Materialists
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
1.2 The explanation for this lack of evidence is to be found in the nature and scale of the early Christian movement.
1.2.1 From the point of view of Roman history of the first century, Jesus was a nobody. A man of no social standing, who achieved brief local notice in a remote and little-loved province as a preacher and miracle-worker, and who was duly executed by order of a minor provincial governor, could hardly be expected to achieve mention in the Roman head-lines. Even his fellow-countrymen who did not respond to his mission would not be likely to think much of him once his execution had put paid to his claims.
1.2.2 If Jesus was to be noticed it would more likely be through the success of the movement which he founded. As we noted above, it is Christianity rather than Jesus which first makes an appearance in Roman records. In the light of the political prominence which Christianity achieved in the fourth century, it is natural for us to envisage it as an imposing movement from the beginning. But sociological studies indicate first-century Christianity as a predominantly lower-class movement, with only a very limited appeal to the influential classes. And the careful reader of Paul's letters and of the Acts of the Apostles does not gain the impression of a mass movement, but rather of small, rather isolated groups of Christians banding together for mutual support in a hostile environment. Such groups are not the stuff of which news stories are made.
1.2.3 Christianity was a religious movement which did not in its early years have political ambitions. We are surrounded by such movements today. For all our awareness of their presence, it is seldom that we feel it necessary to mention them in ordinary speech and writing. They may be quite large, and for their adherents they may be the focus of all that is important; some of them may, for all we know, be destined to become world-changing forces. But for those of us who are outside them they are, for the time being, barely worthy of notice.
1.3 Seen in this light, the scanty nature of early non-Christian evidence for Christianity, and for Jesus in particular, is hardly surprising. It rings true to the historical reality of the situation. And if that is the case, it is inevitable that our knowledge of the beginnings of Christianity will be dependent almost entirely on Christian records. We are fortunate that quite full early Christian records have in fact survived, in the form of the four first-century gospels. Indeed the availability of four separate records by different authors of the same person in ancient history is a rare, if not a unique, phenomenon.
One explanation for a lack of contemporaneus literature.
By the way. I guess I should have spelled it as Josephus in previous posts where I spelled it josepheus or ues
1.2.1 From the point of view of Roman history of the first century, Jesus was a nobody. A man of no social standing, who achieved brief local notice in a remote and little-loved province as a preacher and miracle-worker, and who was duly executed by order of a minor provincial governor, could hardly be expected to achieve mention in the Roman head-lines. Even his fellow-countrymen who did not respond to his mission would not be likely to think much of him once his execution had put paid to his claims.
1.2.2 If Jesus was to be noticed it would more likely be through the success of the movement which he founded. As we noted above, it is Christianity rather than Jesus which first makes an appearance in Roman records. In the light of the political prominence which Christianity achieved in the fourth century, it is natural for us to envisage it as an imposing movement from the beginning. But sociological studies indicate first-century Christianity as a predominantly lower-class movement, with only a very limited appeal to the influential classes. And the careful reader of Paul's letters and of the Acts of the Apostles does not gain the impression of a mass movement, but rather of small, rather isolated groups of Christians banding together for mutual support in a hostile environment. Such groups are not the stuff of which news stories are made.
1.2.3 Christianity was a religious movement which did not in its early years have political ambitions. We are surrounded by such movements today. For all our awareness of their presence, it is seldom that we feel it necessary to mention them in ordinary speech and writing. They may be quite large, and for their adherents they may be the focus of all that is important; some of them may, for all we know, be destined to become world-changing forces. But for those of us who are outside them they are, for the time being, barely worthy of notice.
1.3 Seen in this light, the scanty nature of early non-Christian evidence for Christianity, and for Jesus in particular, is hardly surprising. It rings true to the historical reality of the situation. And if that is the case, it is inevitable that our knowledge of the beginnings of Christianity will be dependent almost entirely on Christian records. We are fortunate that quite full early Christian records have in fact survived, in the form of the four first-century gospels. Indeed the availability of four separate records by different authors of the same person in ancient history is a rare, if not a unique, phenomenon.
One explanation for a lack of contemporaneus literature.
By the way. I guess I should have spelled it as Josephus in previous posts where I spelled it josepheus or ues
every historical movement that begins small will have a relatively small amount of verifiable contemperaneous corroboration. this shouldn't surprise anyone. what i don't understand is why anybody cares: taking Josephus as an example, what difference would it make to anybody alive today if one could either prove or disprove the authorship of the "jesus" passages? if it wouldn't make any difference, what is the point in arguing about it?
I believe it is because Axe was making statements like the following:
"So once again, unlike other historical figures, there doesnt
exist a single contemporary historian who mentions jesus!
NOT A ONE!!! Even though the gospels claim he was KNOWN
far and wide, and all the top romans knew him...lmaoooo
On top of that.... ZERO artifacts! Zippo! Nada!
Can you say COMPLETE MYTHOLOGY!
All together now! MYTH MYTH MYTH! LOL
We have as much evidence for the existence of ZEUS! AKA: NONE! "
I believe Jem felt that he had to challenge Axe's assertions on this matter. Jem was simply trying to show that Jesus can be shown to be a historical figure regardless of your religious viewpoint.
Of course, you are correct that it does not really matter in many ways since a small initial movement will almost for sure have little historical corroboration anyway. So I'm not sure what Axe's original intentions were or why he felt the historicity of Jesus is so important to his case...
The thing that is weird to me is that Axe so aggressively asserted that Jesus did not exist. This is not even asserted, from what I saw anyway, by infidels.org. In fact, if you do a search on their site the lead article on the subject states the following:
"This FAQ, often referred to as the Historicity of Jesus FAQ, is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue. "
As you can see, infidels.org just avoids the whole subject for the most part, at least from what I saw with a preliminary inspection.
So, again, I don't know why Axe felt this was so important to his position when it doesn't even seem something that is aggressively pursued by his alma mater...
"This FAQ, often referred to as the Historicity of Jesus FAQ, is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue. "
As you can see, infidels.org just avoids the whole subject for the most part, at least from what I saw with a preliminary inspection.
So, again, I don't know why Axe felt this was so important to his position when it doesn't even seem something that is aggressively pursued by his alma mater...
Doh!
Well, first of all, I of course don't want to speak for jem.
But in my case, the reason I am vocal (if one can be vocal in this sort of setting) is that everywhere I go I am surrounded by misinformation about theism and Christianity. We're in a post-Christian environment in our country and the humanists have largely won the culture war. It becomes very disturbing when you see misinformation - and I'm not saying that I know everything and I'm always right - permeating society. And, of course, I'm also not saying that everything a humanist says is wrong either.
But it gets to the point where you say in at least your little corner of the globe, you're going to show people that much of the standard stuff that was regurgitated to them in Liberal Ed 101 deserves to challenged. In other words, if I don't say something, I am perpetuating the propoganda. That's why you'll only see me speak up when someone makes a humanist statement that I believe strongly cannot be supported or is even false.
Now I agree with you that 99% of Christians would not be persuaded by such an argument because they are already set in their thinking. But think about it: Axe really seemed to believe from his posts that Jesus had no historical references.
In other words, if jem does not set the record straight, then someone in the cultural middle ground - and most people do not take the time to investigate these things themselves - may fall for the same thing. And that's especially true with someone like Axe (and rowenwood, GG/Longshot, stu, etc.) who is highly assertive and writes with great conviction.
Anyway, I realize this gets rather complicated ethically, but that's just my own opinion. Believe me, I've rather backtest or read about trading any day...