The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:You still haven’t posted any evidence for your opinion.


.
Please read the Pauline epistles.


Paul admits he persecuted early followers, as well, was persecuted himself.

The QUESTION HERE is NOT "if" they were persecuted or not, your derailing context here. The QUESTION is WHY???????????????????????????????????????????


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.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Lets keep this simple.

Mike, do you understand why this new movement was popular in the Roman Empire?
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG »

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?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael BG wrote: you mean Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity by Richard C. Miller?

Some scholars consider what type of story the resurrection appearance stories can be classified as. Therefore hopefully Miller will address that and he might even agree with them that they share features similar to angelic appearance stories. For me the reason Christianity exists is because unlike other Jewish Messianic figures, Jesus’ followers believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Their belief has to be seen as historical or they have based their religion on a lie.
I have read the first Chapter and it seems that the direction of the book would be just to deny the classical idea that "Jesus followers *believed* that they saw the resurrected Jesus". At contrary, they knew these appearance stories were fiction. Even Paul (if the author of 1 Cor 15). I'm curious to know the alternative description of the origins.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: A few posts ago I wrote this

Non sequitur.

Its talking about Africa for one, and second bloodshed.

regarding Christians or Chrestians being persecuted by Nero



That is one example of many, and ONLY a doubt. It very well could have happened.


Its not up for debate because you refuse it. Their persecution Is historical and it did take place, the ONLY question is to what extent, and why, when and how as it evolved in time.


Therefore up until 64 CE there is no evidence of Christians being persecuted by the Roman authorities for being Christians.


Non sequitur. Romans were not the only ones doing the persecuting :facepalm:

countered your claim about the evidence of Paul
You countered nothing at all.


Paul has historicity as persecuting and being persecuted. You cannot change that.
Last edited by outhouse on Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Lets keep this simple.

Mike, do you understand why this new movement was popular in the Roman Empire?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:You made a very specific claim

That's right.


Because Pauls persecution of early followers has historicity. whether you like it or not.

It also fits in the cultural anthropology 100% without question.



SO I ASK YOU, why would Paul persecute this early movement? WHO paid him?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: Paul’s own descriptions of his own persecution seem to be unhistorical


There is no foundational aspect that is not historical. Details yes we know are rhetorical.

Have you read Candida Moss’ book?
She is an online friend I tried to get to join this forum when it first started, so did Stephan, so no. I already know her content and most of it is not new.



I would ask if you have read ALL of the Apocrypha on Paul? I have and it has some interesting ideas based on later traditions. Different people paint Paul very differently.

By the way Candida says almost nothing here because of the lack of evidence, she focusses on later traditions in 2nd and 3rd century, and in context admits the historical cores we already knew about.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-9.htm

Because I persecuted the Church of God. This was the one sin for which, though he knew that God had forgiven him (1 Timothy 1:13), yet he could never quite forgive himself (Galatians 1:13). In my 'Life of St. Paul' I have shown from the language used, that this persecution was probably more deadly than has been usually supposed, involving not only torture, but actual bloodshed (Acts 8:4; Acts 9:1), besides the martyrdom of St. Stephen. We can imagine how such deeds and such scenes would, even after forgiveness, lie like sparks of fire in a sensitive conscience.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: I have read the first Chapter and it seems that the direction of the book would be just to deny the classical idea that "Jesus followers *believed* that they saw the resurrected Jesus". At contrary, they knew these appearance stories were fiction. Even Paul (if the author of 1 Cor 15). I'm curious to know the alternative description of the origins.
Does Miller provide any reasoning for saying that Jesus’ followers didn’t believe they saw the resurrected Jesus apart from an appeal to other myths?
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: 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.”
Non sequitur.

Its talking about Africa for one, and second bloodshed.
If you have conceded that Christians were not killed except in rare occasions (Stephen and James) before 64 CE then we have nothing to disagree on.
outhouse wrote:
regarding Christians or Chrestians being persecuted by Nero
That is one example of many, and ONLY a doubt. It very well could have happened.

Its not up for debate because you refuse it. Their persecution Is historical and it did take place, the ONLY question is to what extent, and why, when and how as it evolved in time.
Therefore up until 64 CE there is no evidence of Christians being persecuted by the Roman authorities for being Christians.


Non sequitur. Romans were not the only ones doing the persecuting
You keep stating things as if they are historical facts and I keep stating they are not facts, but opinions. I provide counter opinions to show you that opinions differ.
You may believe that Nero did blame Christians for the fire in Rome and that he executed some Christians afterwards. However just because you believe it to be true does not make it so and does not convince me it was so. I hope you now understand the points I am making, and why I keep asking you to provide the evidence for your belief.

If you are not saying,
“it is possible that before 64 CE some Christians in some places, were discriminated against and had pressure applied to them to reject their belief in the resurrected Christ by some Jews” I would not dispute that it is POSSIBLE. But being possible does not make it a historical fact.
outhouse wrote:
countered your claim about the evidence of Paul
You countered nothing at all.

Paul has historicity as persecuting and being persecuted. You cannot change that.
AND
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You made a very specific claim
That's right.

Because Pauls persecution of early followers has historicity. whether you like it or not.

It also fits in the cultural anthropology 100% without question.

SO I ASK YOU, why would Paul persecute this early movement? WHO paid him?
I raised the issue of Galatians where Paul does NOT say he killed followers of Christ.
Your claim was about early Christians being “hunted down” and living “in fear for their lives”, which you still haven’t provided any evidence for.
Historicity has to be argued. And I am asking you to make the case.
Please point out where Paul says who paid him to pursue Christians?
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: Paul’s own descriptions of his own persecution seem to be unhistorical
There is no foundational aspect that is not historical. Details yes we know are rhetorical.
I thought when you say something is “rhetorical” you are questioning its historicity.
It might be useful for you to post the quotes from Paul’s genuine epistles and then discuss which parts are historical and which parts are rhetorical and why you decide each case.
outhouse wrote:
Have you read Candida Moss’ book?
She is an online friend I tried to get to join this forum when it first started, so did Stephan, so no. I already know her content and most of it is not new.

By the way Candida says almost nothing here because of the lack of evidence, she focusses on later traditions in 2nd and 3rd century, and in context admits the historical cores we already knew about.
So you disagree with her and you believe there is evidence for Christians being “hunted down” and living “in fear for their lives” before 64 CE, but you just don’t want to share it with me?
outhouse wrote: http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-9.htm

Because I persecuted the Church of God. This was the one sin for which, though he knew that God had forgiven him (1 Timothy 1:13), yet he could never quite forgive himself (Galatians 1:13). In my 'Life of St. Paul' I have shown from the language used, that this persecution was probably more deadly than has been usually supposed, involving not only torture, but actual bloodshed (Acts 8:4; Acts 9:1), besides the martyrdom of St. Stephen. We can imagine how such deeds and such scenes would, even after forgiveness, lie like sparks of fire in a sensitive conscience.
Do you know you are quoting the Pulpit Commentary published in 1880 for use by Christian ministers as an aid in writing their sermons?

We could consider 2 Cor 11:24-25 where Paul lists the punishments he has received:

“[24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.
[25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.”

It is possible that this is part of an interpolation starting at 2 Cor 11:23 “I am a better one …” and ending at 2 Cor 11:33, when the discussion returns to boasting.

Which parts do you think are historical and which parts not and why?

If we assume that this was written by Paul and he was telling the truth. This is still not evidence that Christians were generally given lashes or the rod. If we assume that Paul wrote this part of 2 Corinthians in 56 CE and he was converted in 40 CE, then this is evidence that in those 16 years five times the synagogue authorities punished him for something and three times a civil authority punished him for something. And once he was stoned to death! :D It was Paul’s action which merited the punishments. Paul never talks about Christians being punished by either the synagogue authorities (except when he was pursuing Christians) or the civil authorities.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:\Do you know you are quoting the Pulpit Commentary published in 1880 for use by Christian ministers as an aid in writing their sermons?


.
Did you know their opinion still remains a valid one?
Post Reply