Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Abigail]

William, I read some of your blog and am surprised you said what you did re the Jews and the book of Esther. Surely the implication is that God, even though He is not mentioned, is the unseen ingredient which makes the difference to the ultimate fortunes of the people.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary has this bizarre idea that if you accept that miraculous events can happen, you must accept all of them. Well you should be open to ANY claim but only accept those that are evidenced well. Some claims are better evidenced than others. The assumption for Gary is all such claims are equally evidenced, but this must be shown. I think of what Chesterton said.

[Christianbookworm]

Gary has this bizarre idea that if you accept that miraculous events can happen, you must accept all of them. Well you should be open to ANY claim but only accept those that are evidenced well. Some claims are better evidenced than others. The assumption for Gary is all such claims are equally evidenced, but this must be shown. I think of what Chesterton said.

Gary's ignorance is through the roof. He didn't even figure out my argument that if Santa existed, there would be emperical evidence of mysterious gifts in the homes of poor children and there would be a super fast blip on radar screens. He somehow thought my argument was to believe only the fantastical claims that are believed by many other people.

[Apologiaphoenix]

But it's a totally separate question that in theory, we should simply remain neutral and use other methods to determine the date. I'm of the opinion that Paul's silence in his letters, what we know about Paul and Peter's history in Rome, what we've got from church history, and when it was used that a date around 65-75 AD is much more plausible.

I'm curious what you mean by the silence of Paul exactly since frankly, I wouldn't expect him to speak on many such things. Also, since we have different stories and ideas, it's hard to take a completely firm stance, but I also think internal evidence best fits an early date. Michael Bird shows a lot of the uniqueness of the Gospels in The Gospel of the Lord.

You're assuming the Romans or Jews would have gone to the trouble of doing such a thing. They had their own problems without continuing to get mixed-up with a religious happening they all saw as a mere cult.

When a fire raged through Bithynia, Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan and cautiously recommended a fire brigade that would consist of no more than 150 men who were all wanting to be fire fighters. Trajan was still uneasy with the idea. Why? Because these groups that start out as "non-political" eventually become insurrectionists and lead to trouble in the province. The Christians would have been seen as a much larger group like that and rumors were already flying about what went on in their meetings. Furthermore, we know from Hebrews that even without government persecution, shame itself was enough to get people to want to abandon Christianity and go to an easier system. They were being ostracized (A punishment in itself) and deviancy was unaccepted. One of the closest parallels we can think of today is peer pressure in high school, though much much more intense.

When a fire breaks out in Rome, Christians are easy scapegoats. As the movement gets larger, government gets more and more involved, but at the local level, shame was also enough.

[tabibito]

Paul was born in AD 10 - Accordingly, AD 75 would have seen him as 65 years old. Given that his authorship of a number of letters is unquestioned, it is reasonable to assume that he would have written most of his letters prior to AD 100.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Paul was born in AD 10 - Accordingly, AD 75 would have seen him as 65 years old. Given that his authorship of a number of letters is unquestioned, it is reasonable to assume that he would have written most of his letters prior to AD 100.

I'm curious. Do you have a source on him being born in A.D. 10?

[Christianbookworm]

I'm curious. Do you have a source on him being born in A.D. 10?

Yeah! How do we know when Paul was born?

[tabibito]

I'm curious. Do you have a source on him being born in A.D. 10?

Only the Encyclopaedia Hebraica - I'll try to trace a copy of the article if you want me to, but it is kind of dismissive of Paul.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Only the Encyclopaedia Hebraica - I'll try to trace a copy of the article if you want me to, but it is kind of dismissive of Paul.

Sure, but I do think it sounds kind of like conjecture. We don't have much autobiographical material on Paul.

[tabibito]

Correction: (perhaps) - I can't trace the first article that I saw the reference in, and the 1905 version of the Jewish Encyclopaedia states only that Paul was born during the first decade AD.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I really can't take that seriously. It might have been valid back at one point in time, but not today. There's no reason to think the Philippians passage is an interpolation or spurious and Philippians is accepted universally as a genuine Pauline letter. In fact, we are sure of seven epistles altogether so the last line is definitely false. Galatians is mentioned earlier as a cause of suspicion but Galatians is one of the universally accepted ones.

I also don't think the statements in Acts place any time frame on his birth. What we know from Acts is that he was trained under Gamaliel and that he was born a Roman citizen in Tarsus. That raises its own questions, but I see no place for being certain on the date of his birth.

[tabibito]

Sure, but I do think it sounds kind of like conjecture. We don't have much autobiographical material on Paul.

biographical, not autobiographical.

I think if there was any way for the authors of the Jewish Encyclopaedia to declare Paul as born after the death of Christ, they would have seized the opportunity with relish. They have enough material available to be reasonably sure of his birth date.

[Apologiaphoenix]

biographical, not autobiographical.

I think if there was any way for the authors of the Jewish Encyclopaedia to declare Paul as born after the death of Christ, they would have seized the opportunity with relish. They have enough material available to be reasonably sure of his birth date.

No. I mean autobiographical. Many skeptics will not accept Acts, but they will accept the genuine Pauline epistles so the best information we get on Paul is generally seen as autobiographical information.

[Gary]

Gary this is a false parallel from the start since the disciples had not spent ages meditating and purifying their hearts when they saw Jesus eg Peter had recently denied Him. There was no work, "strength of mind and practice in meditation", required.
In anycase it seems clear to me that the implication carried within what Sri Ramana Maharshi is telling these questioners, is that such purity as is needed actually requires you redefine your own identity and that might mean eschewing the physical.

True, but my point is that other religions claim even TODAY that one can see a god. Why should we be surprised that a small group of people two thousand years ago believed that their god had appeared to them?

[tabibito]

No. I mean autobiographical. Many skeptics will not accept Acts, but they will accept the genuine Pauline epistles so the best information we get on Paul is generally seen as autobiographical information.

That is what makes the admission of Paul's date of birth by the Jewish Encyclopaedia so valuable. They have a vested interest in discrediting Paul, and deny that he was a student of Gamaliel, but they do not deny that he was old enough to study under Gamaliel. Had this been written in a Christian sympathetic publication, I would not have accepted the claim as valid.