So, when are you likely to apologize?
Anyone actually interested in the OP should read the Cecil link from the first page:
It’s elementary, but a good jumping off point. There is a lot of disagreement about who wrote what when. If you want a 20 minute answer then wikipedia is probably your best source oddly enough. Just keep in mind that, while there are definitively wrong answers, there is a dearth of definitively right ones.
Obligated, no. But you’re not going to be convincing if you never address any holes in your thesis. You also aren’t going to have much credibility if you try to posture as a disinterested investigator as Strobel does.
However, if you are claiming to be a tough investigative journalist who has discovered the truth about a disputed narrative, it would be well to point out the actual disputed points that you are attempting to clarify or refute and cite actual evidence for your position. Strobel has not done that and simply repeats claims and conjectures from one side only. If Strobel had published his work under the banner "This is why I believe, " the criticisms offered here would be irrelevant. Due to the manner he chose to present himself in his works, the objections are relevant and withering.
We start with
*in around ad 50. We have some idea of what they beleived:
According to Alister McGrath, a proponent of Paleo-orthodoxy, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of then contemporary (Second Temple) Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.[2] …
[edit] The issues and outcome
The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve the disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than circumcision. Some of the Pharisees who had become believers demanded that it was “needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).
The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of biblical circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other matters arose as well, as the Decree by James indicates. The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the “Pillars of the Church”, led by James who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism,[7] and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see also Supersessionism, New Covenant, Antinomianism).
At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7–11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the “Apostolic Decree”):
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.[8] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day” (Acts 15:19–21).
…This determined questions wider than that of circumcision, most particularly dietary questions but also fornication and idolatry, and also the application of biblical law to non-Jews, see also biblical law directed at non-Jews and Biblical law in Christianity.
James’s Apostolic Decree was that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement.[10] However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against Gentile converts eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against “fornication” and idol worship. See also Old Testament Law directed at non-Jews. In effect, however, the Jerusalem Church created a double standard: one for Jewish Christians and one for Gentile converts (for the parallel in Judaism, see Convert to Judaism and Noahides). The Decree may be the first act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots[3], depending on when Jewish Noachide law was developed[4], see also List of events in early Christianity. The decision created a category of persons who were members of the Christian community (which still considered itself to be part of the Jewish community) who, in certain situations, would be unacceptable to the wider Jewish community, because they were uncircumcised, besides other objections relating to the 613 mitzvot.
True, early Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, but already two decades after the Death of Jesus, critical differences were occuring.
Where does Christianity become Christianity?
I mean, if you cut it off late enough, sure, there *were no *early Christian Churchs, they were all still offshoot Jews.:dubious:
There’s the early Church in Jerusalem:
*As Christianity spread, and the persecution of the Hebrews by Roman authorities in their homeland increased, causing the dispersion of many of the Hebrews and Christians from Jerusalem, the importance of the church of Jerusalem and its impact on the ongoing life of the whole Church diminished, though a remnant always remained in the city. Eusebius of Caesarea provides the names of an unbroken succession of thirty-six Bishops of Jerusalem up to the year 324.[1] The first sixteen of these bishops were Jewish—from James the Brother of Jesus through Judas († 135)—the remainder were Gentiles.
By the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the bishop of Aelia Capitolina (the name given to the Roman colony founded on the site of Jerusalem after Bar Kokhba’s revolt), was not even the highest ranking in the province, being subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea. However, the Council accorded the bishop a certain undefined precedence in its seventh canon. It gradually grew in prestige, and in a decree issued from the seventh session of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it was recognized as possessing full Patriarchal status, ranked fifth after the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch (see the article on Pentarchy).*
The Melkites
The origins of the Melkite Catholic Church go back to the establishment of Christianity in the Near East.[7] As Christianity began to spread, the disciples preached the Gospel throughout the region and were for the first time called “Christians” in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the historical See of the Melkite Catholic Patriarchate.[8] By the second century, Chrisitianity was widespread in Antioch and throughout Syria. Growth of the church did not stop during periods of persecution, and by the end of the fourth century Christianity became the official state religion.
I’ll repeat that :** By the second century, Chrisitianity was widespread in Antioch and throughout Syria.**
Palestine:
*The Emperor Hadrian (132 CE) renamed Jerusalem “Aelia Capitolina” and built temples there to honor Jupiter. Christianity was practiced in secret and the Hellenization of Palestine continued under Septimius Severus (193–211 CE).[66] …Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) rule (330–640 CE)
5th century CE: Byzantine Diocese of Palaestina I (Philistia, Judea and Samaria) and Palaestina II (Galilee and Perea).Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity around 330 CE made Christianity the official religion of Palaestina.[81][82] After his mother Empress Helena identified the spot she believed to be where Christ was crucified, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built in Jerusalem.[81] The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Ascension in Jerusalem were also built during Constantine’s reign.[81]. This was the period of its greatest prosperity in antiquity. Urbanization increased, large new areas were put under cultivation, monasteries proliferated, synagogues were restored, and the population West of the Jordan may have reached as many as one million.[26*].
The Ebionites:
*The Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi from Hebrew; אביונים[citation needed], Ebyonim, “the Poor Ones”) were an early Jewish Christian sect that lived in and around Judea and Palestine from the 1st to the 4th century.[1]
To throw light on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites, modern scholars attempt to reconstruct information from the available sources. Much of what is known about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[1][2] Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish Jewish Law.[3][4] According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70).[5] Others have argued that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus and constituted the mainstream of the Jerusalem church before being gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus.[6][7][8][9][10][11]*
and the Nazarenes.
So there’s lots of evidence of conversions and early “Christian” (I define Christian here as beleiving Jesus was the Messiah) in the Holy lands. True, later some of these were not considered “true Christians” by the Pope, but does he get to decide who is an who is not a Christian?
My apologies for being snarky. I was confused because the post was in a reply to Don’t Call Me Shirley rather than DtC and I didn’t see how it related.
Of course you don’t have to agree but pointing out that my source is biased is not presenting an opposing view.
Then please tell me specifically why it is weak and pointless. I understand your point that Strobel is under no obligation to to give opposing views equal time. I agree. In a debate you state your case and then the other side states theirs, which is what Lowder has done. Both sides are biased and present legitimate points. I don’t see that Lowder’s article is weak and pointless when he goes into specific detail and facts concerning Strobel’s book.
I get that and agree to a point. I hope you understand the point I and others have made and now tomndebb ** has also explained. I have my copy of The Case For Christ in front of me and on the Cover under the title it says
A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. **
The reviews chosen for the inside cover call him an investigative journalist. Phillip E Johnson says Strobel asks the questions a tough minded skeptic would ask and provides convincing answers. Johnson is listed as a Law Professor and Best Selling author, but theres no mention that he is a born again Christian whose books are also apologetics. Another review;
Nobody knows how to sift the truth from fiction like an experienced investigative reporter. Dr James Kennedy PHD Senior Minister. The three reviews that don’t list the reviewer as a Christian are also by Christians.
Does that help clarify the point? Although Strobel is under no obligation to present opposing arguments as a Christian apologist, as an investigative reporter I think the ethics of journalism would compel him to give those he criticizes a chance to respond, don’t you?
If a reporter writes a piece criticizing a certain person is it reasonable to expect them to contact that person for comment?
When I say Strobel is unreliable I mean it’s unrealiable as an unbiased balanced source that’s all. He presents a fine one sided argument and Lowder acknowledges that. I agree with Lowder that those looking seriously at the issues need to look at reasonable opposing views and relevant facts rather than just a one sided argument.
But what if the Rapture is immediately preceded by–oh, let’s say a giant flaming meteor striking Las Vegas, obliterating every single den of inquity therein but magically sparing all the people, and then the archangel Uriel above the skies of every population in the world, saying, “Okay, guys. This is your LAST WARNING. Gabe’s blowing his horn in, like, 5 minutes. Repent NOW or face an eternity of flaming by barbed, flaming dildos!”
Will you recant in those 5 minutes?
He’s citing Acts? Sorry, but that’s a circular argument. He’s citing Luke to support Luke. There is actually no direct evidence to back up the claim that Jesus’ direct followers thought he was the Messiah. Citing an author of one of the Gospels to support the Gospels is obviously fallacious.
There are no records or writings of what was going on with the Jesus movement in Palestine 20 years after the alleged crucifixion, so it is impossible to say what those who had known Jesus thought about him. The closest thing we have is the letters of Paul, which tell us there was a movement in Jeruslaem, but tell us virtually nothing about what they believed, nor how big the movement was. Nor is there any implication that they thought of themselves as anything but Jews.
The debate is about what Jesus’s actual followers believed and what kind of movement existed in Palestine. Of course, various forms of Christianity had some sputtering and scattered existence outside of Palestine, but Pauline Christology – that proto-orthodox theology which became the basis for the brand of Christianity adopted by Constantine, was essentially a non-Palestinian, Gentile movement, so it’s irrelevant to the discussion of what Jesus’ actual contemporaries thought about him, and does not tell us what his direct followers believed.
The Ebionites are intersting, and may have some connection to the original Jesus movement in Jeruslaem, but it’s notable that they didn’t think Jesus was God. They apparently thought of him as a normal, Jewish Messianic figure (i.e human), but they didn’t worship him. I think it’s interesting that the one arguable Jewish Jesus movement which can be placed in anything close to First Century Palestine did not hold to the essential “Christian” belief that Jesus was divine. It certainly does nothing to BOLSTER any assertions that Jesus’ direct followers thought that way.
There is no direct evidence that Jesus’ earliest followers, or that any 1st Century Jewish movement in Jerusalem believed that Jesus was God, that he performed miracles or that he was physically resurrected from the dead.
No, that’s what *your hijack *is about.
Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy- if it’s not Pauline Christology, it’s not Christianity, eh?
All the Gospels were written (well maybe John was a rad later) in the 1st Century, they profess Jesus as God and recite miracles.
*All four gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, performing miracles, preaching in Jerusalem, being crucified, and rising from the dead.
The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[12] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[2] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[2] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[2] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life and in the Christian community.[13] He appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[11] *
Or are you then re-defining “1st Century Jewish movement in Jerusalem”?:dubious: The early Christians were neither Jews nor Christians, eh, so we can’t refer to their actions?:rolleyes:
The thread is about what eyewitnesses to Christ saw and agree upon. So whether or not people in the immediate vincinity recording their thoughts in the first few centuries after Christ’s death thought Christ was divine does seem pretty central to the thread.
No, the discussion is about eyewitnesses, and it’s been slightly expanded to include 1st Century Palestine in general. What happened outside Palestine among Gentiles doesn’t matter.
Do you consider Gnosticism to be Christianty?
Let’s just say, if they’re not worshipping Jesus, it’s not Christianity.
Except they weren’t witnesses, they weren’t Jewish and they weren’t in Palestine.
The Gospels do not contain primary evidence of Jesus and do not tell us what the people who knew him saw and believed. The Gospels were produced for and by non-Palestian, non-Jewish, non-eyewitnesses.
Let me reiterate. What I’m saying is that we don’t know what Jesus’ direct followers thought about him. They left no writings. They did not produce the Gospels. The Jerusalem movement disappeared with the destruction of the city in 70 CE. The documentary claims for Jesus performing miracles are fairly late developing and are not found in the earliest layers of Christian literature. They are not found in Paul, in Q or in Thomas. The earliest written claims for Jesus performing miracles don’t come until Mark’s Gospel in 70 CE. The first clear claim of a physical resurrection doesn’t come until Matthew’s Gospel c. 80 CE. These books were not written by witnesses or anybody who knew any witnesses, and cannot be relied upon to tell us what those who knew Jesus really claimed (especially since they contradict either constantly).
I’m saying we don’'t know how the 1st Century Jerusalem movement defined itself, but it is unlikely they thought they represented a new religion. There is certainly no proof that they worshipped Jesus, that they ever claimed they’d seen him perform miracles or that they thought he’d physically risen from trhe dead.
We don’t know what their actions WERE. How can we refer to data we don’t possess?
John was a witness, he was Jewish and he was in Jerusalem.
Matthew was likely written by a disciple of Matthew, likely in that area, thus he knew a witness. Mark was likely by one of Apostle Peter’s scribes/interpreters, thus he knew a witness.
But you said “Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The debate is about what Jesus’s actual followers believed and what kind of movement existed in Palestine.
.There is no direct evidence that Jesus’ earliest followers, or that any 1st Century Jewish movement in Jerusalem believed that Jesus was God, that he performed miracles or that he was physically resurrected from the dead.”
The Gospels were written by 1st Century followers of Jesus, who beleived that “Jesus was God, that he performed miracles or that he was physically resurrected from the dead” True, we are not sure who several of the writers are, but there is no doubt that they *were *1st Century Followers of Jesus. aka Jesus’ earliest followers.
And, we have the Gospel of John, which while transscribed and edited by a hand other than that Apostle, and likely dictated by an old man whose memory was perhaps failing, is still an eyewitness acount. If a police transcriber takes down an eyewitness account, it’s still considered a eyewitness acount, even if through a translator. Eyewitness accounts do not have to be holographic.
Thus you are incorrect.
There is no evidence and no reason to believe that the author of the fourth gospel was John the apostle. There is a fair amount of evidence against that belief.
If Matthew was written by a disciple of Matthew, (a point that is neither claimed by anyone in the early church nor supported by any evidence), then it would still be hearsay. Similarly, the claim that Mark was a buddy of Peter’s has a fairly late attestation and is not supported by any evidence, although there is evidence that argues against it.
If such a person existed, he left no writings. He certainly did not write the Gospel of john.
Claims that are not only unsupported by evdience, but which are greatly contraindicated by both internal and external evidnce. You are spouting religious beliefs, not evidence.
The Gospels were NOT written by followers of Jesus – that is, they were not written by anyone who ever met Jesus or knew anybody else who ever met Jesus. They are non- contemporary, non-Palestinian, non-Jewish, Gentile works written by non-witnesses. They are not probative as to waht Jesus actual FOLLOWERS thought about him.
Again, this is a religious belief unsupported by actual evidence.
We do not have a single writing from anyone who actually knew Jesus. We don’t know what they did or believed. We don’t have a single first person claim that he ever performed a miracle. We don’t have any first person claims about him at all. The only first person claims we even have for any apostles are from paul, who never says they claimed Jesus performed niracles and never says they claimed he was physically resurrected.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible disagrees. Here’s what they say “First, John the Apostle,who was traditionally identified as the “beloved dsiciple” transmitted orally to his followers an account of the deeds (especialy the miracles or 'signs”) and sayings of Jesus and of his death and resurrection. As we have already seen, these reminiscences preserved historical information about the ministry of Jesus…". Note that the Oxford Companion discusses the authorship and dating of John for some three whole pages, it’s not just a quick decision. Some 250 PhD’s and Professors of several faiths lend their name to this reference guide. Oxford is widely considered of the highest level of scholarship and as unbiased as humanly possible.
Again, Oxford assumes by the text that a disciple of Matthew must have been the author. Yes, it is not by a “witness” but it is then by " or anybody who knew any witnesses" which DtC asked for. Note that they state is is “unlikely” that Matthew was the author.
You would. Hindu stories are full of miracles surrounding gods, incarnations of gods, and human saints and sages. I can probably find an equivalent Hindu story for each of Jesus’s miracles if I looked long enough. Of the top of my head, though, I recall Hindu miracles for parting waters, walking on water, using a small amount of food to feed a lot of people, raising the dead, and coming back from the dead.
Hey, isn’t there this place sort of near India…where Jewish people used to live!? :eek:
What I said was the conclusions from the authors and editors of the Oxford Companion of the Bible, based upon the best unbiased scholarly evidence available. Some 250 PhD’s and professors, of all faiths, lent their names to this book. Oxford is widely considered of the highest level of scholarship and as unbiased as humanly possible. There is no, repeat NO suppositions taken on religous beliefs or simple faith in this tome. It’s all scholarly conclusions based upon all evidence- historical, writing style, translations, and other evidence.
Little is known about the actual authors of Matthew and Mark, thus it cannot be said they are “non- contemporary, non-Palestinian, non-Jewish, Gentile works”. (Well, what do we call the very early proto-Christians, who kept Kosher for nigh everything? You can argue they are a still Jewish sect or early Christians. of course, by your definition of “* Pauline Christology – that proto-orthodox theology which became the basis for the brand of Christianity adopted by Constantine”* that would not include any of the Apostles or even James the first Bishop of Jerusalem… In other words, even Peter (the first bishop of Rome)doesn’t qualify!:dubious: You are changing your definitions of Jewish and Gentile to fit your argument. Cheap tricks.
Let’s look at it this way, you seem to be pushing the idea that Paul made up Christianity and that the Gospels were made up out of whole cloth. Note that when the first Gospels came out, several of the Apostles were still alive, including John who lived until well into the 2nd century. They didn;t utter a peep, except that John came out with his Gospel, which indeed does put a different light on several things.
And certainly there are Miracles in Q’ let us start with Matt 9:6= Mark2:10=Luke 5:24, which shows Jesus healing the sick. Most experts assume a Q of some sort, and assume Q is much older than any Gospel; well right there is a miracle that was recorded before 70AD, likely not long after the death of Jesus. (Note to the bystanders- nearly all of Mark is considered to be Q source material, like 90%)
Well, there’s a collection of Jesus sayings known as the Book of Thomas. Some of it might even be reasonably accurate transcription.
Christians with less of a taste for the supernatural might believe in Mark’s empty tomb, visions experienced by Christ’s contemporaries and an afterlife. I doubt if it matters to all Christians whether or not Jesus passed through a zombie stage.
DtC: Thanks again for the comments.