Countering Christianity

[Guest]

There is one evidence for Christianity that I have always found significant, yet it does not seem to be impressive to other fellow Christians. Additionally, I have never actually heard anyone articulate this point, but perhaps someone else has done so, and much better than I will attempt to. The argument is essentially this: If the stories of the Gospels were utter fabrications, why are there no surviving "responses" to debunk them? Or maybe there, and perhaps I am not aware of them. It is simply incredible to me to think that there was a new following which drastically changed a religious tradition as Judaism, and there is not an "Against Jesus" written by someone in the period that survives in tact. I have usually heard the following responses: 1) there are other gospels which teach other things that counter the NT gospels, 2) there are other mentions of Jesus by 1st century historians which don't seem to support the picture presented in the Gospels. However, to me neither of these objections suffice because all they show is that there are people who held a different view of Jesus than did the Christians, similar to the way there are people today who believe different things about Jesus than most Christians. If the gospels are fabrications and Jesus was not the person depicted in them, why is there no refutation of these written in a contemporary time?

Can anyone point out why I might be overvaluing this argument or where it fails to align with historical facts. If not, isn't the absence of early attempts to point out the flaws in the accounts of Jesus an indicator of their accuracy?

[Guest]

Isn't it obvious?

Constatine, the council of Nicea and the Roman Catholic church purged all those documents to fabricate the lie that Jesus is God!

Remember, just because something is factual, has the weight of evidence on its side and is the simplest explanation of the facts at hand, doesn't make it true if I don't want it to be.

I'm qualified to make this statement because I've read the Da Vinci Code and seen the movie.

[Guest]

Constatine, the council of Nicea and the Roman Catholic church purged all those documents to fabricate the lie that Jesus is God!

And yet the Catholic church wouldn't allow the lay people to read the bible because it disagreed with many of their official doctrines. There was secrecy involved, but the secret was that the Roman Catholic church hid what the bible truely said by not allowing non-Priests to read it. I do appreciate your sarcasm, schoel. Sometimes it's the best way to make a point.

As to the original question, this has been argued in a number of books I've read over the years. Hakim's Razor agrees with you but conspiracies abound. Skeptics will never be satisfied and it's important to know that. You can't prove that Jesus rose from the dead but the easiest explanation for what occured in the first century is that he did. Of course, if someone is against the supernatural then they won't accept this. Their loss.

[Guest]

Schoel,

I appreciate your sarcasm as well. This is along the lines of what I would expect to hear from a conspiracy theorist, and yet I have actually heard it before when presenting this argument. I wonder how honest liberal scholars (is that possible?) would address such an argument, or would they just sweep it aside.

JC,

I am going to see if I can find this argument articulated more eloquently elsewhere. I agree that it doesn't really prove anything, but absence of such refutations certainly have always been curious to me. It is good to know that I am not alone in feeling this way, glad to know that others (who are presumably much more intelligent than me) have found this telling as well.

[Guest]

The question is, if the gospel were written in the first century, why don’t we have any writing from this time from the Jews refuting the Christian teaching. So it is said that the Jews did not refute Christ’s teaching.

Who says that they didn’t? Dose this not presupose that the only things that happened in past are the things that were written down in documents that happened to survived until the present day? If this were true, it would suggest that very few things happened in the past.

At best this is a argument from silence. Not many documents survive 2000 years. And the reason I believe that the biblical documents did was because of the incredible zeal of the Christians to complete the great commission by spreading the gospel by spoken word and letter.

There are other sects and religions that existed along side Christianity for the last 2000 years. However, not many would conclude that they did not exist (along side Christianity) simply because we do not have any specific writings from the Christians refuting these teachings. Sure Christians refuted Gnostics and other sects, but I would never conclude that the only sects that existed were the Gnostics and the other sects that we have read about. I’m sure there were more weather or not we have documents to prove it.

We do have the writings of Tacitus who confirmed that a man named Jesus was crucified around 30 ad. Also Josephus wrote about the martyrdom of James.

I think the fact that Jesus was crucified and that James was martyred are enough proof that someone was refuting (to the point of extreme persecution) Christianity.

Not to mention that the bible it self contains a claim that the Jews were using to refute the resurrection, the claim that the disciples hid the body and that a certain man named Saul (Paul) went from city to city persecuting these Christians.

I guess some could say “but that is from the bible that doesn’t count”.

But on what grounds would you say that? I mean, the bible is still a historical document and just because it is called the “bible” dose not make it incorrect. In fact for the longest time , the gospels were not in the "bible" at all. Simply because someone collected similar testimonies on one topic and then joined them together in a book called the “bible” does not by itself debunk the historic validity of the testimonies.

Lawyers do this all the time before they go to court. They collect evidence and use it as a whole to make their case. This in itself dose not make them or the information in their case untrue. No. The untruthfulness of the testimonies that are being used must be made on other grounds, and arguments from silence are not good grounds.

[Guest]

I tend to agree with Aaron here. The lack of written attacks against the Christians is food for thought, but is not real evidence. I recently read Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" and it mentions Nero blaming a Jewish sect known as Christians for the fire in Rome. Seutonius was a historian living in the first century. Although Suetonius doesn't speak well of Christians in this account, he admits they had a presence in Rome at the time of Nero. This is a first hand, non-biased historian from the first century. Of course, this doesn't prove the resurrection took place but it shows a rapid spread of converts from Palestine to Rome in a very short time span.

When it comes to liberal scholars they are forced to come up with alternative theories, which are great for selling books and getting press, but these theories are conjecture passed off as fact. When building a case for Christianity (or anything else that's true) one needs to consider a lot of different pieces, like putting together a puzzle. I try not to put too much weight on any one argument because it's just a piece of the puzzle. To be frank, though, I've nearly given up on debating these issues with modern people. If I hear "there is no truth except your own truth" one more time I'm going to pull my hair out. Or maybe I'll just pray for a revival of common sense to strike those who love commenting on things they've neither looked into or thought about deelpy. At least athiests try to be rational. Modernist, spiritual types don't believe in rational thought and therefore, these arguments mean nothing to them.

[Guest]

The question is, if the gospel were written in the first century, why don’t we have any writing from this time from the Jews refuting the Christian teaching. So it is said that the Jews did not refute Christ’s teaching.

Actually, there is evidence that Jews were responding to the gospels in the first century and claiming that Jesus didn't exist

One of the earliest post-apostelistic church writers was Bishop Ignatius, who wrote a number of epistles to various churches and to Polycarp around the turn of the century. In all but two, Ignatius discusses and warns about several heresies, especially a heresy which claimed that Jesus was not "of the flesh," meaing he was something of a spiritual appartion. That heresey has been labelled Docetism. Docetism has been generally associated with Gnosticism, but there are indications in two of Iganatius's letters, those to the Philidelphians and to the Magnesians, that these same heretics were Jewish. This is because Ignatius also ascribes to them heretical beliefs such as the continuing applicability of the mosaic law and of the precedence of scripture (the old testament) over the "Gospel" (likely the christian oral tradition).

These letters led to the Catholic Encyclopedia to conclude, "In St. Ignatius' day Docetism seems to have been closely connected with Judaism"

We do have the writings of Tacitus who confirmed that a man named Jesus was crucified around 30 ad.

Tacitus's account and his description probably reflect what he learned of christianity from christian sources, including indirectly from Pliney the Younger in his report several years earlier. Any Roman records on Jesus would not have referred to him as "Christus"; that is a religious title, used by christians, and not a name. Also, at the time of Nero, the followers of Jesus were not yet known as "christians", but rather still considered Jews of some messianic sect.

Also Josephus wrote about the martyrdom of James.

But how does that prove the existance of Jesus, unless you're begging the question of the veracity of the biblical account that refers to him as Jesus's brother. While James was referred to as the Bretheren of the Lord, that reflect respect for his position as the head of the Jerusalem church. Paul in his epistles routinely referred to disciples and other believers as brothers, including "brothers of the lord". see 1 Cor. 9:5

[Guest]

Just a few observations:

1. The Gnostics often were Jewish, since Gnosticism was a parasitic doctrine that attached itself to "host" religions, like Judaism and Christianity. While Docetism did deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," this was not a denial of His historical existence. This only meant that those who saw Him, and who regarded Him as a human being, were actually seeing a non-physical entity. This is not at all the same thing as denying the existence of Jesus. It is merely a different theory of the physical composition of what was undeiably witnessed.

2. Whether Tacitus got his information from Christian sources or not does not in any way cast his historical statements into question, any more than we have to know the identities of the sources of his other information before we reckon it reliable. Either Tacitus was a competent historian, or he was not. Competent historians draw from sources that they have reason to believe are reliable. Christian sources are not, by definition, unreliable sources.

3. The word "Christians" was in use prior to the time of Nero. Apparently prior to Paul's first missionary journey, the word was coined as a reference to the disciples in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Also, Agrippa II used the term, as did the Apostle Peter—both during the reign of Nero (Acts 26:28/ 1 Pet.4:16). I anticipate your gratuitous dismissal of Acts as reliable history (after all, it was written by a Christian—by definition an unreliable source), but I am not aware, even among liberal scholars, of any who seriously question the authorship or date of writing of First Peter. If such scholars exist, they certainly are taking a minority view, and there is no , particularly, to believe them.

4. The term "brethren of the Lord" is used in the New Testament of Jesus' actual kin, distinguished from the apostles and other church leaders (Acts 1:14/ 1 Cor.9:5). There seems little reason to doubt that "James, the Lord's brother" (Gal.1:19) was one of these kinfolk of Jesus (cf. Matt.13:55).

If this is not the James referred to in Josephus, then it is hard to know which James is thus referenced—and why he is thus designated. If it is the same James (which is the simplest and least problematic theory—best-suited to the unprejudiced), then it certainly is relevant to the historical existence of Jesus, since a man would hardly come to be known, in his lifetime, as the sibling of a fictional character.

[Guest]

You say -- The Gnostics often were Jewish, since Gnosticism was a parasitic doctrine that attached itself to "host" religions, like Judaism and Christianity. While Docetism did deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," this was not a denial of His historical existence. This only meant that those who saw Him, and who regarded Him as a human being, were actually seeing a non-physical entity. This is not at all the same thing as denying the existence of Jesus. It is merely a different theory of the physical composition of what was undeiably witnessed.

There were a number of variations or sects of Docetism, some that said that Jesus only had the illusion of a man, some that he didn't even have that - that he was pure spirit. While the latter would certainly be in rebuttal to the corporeal Jesus of the gospels, they all rebutted the premises of the gospels, thus refuting the premise of the original poster in this thread




You say -- 2. Whether Tacitus got his information from Christian sources or not does not in any way cast his historical statements into question, any more than we have to know the identities of the sources of his other information before we reckon it reliable.


If the sources were christian, and discussing the "history" of their church, they were inherently biased. Further, if Tacitus merely used the popular belief or profession of faith of the time among christians, for which there was no Roman record in contradiction, then that source, the belief and dogma of the church in the early 2nd century, was not historical.




You say -- Either Tacitus was a competent historian, or he was not. Competent historians draw from sources that they have reason to believe are reliable. Christian sources are not, by definition, unreliable sources.


That is an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. Generally, Tacitus seems to have been a competent historian. But there are several instances where he is known to have used an available and accepted secondary source without checking its accuracy, and which subsequently has been found to be erroneous.




You say -- 3. The word "Christians" was in use prior to the time of Nero. Apparently prior to Paul's first missionary journey, the word was coined as a reference to the disciples in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Acts was written late in the 1st century, sometime after 85. The reference in 11:26 is used paraenthetically, simply showing that the word originated in Antioch sometime before the writing of Acts.





You say -- I anticipate your gratuitous dismissal of Acts as reliable history (after all, it was written by a Christian—by definition an unreliable source), but I am not aware, even among liberal scholars, of any who seriously question

No need to, since it was written when the term christians was already known and used.



You say -- the authorship or date of writing of First Peter. If such scholars exist, they certainly are taking a minority view, and there is no , particularly, to believe them.

Either you need to expand your reading list, or you have a very dim view of the research abilities of the Catholic Church, which has acknowledged that 1 Peter was not likely written by the Apostle Peter, being written several decades after his death.



You say -- 4. The term "brethren of the Lord" is used in the New Testament of Jesus' actual kin, distinguished from the apostles and other church leaders (Acts 1:14/ 1 Cor.9:5).

How is that certain? In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul seems to be listing the leaders of the church - the Apostles, Cephas, and the brethren of the lord. There is nothing to otherwise support that Simon, Judas, or Joseph ben Joseph had leadership roles in the early church. Didn't Jesus also say:

"(Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.")
48
But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"
49
And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
50
For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Mt 12:47-50

thereby indicating that the disciples and early church members considered themselves as close as family?



You say -- There seems little reason to doubt that "James, the Lord's brother" (Gal.1:19) was one of these kinfolk of Jesus (cf. Matt.13:55).

To coin a phrase you have used on several occaisons, there is no need to accept that.




You say -- If this is not the James referred to in Josephus, then it is hard to know which James is thus referenced—and why he is thus designated. If it is the same James (which is the simplest and least problematic theory—best-suited to the unprejudiced), then it certainly is relevant to the historical existence of Jesus, since a man would hardly come to be known, in his lifetime, as the sibling of a fictional character.

I'm not disputing that this reference was to James the Less, aka James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church of early Jesus followers. But use of the phrase, "Brethren of the Lord" as a title of respect and leadership is as consistent with the early epistles as any interpretation as a biological, familal one.

[Guest]

Jackal wrote:

Acts was written late in the 1st century, sometime after 85. The reference in 11:26 is used paraenthetically, simply showing that the word originated in Antioch sometime before the writing of Acts.

You are here using the events in Acts to establish a date for it. Your method is good, but your conclusion seems to be off. The book of Acts ends with Paul being alive where he had been arrested by the Roman government. Paul had not yet been martyred yet, so this seems to mean Acts had to have been written around 62 AD.