Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

That may have been true amongst the Jews (don't know much about ancient Jewish tradition in Rome) but Romans definitely preferred written recorded history above all else and not word of mouth.

Do you have a source on that?

I never get the sense that Acts is relaying written prophecy to us and I so I don't really see that argument at all. Besides that, Paul's death is implied in certain passages of Luke-Acts so I also don't see the argument there either - and most of critics of all striped don't too.

The point is that these were shaping events in Christianity and Acts sure has a lot to say about Paul, yet never mentions these major events. James and Paul both play a large part and their deaths aren't mentioned. These events are conspicuous by their absence.

Lots of literature that was deemed heretical or ant-christian bit the dust when Christianity became the dominant force in Europe, and I doubt Christian would have liked us to read his full on work. Stuff that challenged the doctrines of that time just didn't get a chance or if it did, it wouldn't be for long before it caused a stink. But you're missing my point. My point is, we don't have any of the earliest writings of those first critics, and so we don't really know what was or wasn't said in full.

We don't, but we have references to this and I suspect many of the first critics were not writing since writing wasn't the main way to reach, but many of them were shaming the church and treating them as deviant. That was enough reason. We also know that the people were seen as deviant through writings like Justin Martyr's First Apology.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, you believe that because a group of first century Jews believed and were willing to follow, to the death, shameful early Christian claims, such as a dying and rising messiah, in an Honor-Shame society, that this is the strongest evidence for the truthfulness of those Christian claims.

But isn't it a problem that the overwhelming majority of people in that Honor-Shame society (Judaism) did NOT believe that this belief by a small group of first century Jews was convincing evidence of the truthfulness of the Christian claims? And the overwhelming majority of Jews have not believed it to be convincing evidence for 2,000 years, to this very day. And Jews have thoroughly studied the Christian claims. Orthodox Jewish author, Asher Norman, has written a best seller (among Jews) entitled, "Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus", that reviews every major Christian claim regarding Jesus and thoroughly refutes them. I urge every Christian to read it.

No. Why would it be a problem? In fact, that adds to the case because since it was so rejected by people it should have died out.

As for Norman, does he interact with Longenecker any?

[Apologiaphoenix]

When examining miracle claims, one must be sure that we are not calling something a "miracle" if it is possible that the event is simply a rare, but natural event. For instance, someone may believe that for them to have won the lottery there must have been divine intervention, or a "miracle". But someone has to win the lottery. The fact that you won the lottery is not a miracle but a very rare natural result of winning against incredibly bad odds.

Would you care to quote one of Keener's alleged miracles; one that could not be explained in a similar fashion; "winning against very bad odds"?

For instance, there are many claims of miracles regarding cancer, but cancer can go into remission, even the worst types of cancer on rare occasions. So was your cure from a deadly cancer a "miracle" or just an example of winning against bad odds? If Keener can show me just one amputee whose arm or leg grew back due to prayer, I will believe that a true miracle has happened.

Jesus's actions at the arrest showed that he was an innocent man. Judas knew he was then part of the judgment that was coming. He sought to repent and when the priests turned him away, it was hopeless.

Honor and shame is no myth. The scholarship is in. This is the way the world was and most of the world is still like this today, especially in the Middle East.

[Gary]

Anyone who was wealthy and these would be people who ran house churches. This would also include people who were paying for the texts of Paul to be copied. Do you realize that even a short epistle of Paul's by today's standards would cost around $500 to produce? That doesn't come cheap. Paul had to have wealthy backers. Some such people would include people like Erastus and Philemon.

So because a handful of wealthy people joined a mostly uneducated new religious sect, you believe that this is strong evidence for the "miracle" claims of that sect?

[Gary]

Do you have a source on that?



The point is that these were shaping events in Christianity and Acts sure has a lot to say about Paul, yet never mentions these major events. James and Paul both play a large part and their deaths aren't mentioned. These events are conspicuous by their absence






We don't, but we have references to this and I suspect many of the first critics were not writing since writing wasn't the main way to reach, but many of them were shaming the church and treating them as deviant. That was enough reason. We also know that the people were seen as deviant through writings like Justin Martyr's First Apology.

Maybe the author of Acts wanted you and other readers to believe that he was writing pre-70 AD. Isn't that possible?

[Christianbookworm]

Maybe the author of Acts wanted you and other readers to believe that he was writing pre-70 AD. Isn't that possible?

That makes no sense. At all.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So because a handful of wealthy people joined a mostly uneducated new religious sect, you believe that this is strong evidence for the "miracle" claims of that sect?

These people had the most to lose as far as honor goes and they also had the most means to check the claims. The church had a high number of such people coming to the fold early on.

As for the writing of ACts, why would the writer be projecting this far into the future, especially if he is presenting it to Theophilus who would know who wrote it and when?

[Christianbookworm]

Yeah. That would be like if I was talking to people 2000 years from now who might somehow read this. Even though the likely hood is slim of this web page surviving that long. Hi people in 4015!

[Gary]

No. Why would it be a problem? In fact, that adds to the case because since it was so rejected by people it should have died out.

As for Norman, does he interact with Longenecker any?

So even though the overwhelming majority of persons within the Honor-Shame society reject the shameful belief in question, a shameful belief primarily held by a very small group of uneducated peasants, we should view this claim as most probably truthful and as historical fact just because it has survived for so long??

The problem with this analysis is that this shameful belief did NOT last long...in JEWISH society. That is why Christianity soon became a Gentile religion. The number of Jewish converts dwindled to a trickle because the rabbis quickly exposed the prophetic claims made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew and author NT authors as Christian distortions of the Hebrew Bible. So Christianity morphed into a non-Jewish belief system because Jews in masse rejected it. The shameful belief WAS rejected by the Honor-Shame Society in which the shameful claims were made. And at the same time, non-Jews were believing all kinds of wild tales, such as Mithraism (sp.).

[Gary]

[Gary]

That makes no sense. At all.

Why?

[Gary]

These people had the most to lose as far as honor goes and they also had the most means to check the claims. The church had a high number of such people coming to the fold early on.

As for the writing of ACts, why would the writer be projecting this far into the future, especially if he is presenting it to Theophilus who would know who wrote it and when?

How do you know that any wealthy, educated Jews living in Palestine joined the Christian movement in the years prior to 70 AD, other than Paul? The people you mention were in modern-day Greece or western Turkey. Did your wealthy first century Christians in Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia Minor send detectives to Palestine to investigate all the claims? Did the church in Corinth send a "fact finding party" to Palestine to verify the 500 witnesses mentioned in I Corinthians 15 or did they just take Paul's word for it?

[Gary]

How do you know that any wealthy, educated Jews living in Palestine joined the Christian movement in the years prior to 70 AD, other than Paul? The people you mention were in modern-day Greece or western Turkey. Did your wealthy first century Christians in Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia Minor send detectives to Palestine to investigate all the claims? Did the church in Corinth send a "fact finding party" to Palestine to verify the 500 witnesses mentioned in I Corinthians 15 or did they just take Paul's word for it?

Regarding the writer of Acts, since he doesn't give us his name, the purpose of his story, nor when he wrote it, we really have no way to confirm either conclusion.

[Gary]

Yeah. That would be like if I was talking to people 2000 years from now who might somehow read this. Even though the likely hood is slim of this web page surviving that long. Hi people in 4015!

2,000 years ???

Whether the author of Acts wrote in 40 AD as some Christians want to claim, or he wrote in the 80's or 90's as many skeptics believe, that is only a matter of 40-50 years. Your imagination and hyperbole are running amuck, my friend.

[Gary]