Adam wrote:The last thing I would want to do, Michael,
Is defend our "outhouse" from the charge of generally blowing off his competition by cavalier trumpetings of what he "knows" to be true based on his readings into the sociology and archaeology of ancient Palestine. Yes, he is guilty as charged. He basically refuses to back up his ukases with proof or even much evidence. But he himself will admit that memorization of all the details of who said what when in which books/articles and how well it was received and whether we should still stand on that particular--well, you get my drift.
…
What I am saying is that "outhouse" fires ideas at us that he does know are supported by academic scholars, but he has no intention of spending any time documenting any of this. The problem is also that many of his ideas are right, many are wrong, but he gives you NOTHING to help you tell the difference. He is as convinced he is right when he is wrong as he is convinced when he is right. …
Thank you for your post.
outhouse wrote:I cannot teach you what I have learned from lectures from some of the finest professors on these topics. Nor can I source them as a student.
I know not everyone keeps the notes they take out lectures. And I might be unusual that I still have some of my University lecture notes. I do recognise it takes effort to present evidence.
outhouse wrote:Michael BG wrote:This makes you sound like an evangelical Christian and the New Testament should be totally accepted without any critical assessment.
Mike I have nothing against you.
What I wrote was:
I don’t understand how you can write:
The NT is full of evidence.
This make you sound like an evangelical Christian and the New Testament should be totally accepted without any critical assessment. But I don’t think that is your position.
I can agree with you that we have to look to the New Testament for our evidence. And
outhouse wrote:
And only with study and criticism can we determine and evaluate the evidence.
It was your lack of this qualification statement that was I questioning, because it sounded like you were saying that there is the evidence in a such and such New Testament book as if all of it has equal value.
outhouse wrote:
Evidence can hold great value and evidence can hold little to none. But it is still evidence. Scholars determine the value of said evidence. We often see a middle of the road and those far right and left in interpretation. Don't blame me because you admit to far left or right.
Scholars present opinions of the evidence and it is down to each individual to determine for themselves how convinced they are by what they are presented with.
This is why I keep asking you to make the presentation so I can consider it.
outhouse wrote:
You still haven’t posted any evidence for your opinion.
Yes I have Paul is excellent evidence which holds historicity here. As it stands regardless of what I post, Early Christians were persecuted. To what extent is what is being studied.
You made a very specific claim
outhouse wrote:And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.
And now instead of providing any evidence you wish to change the nature of the debate.
I countered your claim about the evidence of Paul and tried to show that what he wrote in Galatians does not support the claim you made.
A few posts ago I wrote this
Timothy Barnes according to Wikipedia states “Actual persecution … was local, sporadic, almost random,” and then states that “Tertullian wrote that no Christian blood was shed in Africa prior to 180.” There seems to be no evidence “early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple”. I stated “I don’t see any evidence that early Christians generally were in fear for their lives. I see that as a Christian myth. A few times some action is taken against some of the most outspoken Christians such as Stephen and maybe James son of Zebedee.”
You have provide a link to Wikipedia - Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chri ... man_Empire
This article states, “Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor” (referenced to
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom by Candida Moss.
There is a Wikepedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Persecution
According to Moss, although provincial governors in the Roman Empire had a great deal of personal discretion and power to do what they felt was needed in their jurisdiction, and there were local and sporadic incidents of persecution and mob violence against Christians, for most of the first three hundred years of Christian history Christians were able to live in peace, practice professions, and rise to positions of responsibility.
outhouse wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
Early Christians suffered sporadic persecution as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods.[7][8] Persecution was on the rise in Asia Minor towards the end of the 1st century,[9] and in 111 AD the emperor Trajan issued regulations about the conduct of trials of Christians under the Roman governor of the area.[10] The first action taken against Christians by the order of an emperor occurred half a century earlier under Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.[8]
Doubts have been raised about the historicity of Tacitus’ account (Annals 15.44) regarding Christians or Chrestians being persecuted by Nero and some scholars see the Christ and Pontius Pilatus parts as Christian interpolation.
Therefore scholars nowadays see little persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire while recognising that some Christians were killed sporadically. Also it is generally recognised that while Christians were seen as Jews they had the same protection as Jews most of the time. Therefore up until 64 CE there is no evidence of Christians being persecuted by the Roman authorities for being Christians.
outhouse wrote:
Please read the Pauline epistles.
Paul admits he persecuted early followers, as well, was persecuted himself.
So Mike, why were early Christians persecuted?
Do you understand how and why and when the persecution evolved in different geographic locations?
You could also read Candida Moss recent book on the topic as well, as she shines a light on a great deal of mythical content and the limited evidence in many cased deemed historical.
I think reading Candida Moss’ book might be a good idea.
I have already addressed Paul’s “persecution” of the church in Galatians. Paul’s own descriptions of his own persecution seem to be unhistorical and I would be interested in reading a criterial examination of their historicity.
Have you read Candida Moss’ book?