"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The vindicating proof was Jesus rising from the dead.

What proof? All you have are literary accounts. That hardly constitutes "evidence". We appear to have returned to my examples from fiction.

If all Christianity offered was to throw your lot in with a man who was nothing more than a shamefully executed criminal then it would have quickly died like so many other mystery cults in the ancient world.

I think you need to read Paul's writings a little more critically. Who do you think were the "archontes" in I Corinthians 2.8? And why is a Galilean Jew being described as the "Lord of glory"?

As to your remark on why the other mystery religions "died" as you put it, that is because they were prohibited [on pain of death] by later Christianity once it attained dominance and it only attained dominance through Imperial patronage. Not because everyone believed in it.

[Mountain Man]

What proof? All you have are literary accounts.

The fact that you think that's all there was shows how ignorant you are. Much of the New Testament was written at a time when eyewtinesses to these events were still alive and would have been able to corroborate what was written. If the only evidence that existed were uncorroborated written accounts, then there was no reason for anybody to accept them as true.

As to your remark on why the other mystery religions "died" as you put it, that is because they were prohibited [on pain of death] by later Christianity once it attained dominance and it only attained dominance through Imperial patronage. Not because everyone believed in it.

Assuming your description of events is in any way accurate, you are talking centuries after the founding of Christianity. The fact is, if there was no convincing evidence at the time of its founding to prove that it was true, then it would have never lasted long enough to gain any kind of influence in the world.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact that you think that's all there was shows how ignorant you are. Much of the New Testament was written at a time when eyewtinesses to these events were still alive and would have been able to corroborate what was written.

Where is the evidence they were still alive after 70 CE?

Assuming your description of events is in any way accurate, you are talking centuries after the founding of Christianity.

There was no "founding of Christianity" prior to the fourth century. In the early centuries there was no definitive "Christianity" and the various Christian sects dotted around the eastern empire held differing beliefs concerning the Christ. As the of many Christians points out:

Bart D. Ehrman. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. 1993. OUP. p. 3.

"In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others however claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365 or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the Scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither created the world nor had any dealing with it. Some Christians believed Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said he was a man but not God; others claimed he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ’s death had brought about salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had never even died."

[Mountain Man]

[SIZE=12px][FONT=Verdana]Where is the evidence they were still alive after 70 CE?

We know that Christianity got its start around 33AD when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and there were many eyewitnesses at the time who could have confirmed or refuted what was being said by the apostles. Peter in Acts 2 even appealed to these eyewitnesses, saying, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it."

A rather dangerous ploy to appeal to the knowledge of your audience when all it takes is one person to say, "I was there, and I don't know what you're talking about!" Unless, of course, everything Peter said was true.

[SIZE=12px][Bart D. Ehrman.

And now to the case presented by Bart Ehrman, which I feel warrants special attention. The basis of Ehrman's case - and it is a very good one - is that certain verses of the NT were altered in the second and third century, albeit with good intentions, to deflect heretics from foisting an unorthodox interpretation upon them. It is this sort of finding that leads some Skeptics (and even some Mormon and Muslim critics) to claim that the NT cannot be classed with secular works in terms of textual reliability, because there was clearly so much textual infighting that would not occur over a secular work.

Generally there is little to find at fault with Ehrman's work. Many of his claims of intentional change are good; some require rather unreasonable explanations (as opposed to a much simpler idea that a change was the result of an accident). However, various critics have taken his material and used it as though it renders the whole of the NT suspect; Ehrman himself draws far more cautious conclusions, and does not here make any argument for any theological view as correct. Indeed, in an email to a reader of ours who requested clarification, Ehrman (who gave permission to use this quote) said:

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.

Thus one should be cautious of those who misuse Ehrman's conclusions.

[...]

The orthodox corruptions Ehrman identifies happened within the context of specific controversies in the second and third century. The critic who tries to bring the idea of corruptions back into the first century based on "guilt by assoication" has a burden to identify opponents against whom the text was "corrupted"; they should also provide actual evidence of corruption, as Ehrman did, for even Ehrman began with hard textual evidence for corruption, and only then could he accord validity to possible changes of the same ideological slant, for which there is no hard textual evidence. This burden they will not satisfy except by imagination, for there are no hard texts left from this period, and they can do [no] more than invent fictitious opponents for whom there is also no hard evidence.

https://tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.php#ehrman

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We know that Christianity got its start around 33AD when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead

We do not "know that" at all. That you believe that to be the case is an entirely different matter. It is also erroneous.

and there were many eyewitnesses at the time who could have confirmed or refuted what was being said by the apostles[. Peter in Acts 2 even appealed to these eyewitnesses, saying, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it."

All nothing but a much later Christian text with no extraneous corroborative evidence.

Furthermore, do explain how an Aramaic speaking Galilean managed to converse in Koine Greek?

As to your link to Holding. None of that addresses the points made by Ehrman that I quoted. Neither is Ehrman the only academic to point to the variety of beliefs that were extant in the first 250 years of fledgling Christian belief. Hence the need for the First Council of Nicaea, to introduce some orthodoxy into the religion and, from Constantine's point of view, bring about cohesion and political stability within the empire. Unfortunately that council was less than successful in its aims.

[rogue06]

And so once again you ignore the question and revert to your MO of personal abuse.

Pointing out your blatant continuing hypocrisy is now "personal abuse."

[rogue06]

The fact that you think that's all there was shows how ignorant you are. Much of the New Testament was written at a time when eyewtinesses to these events were still alive and would have been able to corroborate what was written. If the only evidence that existed were uncorroborated written accounts, then there was no reason for anybody to accept them as true.


Assuming your description of events is in any way accurate, you are talking centuries after the founding of Christianity. The fact is, if there was no convincing evidence at the time of its founding to prove that it was true, then it would have never lasted long enough to gain any kind of influence in the world.

And given the claims being made, if all their were was uncorroborated written accounts they would have been summarily rejected and Christianity would be nothing but a footnote in a couple of textbooks.

[rogue06]

We do not "know that" at all. That you believe that to be the case is an entirely different matter. It is also erroneous.

All nothing but a much later Christian text with no extraneous corroborative evidence.

I've asked you a number of times over the past few months to explain exactly what sort of "extraneous corroborative evidence" you would expect to see but for some reason you ignore that request only to pop up elsewhere to whine about it.

So exactly what would you expect to find?

[rogue06]

We know that Christianity got its start around 33AD when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and there were many eyewitnesses at the time who could have confirmed or refuted what was being said by the apostles. Peter in Acts 2 even appealed to these eyewitnesses, saying, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it."

A rather dangerous ploy to appeal to the knowledge of your audience when all it takes is one person to say, "I was there, and I don't know what you're talking about!" Unless, of course, everything Peter said was true.

IIRC, Paul was also citing living eyewitnesses for corroboration to what he wrote. If everyone from that period was dead as H_A appears to imagine, that would immediately be recognized as a ploy and rejected.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Pointing out your blatant continuing hypocrisy is now "personal abuse."

Resorting to personal abuse is your standard MO.

[Mountain Man]

IIRC, Paul was also citing living eyewitnesses for corroboration to what he wrote. If everyone from that period was dead as H_A appears to imagine, that would immediately be recognized as a ploy and rejected.

He even issued an honor challenge to anybody who might doubt his message.

Scripture Verse: 1 Timothy 2:7

For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

© Copyright Original Source

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

IIRC, Paul was also citing living eyewitnesses for corroboration to what he wrote. If everyone from that period was dead as H_A appears to imagine, that would immediately be recognized as a ploy and rejected.

We do not categorically know that Paul was citing "living eyewitnesses" as none of those "eyewitnesses" have left us their accounts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

He even issued an honor challenge to anybody who might doubt his message.

Scripture Verse: 1 Timothy 2:7

For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

© Copyright Original Source

Timothy is considered to be one of the deutero-Pauline epistles.

[rogue06]

Resorting to personal abuse is your standard MO.

Shall I start posting some of your "kind remarks" to various posters oh hypocrite?

[rogue06]

We do not categorically know that Paul was citing "living eyewitnesses" as none of those "eyewitnesses" have left us their accounts.

Riiight. Obviously he must have been referring to dead eyewitnesses that you can ask for yourself to corroborate what he was saying. That makes perfect sense.

Please. Stop and think before posting things like this. Whether or not you mind looking utterly clueless is none of my business, but I prefer some sort of a challenge.