods when the Jews turned away from God.  Until they return to God, even if they were to observe the temple rites they would be of no value, which is why God has prevented them from occurring.  Only when God deems that the Jews have returned to God can the temple be restored.

I am not a hard supersessionist.  The passage you quote in Jeremiah is consistent with soft supersessionism, in which the new covenant is an addition to, not a replacement for the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. I do not see the rending of the veil as symbolic of the termination of the old covenants, but as a symbol that until the Jews returned to God, a return which necessarily includes their acceptance of Jesus, the temple rites were no longer of value. Works alone are insufficient if they are not done with the proper faith.

All Paul wrote was a bunch of letters. The real meat is in the Gosepls and Revalation.

That was in Origen's youth. His theological work tended toward the reverse - to look for metaphorical meanings. He believed that the OT especially contained many absurdities, and things that would be immoral if taken literally, and concluded they pointed instead to spiritual truths.

How do you know it is the later statement that is false, rather than the former?

Pauline Christianity asserts not only that the former is true but predicts its own beliefs, so the combination of the error being in the OT while the Pauline texts are correct cannot be logically held.  That both are in error would be logically consistent, but would make the Bible not particularly useful as a basis of religious belief.

Unlike Pauline Christianity, Islam asserts that the Biblical texts are corrupted and that is what caused God to give the Quran to Muhammad.  While logically consistent, I don't believe in Muhammad any more than I do Paul or Joseph Smith.

You misunderstood my point – Matthew/Mark/Luke state that the veil tore, meaning that God’s presence is no longer to be found in the Holy of Holies, if it were still there, then the tearing of the veil would have killed everyone on the other side of the curtain (which was the purpose of the curtain to begin with).  So, if there is no longer any need for the Holy of Holies, then it doesn’t matter if the Temple is restored or not – there is simply nothing to restore for a Christian in regard to the Temple without the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.

Moreover, in the gospel of John, Jesus stated that we are now in a age where God’s worshippers are no longer required to go to Jerusalem – meaning its gonna be a tad difficult to go about the sacrifices in Jerusalem when God’s people aren’t even required to go to Jerusalem.  

But, in any case, I find this conversation quite illogical and unproductive...it doesn’t matter what the NT says, you’re going to stick to your view.

While we agree that the rending of the veil signifies that God's presence left the Holy of Holies, we profoundly disagree on the reason why, and whether there will be a time He deems it proper to return.

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

well, considering it tore at the moment of Christ's death, it has everything to do with the New Covenant instituted by the death of Christ, which is exactly what he stated during the Last Supper - "take this and drink it, this is the blood of the new covenant"

and another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

---


Yep, for that is the location from where the antichrist will be ruling when Christ returns, and will be the location where Christ will rule during his 1000 year reign on earth.

Zechariah 14:16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.  If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”

So you believe that Jews still need to circumcise?  I was under the impression that you thought they did not, yet circumcision is part of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic one.

---

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?


Though I would want more time to study the passages in question before asserting that this is how they should be resolved, at first glance I can reconcile the two passages by having John 4:21 refer to the upcoming period of the temple interregnum that began with Christ's death on the cross, not to a permanent cessation of the temple rituals.

Christ is now the one doing the circumcision, as was prophesied in the Law of Moses:

Deut 30:6 “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

---


The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Surely, you are aware of this.

Then for once, we are in general agreement, tho we definitely differ on the details.

Except for two facts:

1) Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

2) My view (shared by 99% of Christianity) is in agreement with the NT…and you are admittedly and purposely in disagreeing with the NT.

---

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?:


It’s as if you are a purposely hundreds of miles away from civilization, claiming you know exactly where you are…then along comes some random hiker who points out that you have your map upside down and you respond, “Oh, thanks, I never noticed that…but I can assure you, I still know where I am!”

No, not during the present time, since we are in a temple interregnum, as has happened before.

By your argument, the need to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles ended with the destruction of the First Temple, since they were impossible, and yet they resumed.  We are in a temple interregnum and we do not and will not know when the interregnum shall end and the feasts called for in the Mosaic covenant shall resume.


I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.  I'll get to the superstructure when I have time.  Our conversations here caused me to start a careful review of the Bible so as to put my beliefs into better definition, starting with Genesis, but in the past few months I've only gotten as far as Leviticus.  It's tempting to just bypass the temple rituals as they aren't something I expect will resume in my lifetime (tho I could be wrong), but I'm giving it all the same level of detail that I did the the earlier parts that were more interesting to me.

Well the choice of which direction on a map is up is fairly arbitrary, and even now is North is not always on top.  Indeed, for a map of a hiking trail, which direction is up generally depends on which direction you are following the trail.  Since a random hiker encountered on such a trail is more likely going in the opposite direction, I wouldn't be surprised that said hiker thinks my map is upside down, since for him it would be.

Whoa, there, you’re muddying the waters.

During the religious “economy” of the Law of Moses (prior to Christ’s death), the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast for the Jews, not Gentiles…(that is DIFFERENT than Zech 14:16 which has all the nations observing the Feast of Tabernacles.)

Once Christ died, a new spiritual “economy” was instituted (the New Covenant), which superseded the ENTIRE Law of Moses and made it so that NO ONE had to go to Jerusalem to worship (John 4:21), as the Spirit of God was no longer in the Holy of Holies (the veil was torn).  Instead, the Holy Spirit is available to believers of any race, located in any nation.  In order to demonstrate that the Temple was no longer needed, God had it destroyed in 70AD.

In the run up to Christ’s return, the Temple will be rebuilt by the Jews (but NOT by Christians, who have no need for it), and the Antichrist come and rule from the Temple, proclaiming himself to be God.  Upon the return of Christ, at the end of the Church Age and marking the beginning of his 1000 year reign, the Antichrist will be destroyed and Jesus will cleanse the Temple.

After cleansing the Temple, Christ will establish his earthly dominion and yet another religious “economy” will be instituted:  Jesus himself will be ruling from Jerusalem, life spans of humans will be increased, the vegetarian diet prior to Noah which Adam had will be brought back (which is NOT the Law of Moses, but rather is pre-Law), the Gentile survivors will journey to Jerusalem to celebrate and bring into reality what was always symbolized in the Feast of Tabernacles.

---

But you have the whole timeline mixed up since you believe the Law of Moses is in effect for Jews during the Church Age, which is why you have to reject much of the NT  and you’ve concocted an elaborate conspiracy to explain how Paul supposedly overthrew the original church leadership.

So, just to be clear:  you are a Christian who rejects the arguments of the NT regarding the superseded of the Law of Moses, because you believe you know more than the early church authors of the NT about God’s intentions…yet you haven’t even read the entire bible, much less made a working model of what the bible says.

What, exactly, started you down this path?  Did you just wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, even though I haven’t read the bible, I’m going to oppose the NT and invent a conspiracy to explain it”?

I've read the whole bible, I just haven't read it with the rigor I'm applying now so as to be able to better answer questions others have about my beliefs and so as to be more thorough in the details of my beliefs.  So far, what I have reexamined (not examined for the first time as you would have it) has confirmed my beliefs.  I would say that the most interesting thing I have gleaned so far from my more detailed reading is that the tabernacle layout has correspondences to the placement of the cherubim and flaming sword that guarded the east of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve.  This indicates to me that the tabernacle layout was not created ex nihilo, but was based upon earlier arrangements not described in detail in the Bible.


Would you knock off the conspiracy nonsense that you keep bringing up on your own?  I neither need nor use a conspiracy to explain why Pauline Christianity became the dominant form of Christianity.  That rise was a natural outcome of the devastation of the Judaic Christian communities as a byproduct of the Jewish Revolts.

It’s still a conspiracy: post-Revolt, you’re saying the remnants of the supposed true Christianity were pushed aside.  But, how exactly would the Jewish Revolts and the destruction of Jerusalem have helped Paul’s supposedly false Christianity, when it is historically clear as day that Christianity had spread throughout the entire Mediterranean by 70AD?  Was Paul the only Apostle who traveled outside of Jerusalem?

---

Final question:

If Jesus stated in John 4:21 that the Church Age would not include the requirement of any believer to worship in Jerusalem (which wipe outs many of the Law’s “perpetual” requirements from the Church Age)…why do you claim Jewish Christians are still required to obey the rest of the Law of Moses during the Church Age?

Leaving aside that Paul's status as an apostle depends on how you define the term, no.  However Paul was definitely the most prominent of the Gentilizers, and the Jewish Revolts definitely tilted the tables in favor of the Gentilizers over the Judaizers and the Moderates, both because the latter two suffered disproportionate losses, but also it made being a Jew of any belief hazardous.


I've already covered this, but I'lllanswer it again for what I hope will be the final time.  I don't see the Messianic Covenant a a replacement for any of the covenants, but as an addition to the existing covenants.  Hence, for the observance of the Mosaic Law, the situation in the Church Age is analogous to that of the Babylonian Captivity. Jews are to follow the Law to the best of their ability to do so. To hold otherwise would imply that during the Babylonian Captivity the Jews then had no obligation to follow the Mosaic Law as best they could.

So, again, you’re saying that Paul out hustled the sum total of all the original Christians (e.g. Peter, John, James, etc, etc, etc).

Did it ever occur to you that if your version of the Gospel is correct, then it invalidates much of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the spread of the Gospel?

---


A belief for which you have no scriptural evidence.  And the evidence that you do claim based on “perpetual” sections of the Law of Moses is INVALIDATED by Jesus’ own statement in John 4:21 (no need for God’s people to worship in Jerusalem) and the veil being torn (Holy of Holies made irrelevant), which nullify several of those very same “perpetual” sections.

The whole basis of your “perpetual” argument is shown to run contrary to the historical (~30AD) events and statements recorded in all 4 gospels, events that were 40 years PRIOR to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

John 4:21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Nor did the veil wait until 70AD to be torn, rather it did so at the moment of Christ’s death:  Mat 26:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

---


Again, you have no scriptural basis equating the Church Age to the Babylonian Captivity in regard to the requirements of the Jews…what’s more, the requirements of Jewish Christians changed at the death of Christ (~30AD), not at the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

Without God's presence in it, the Temple is just an ordinary building. That it took another four decades for the building to be destroyed is irrelevant.  The Temple was gone from the moment the curtain was rent.

As Strphen is reported tio have said before his stoning:



You are placing an unwarranted emphasis on the physical building.  And certainly the early church did not say at first that the Law of Moses would be changed by Jesus  If it did, then why was it needful to produce false witnesses that Stephen had said that Jesus had said he would change the Law of Moses?  The non-Christian Jews could have produced true witnesses if that was the case and convicted him of blasphemy by the very gospel he spoke.

I find it ironic that you seem to think the lies the witnesses told about the first martyr were actually true.

I went to graduate school for this and will get into such details later. Perhaps I'll begin to post my own topics on here. My expertise is the spread of early Christianity and its conflicts with paganism and Rome. As for the historical Jesus, the gospel writers' main focuses were rallying people in a post-war era. Mark however was wartime literature. Pay attention to all the conflicts Jesus gets into with Jewish leaders. It was simply the authors of the gospels plugging Jesus into their own times. For example, Barabbas's character likely comes from the author of Mark seeing his fellow Jews siding with murderers rather than the Son of God as a result of the war. Alright I'll start posting topics because now I'm rambling.

1Cor 1:20 “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?”

…looks like we found the one Paul wrote about:


Then what does that make me…Mrs. Nesbitt?!  Sorry, I am just a little depressed, that's all. I..I..I can get through this.. Oh, I'm a sham! ...Years of at home scriptural training in splendid isolation with supplemental Dinner Doodles, wasted!

But the moniker ‘jmfcst’ looked good? Tell me the moniker looked good. The ‘consigliere’ title is a bit much, but…

---


…but, wait…you earned a post-graduate degree in conjecture?! 

This has probably already been covered in some form in such a long thread, but I've always assumed Christianity spread because of its apocalyptic urgency.   Many early Christians and those who were around Jesus during his lifetime were giving the impression that his arrival meant the world would end before the end of the first century.  We've all seen how the strangest cults have risen swiftly on the same promises in modern times.  Not even Mormonism, but weird Baptist faction "prophets" like Michael Traverser.  That's enough to make it spread quickly and for Romans to fear it creating unnecessary panic in the empire. 

It likely wasn't the only fast growing religious movement that they killed during their reign.  In fact, Christianity was on the decline by the 3rd century and likely would have been a dead religion by the 5th if not for Constantine in the 4th.

You stated three things:

1)   Christianity spread because of its apocalyptic urgency

2)   Many early Christians and those who were around Jesus during his lifetime were giving the impression that his arrival meant the world would end before the end of the first century.

3)   That's enough to make it spread quickly and for Romans to fear it creating unnecessary panic in the empire.

So, allow me to retort:

Rebuttal of 1) the NT itself states that it spread rapidly, in part, due to persecution of Christians (the scattering of the early church meant believers were driven out of Jerusalem and into other towns and countries)

e.g. Phil 1:12 “Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.”

Rebuttal of 2) this misinterpretation is itself addressed in the NT:

e.g. John 21:20-22 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”  22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

e.g. 1Thes 5:1 “Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

e.g. 2Thes 2:1 “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.”

Rebuttal of Point 3)  what is the evidence that the Roman reaction to Christianity was due to this supposed panic among Christians?

Maybe I misunderstood your response, but Biblical retort to the attitude of 1st AD Christianity is kind of silly isn't it?  There was no NT formed yet and it likely all spread through word of mouth.  Jesus could have told Peter this but that doesn't mean the other Apostles, or lesser disciples, comprehended such.   

Even today, with the Bible, we see things like Premillenial Rapture spread like a wildfire for no just reason. Without written testimony, I just cannot envision it NOT being chaotic.

so, the Apostles never wrote letters of instructions to the churches?!  That's quite old because Clement of Rome in a letter written around 96AD refereces letters written by the Apostles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

I'm not saying there's not written rules to Christianity.  I'm saying that, in a mostly illiterate society, they weren't the end all of what was happening at the time.   I mean seriously, jmfcst, before the printing press, the Bible that reached the public said only whatever the Catholic hierarchy wanted it to say.  In 1 AD? All of those letters only had one copy--the original, were only viewed by the recipient, and were at that person's discretion to heed all of it.  

As I said, apocalyptic urgency is only an assumption of mine.  I think it's rather good assumption.  Yes, there were rules and letters, but the church leaders main responsibility first and foremost was to convert as many people as they could.  Maybe some did it the right way, but even today we have ridiculous apocalyptic Christian denominations who are incredibly successful and no doubt back then we did, too.    

Now, when Nicea convened and sorted it all out for their history books they picked nothing but the finest of documents to use.  Good for them, but like all historical accounts of ANYTHING, there's a detailed ground situation that gets glossed over.

you do know we have very early and extensive copies of the NT letters from pieces of surviving manuscripts and from quoted references, right?

---


As if there was something about the late 1st Century that stopped people from making copies of the letters?!

@King,

are you saying that the following is unlikely in the 1st Century?:

early Christian churches had letters written to them by the Apostles, these letters were copied and shared with other churches both near and far...and that some of these letters were widely circulated enough that they were widely known by the end of the 1st Century.

Yes mommy and daddy were wrong.

That doesn't mean they weren't written with an agenda to spread propaganda. Just for this I'm posting about Pontius Pilate soon.

So you say. Nice to meet you; hope you're intelligent...So what's on your mind kimosabe? Why am I listening to you?...Got to monitor my blood pressure, so whatever you do, don't upset me.

???  So, the letters mean something different depending on whether you have them read to you, verses reading them yourself?!

---

can a mod please check this guy's ip?...he is displaying Derekish tendencies.

You just spun what I said. If it's read directly to you yes, but it wasn't read word for word. The message was spoken to give hope to the less fortunate and that's how it was received. Anyways, they're only political documents written by the oppressed in the first century as members of the movement faced persecution and refused to pay taxes because they saw Christ as their king rather than Caesar. It's about as accurate of a picture as listening to Rush Limbaugh about Obama and then listening to Obama about Romney and taking both sets of information at face value.

and the hits just keep on coming...You know, for someone claiming to be educated, your imagination sure does lead you to make a lot of wild and baseless claims.

The base is obvious to anybody who's ever made any study of information dissemination in primarily oral societies at all. Even if the ruling class is literate, a society that's 95-97% oral is primarily oral for purposes of looking at the spread of a populist religious movement.

 Yo, doesn't matter if the society is 99% illiterate, doesn't mean the letters can't be read word for word.  before my kids could read, I read their books to them word for word.  the only time I didn't is when a book's vocabulary was over their heads...but there are many oral discussions documented in the NT (the gospels and Acts are full of quotes from these types of discussions), and they’re all at the same level as the written epistles.  

After all, relaying the Gospel doesn’t require a highfalutin vocabulary…unless of course, you’re trying to explain the Gospel to a bunch of theological “scholars” who are blind to the scripture and can’t argue their way out of a paper bag.

1Cor 2: 1 “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.”

Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.

In other words, the gospel was given in the every day language of the common man, and the letters were to be read to all believers.

Don’t you hate it when the scripture has every argument against it already covered?!

This is rhetoric. The problem is you keep using the Bible to aruge points that it was never meant to argue.

They COULD have been read word for word, but the odds of this occuring in every case is so low that its absolutely impossible. Even if every literate missionary did the word for word duty (again, even if optomistic, you have to say at most 99% did; someone had to have skipped out on something somewhere or else you're saying there is no such thing as human error or free will), the remaining 95 percent of illiterates would not have spread it the same way. A man listening to the missionary who goes home and tells his brother, his wife, and his kids about it would only remember the juicy details (the cruxification, ressurrection, and promise to return soon) and none of the rest.

granted, but Tidewater was saying there are different meanings to the epistles depending if someone read it as opposed to having it read to them…as if the words somehow take on different meanings.

In other words, the attitudes of the Apostles as expressed in their own words within their own letters, don’t match the attitudes required by your half-baked alternative-motive theories, which you studied during your years of “education”.

What next?  Are you going to accuse me of murder simply because my rebuttal is killing you?

It's worth pointing out that (this is second-hand info from two of my friends who have learned Greek) while the Gospels are written at a very low reading level (the Gospels are apparently very beginner-friendly books in Greek due to rather simple structure), St. Paul used a considerably more advanced vocabulary and structure.  I've seen this repeated elsewhere and it makes a lot of sense if you accept St. Paul's background as a highly-educated member of the provincial elite as compared to a far more humble background for the Gospel writers. 

granted, but that doesn't mean Paul's choice of vocabulary was too advanced for his letters to be read aloud verbatim within the churches.  

And since Paul explicitly instructed to have his letters disseminated to the common Christian, and since he was schooled as you yourself admitted, you don’t think he was smart enough to write in a manner understandable to the whole church, especially after making the point that he did NOT preach with eloquence speech?

So, here you have Paul: highly educated, trained in debate and communication within the Sanhedrin, yet after his conversion to Christianity stating explicitly that he purposely does not preach using eloquent speech in order not to lead people into putting vain faith in man’s intelligence, and writing letters that he himself said were intended for consumption by the entire church…

…obviously, this man is going to be smart enough not to write with vocabulary over the heads of common Christians of his day.

my pastor is a lot like Paul - my pastor is extremely articulate (the most articulate person I have ever met) and an extremely good speaker...yet he is just as comfortable giving seminars to the management of the Fortune 50 companies as he is in talking to common laborers who attend his church.

but he never comes across as pretentious, and never uses unnecessarily high vocabulary, and he is always thinking from the standpoint of his audience.  But, even when he is lowering his vocabulary, the intelligence behind the structure of this speech is always present.

And if you read Paul's letters and his antics in the book of Acts, you'll see Paul acutely aware of the need to communicate effectively to his audience, and repeatedly bends over backwards to do so.  In fact, Paul even repeatedly instructs the church to make sure they are speaking in a manner which clearly communicates the gospel.

For Tidewater to say Paul’s letters are too lofty for the common illiterate is contrary to the attitude Paul presents in his letters, the stated purpose of his letters, and the actual content of his letters.

Tidewater, let me walk you through how I see your argument, from my own standpoint…

To me, there is a night and day difference between A) actually being a student of the bible and B) having a degree in theories about the history of the writing of the bible.  Now, you would think A would be a prerequisite of B, as it should be.  But, from my experience dealing with people like you, that is almost never the case.  

And, to me, it would seem most logical that if you’re going to come up with theories to explain the motivations of NT writers, you would FIRST study the attitudes that the writers expressed in their own writings, since, after all, their own letters are the most direct evidence of their own attitudes.

I’ve been on this forum for 10 years this coming April, and as many of the regulars can tell you, I spend a lot of study examining the logical tendencies of Jesus and the Apostles in regard to what they thought about scripture, how they formulated their arguments, and how they attempted to communicate across a diverse church audience that was dispersed in geography as well as in language.

So, when you come on here claiming a motivation and attitude of the NT writers that is completely contrary to the motivation and attitude I’ve witnessed while studying the letters of those writers within the NT, it’s a pretty trivial task for me to point out the inconsistencies between the attitude of what they actually wrote and what you’re claiming their attitude was.

And the ironic thing is that you claim your education is of value, but when I point out their attitudes engrained within their own letters, you object claiming that their letters weren’t intended to be used that way:


... It’s as if gleaning the attitude of the writers directly from their letters is a complete foreign concept to your educational process.

Since there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to their attitudes, why wouldn’t their own letters be the cat’s pajamas to your study of their motives?!

Do you understand what I am saying?

I'm both a student of the Bible and a scholar and I see some understanding between us here. I have several theories on how the books of the Bible were written and why which is predominantly political especially for the Hebrew Bible. It was meant to advocate and set in stone what the Shiloh priests wanted. This was canonized shortly after the return from exile but that is way off of this particular topic.

I do go primarily by the authors words and you can see that I quote scripture quite a bit from a literary critical standpoint. Notice how the NT uses the OT to structure the story of Jesus. Just look at the Jesus and Moses birth stories and how similar they are.

You sound educated in scripture as well and I apologize if I seem doubting of that even if I tend to disagree with you a bit.

It's not my argument that the gospel writers or NT writers had different intentions than what is seen in scripture. It's my argument that they have different intentions from what has been thought for the majority of 2,000 years because alot of it has been covered up by the church. This leads into the topic of "Orthodox" Christianity vs. Gnostic Sects but is way off topic.

I haven't said too much about the letters but the Bible as a whole was never meant to be understood the way it came to be understood by the church. Take for exmaple the "Red Sea" was actually Sea of Reeds in Hebrew or the fact taht the word "almah" in Hebrew actually means young woman or newly married woman. When translated into the Septuagint, the word became parthenos which refers to virgin as we know it. Then again without this poor translation, we wouldn't have Christmas.

I take nothing at face value in ancient literature. Claiming to be the Word of God is suspect at best. Now I'm not against Christianity but I am against how people understand and use/misuse the Bible.

I don’t know how you stretched this into the context of the reading of the letters in the public realm, but even in your stretch you are wrong, for it was COMMON for the early church to read to the public:

1 Tim 4:13 “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”

If they read to the public, would they not have read to their own congregations?!

---


You claim to be a student of scripture, but you’re not even aware that the practice of reading to the public that was instituted by Moses (Deut 31:10) was also followed by the NT church!  This is a prime example of you being soo completely unaware of what the NT actually says, you think it odd that the church leaders would even read to their congregations!!!

Again, refuting your idiotic claims regarding the attitude of NT writers is a trivial matter for any student of the NT, even for a novice.

But we’re not discussing the use/misuse scripture by Christian sects, rather we’re talking about our own personal views of the intent of the writers. 

If you attempt to tell me the gospels are slanted for political advantage post70AD, then I’m going to compare the narrative of the gospels to Paul’s letters, which you accept as pre60AD.  If there is no difference in the narrative between Paul’s letters and the gospels, I’m going to refute your claim as baseless.

If you attempt to tell me the NT wasn’t meant for the consumption of the laity, then I’m going to compare the letters engrained instructions for how they were to be disseminated.  If there is a difference between those instruction and your claims, I’m going to refute your claim as baseless.

You’ll have to sell it to someone who hasn’t actually read the NT, because I take the NT as the primary witness to the attitude of the NT writers.  In fact, the attitude of the NT writers has been my primary focus of study since I became a Christian in Oct 92.  Their attitudes became a focus of mine because I witnessed much doctrinal disagreement between Christian are due solely to their attitude towards scripture, so I set out to discern the attitude of the NT writes and to mimic their attitude.

I studied how they approached scripture, how they pieced together their arguments, the settings in which they argued in public, how they won new converts, how much religious ceremony they needed to function, how they expected a church service to be conducted, how they taught their congregations, their attitudes toward church hierarchy, the amount of control they exhibited over the laity, the processes they expected new converts to go through, their church structure, what they expected from the laity, how much value they placed on human intelligence, which instructional methods they deemed to be of educational value, the logical limits of what they allowed to be taught, etc, etc, etc.

Added to this study of the attitudes of the NT writers, I also studied the Law of Moses and its relation to the New Covenant (I was witnessing to friends bound up in a legalist church which was requiring them to observe the Law of Moses).  But even though my study of the Law of Moses has trailed off (my witnessing to that legalistic church ended ~ 1995), my study of the attitudes of the NT writers has never ceased.

I already stated how scripture was read to congregations. Stop making things up and trying to get away with it by only quoting parts of what I say. Deuteronomy was forged in order to give justice to the tyranny of Josiah. In fact it was written by Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah who was the son of Hilkiah; the priest who was in office during its formation in 632 BCE. Odd that leaders read to their congregations? I said the exact opposite. Here is what I said. "I'm just saying realistically that it's highly unlikely that the early Christians read anything to the laity unless of course they were in church on Sunday mornings and it was used for worshiping purposes."

This always seemed like a ridiculous cop out to me.  You could wade through the Sea of Reeds on a good day with no part at all.  If this was, in fact, the body of water, why even write it as a "miracle" in the first place?  There'd be no miracle in the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds: the miracle, if any, would be the Egyptians managing to drown in it.  (Same thing goes for the Israelites' later crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua, which is about waist-high, but which is parted anyway for no discernible reason).  How could the author of Exodus portray parting the Sea of Reeds as a miracle when it'd be manifestly unnecessary for passage out of Egypt without the original audience for which the text was intended laughing off the "miracle?"  At least the Red Sea is a formidable body of water.

In a way I have much more respect for someone like jmfcst that flat-out accepts the miracles in the Biblical narrative over someone that tries to explain them away and ends up with a text that loses all its punch.

It was a miracle because they escaped the Egyptians if you look at it that way. The story never actually happened though and is a way to establish history for a new group in a foreign land (Cana). In Hebrew it was Sea of Reeds. The story of Joshua and story of Moses were written by separate sources as Joshua was a patron of northern Israel and Moses was a patron of southern Israel. Yes it loses its punch when you look at it historically.

What I'm saying is that if the Exodus never happened (which I agree is likely), why not go for broke in your story version and use the Red Sea?  The "realism" aspect of crossing the Sea of Reeds followed by "the Exodus didn't happen at all" doesn't make much sense because if it didn't happen at all the authors would have license to make up as extravagant a story as they'd want.

Also, your statement about the "young woman" vs. "virgin" line in Isaiah, I'm surprised that you didn't go for the obvious alternative: that Isaiah wasn't making a Messianic prophecy at all, but was referring either to the birth of Ahaz's son Hezekiah or the birth of Isaiah's own son in the following chapter (pretty much immediately after Isaiah declares that the young woman will conceive, he "went in unto the prophetess" and conceived his son Maher-Shalal-hashbaz).

I was more adamant on Matthew's use of the word "almah" as he clearly looked to the Septuagint where the word would be "parthenos" because that is what is thought of in New Testament studies, but you're right about it originally referred to. Yes, the Red Sea allows for a better story, but was not the way it happened. Whether or not the Exodus happened, my theory has been that they left Egypt in herds; possibly during annual droughts. After a generation of this migration, Cana became Jewish rather than Canaanite in their religion. From there on out, southern Israel was predominantly Jewish and northern Israel was a mixture.

In fact I included this in my thesis on Matthew.

Matthew’s gospel repeatedly uses biblical passages in the prophetic writings and psalms to illustrate the events of Jesus’ life. Nowhere is this clearer than in his fictitious birth story. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Immanuel means “God with him.” The irony of this is that Isaiah’s prophecy in 733 BCE was a failed attempt to persuade King Ahaz, ruler of the southern Jewish Kingdom of Judah, to trust in God rather than the Assyrian Emperor for assistance. At the time Isaiah warned King Ahaz of this, enemies from Syria and the northern kingdom were attacking Judah. The term “almah” is used to refer to a young woman. When translating from Hebrew to Greek, almah becomes parthenos which means a newly married young woman. The author of Matthew incorrectly took the term “virgin” to mean not only the prior state of the mother but also her continuing state after conception. Nowhere does Isaiah 7:14 or the verses following indicate anything about a woman bearing a son who has not yet engaged in intercourse. Proof of Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is seen in the name Immanuel; “God with him.” What does “God with him” mean? “He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (Isaiah 7:15-16). Choosing the good and refusing the evil is not exactly peaceful as most Christians view the birth story of Jesus as peaceful. What Isaiah was warning Ahaz of was judgment, not salvation! However, the author of Matthew was not interested in writing a historical biography, but looking to debate the interpretations and authority of the Pharisees.

Trying to fix the place names in Exodus with specific locations is pretty much a fool's errand.  You can come up with pretty theories, but none of them can be proven.  That said, the real barrier for Israel was not any body of water in their path, but rather the lack of water for all the people and animals following Moshe.

A flash flood on command to drown pharaoh's chariots is both believable and miraculous, so the Sea of Reeds theory is workable.  The only other alternative I've come across that seems to make sense is a crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But neither theory is provable.

That Israel headed down the west coast of the Gulf of Suez for a crossing of either the Gulf of Suez or the main portion of the Red Sea does not make sense to me.  Given how stiff-necked and disputatious Israel is portrayed, you'd think someone would have pointed out that you can't get to Canaan that way.  Yes, the ancients did at times have a poor grasp of geography, but not that poor.

another note on Paul's writings:

2Cor 1:12 "Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace. 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus."

so, even though Paul was highly educated, he made sure not to talk over the heads of his audience

Replacing names of places with actual places of existence is considered by some to be demythologizing. The problem with that is that when you demythologize, you actually remythologize. It's missing the point. The whole point of the Exodus story is that YHWH performed a miracle. Sure there might be elaborations and mythologies in there, but it's missing the point to nit pick every little verse even though it is very interesting to do at times.