1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: 1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Kapyong wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:27 pm Gday all :)
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:28 pm For such rebuffs to be made, there first must come the accusation, unless you want to argue that the writers were refuting claims precognizant of their being made.
The issue is whether Jesus Christ was a myth or not,
not whether Christianity was a myth.

There are no claims that Christianity was a myth - 'Peter' is denying that the tales of Jesus are myths, not that the entire religion of Christianity was a myth.

Are you claiming otherwise ?


Kapyong
This whole thing is stupid. And "Peter" and Justin are defending the story of Jesus as not being a myth, not whether Christianity is a myth, which is a completely assinine claim to make.

I think you two are confused.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: 1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Post by pavurcn »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:29 pm I think you two are confused.
Consider the title of this thread: "1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity."

It is not "1st & 2nd C writers who mythed Christianity."

It deals with a failure to notice something (a historical movement) was happening. Just as certain people are said to have "missed" Christianity so they can be said to have "missed" the Roman cult of Mithras.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: 1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Post by Joseph D. L. »

pavurcn wrote: Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:54 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:29 pm I think you two are confused.
Consider the title of this thread: "1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity."

It is not "1st & 2nd C writers who mythed Christianity."

It deals with a failure to notice something (a historical movement) was happening. Just as certain people are said to have "missed" Christianity so they can be said to have "missed" the Roman cult of Mithras.
I'm very aware of the thread heading. It's not my fault you two were the ones going off about Christianity being a myth. You two said it. Not me.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Justin and 2 Peter are addressing the charge of Jesus being a fable, or a myth.

And you two are completely confused by the different motifs at work between Mithraism and Christianity. Mithraism was seen as an extension of older cults. It didn't draw attention to itself. Christianity, on the other hand, did take itself as being more than it was, and actively promoted itself.

But that's a side issue. The issue at present is Jesus not being attested to by first century writers. But Jesus wasn't active during the first century; he was active during the second century. So any talk of first century attestation should be limited to fundamentalists. And yes, that is a problem for historicity.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: 1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Post by pavurcn »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:01 pm But that's a side issue. The issue at present is Jesus not being attested to by first century writers. But Jesus wasn't active during the first century; he was active during the second century. So any talk of first century attestation should be limited to fundamentalists. And yes, that is a problem for historicity.
You seem to make fundamentalists out of all mainstream New Testament scholars (who put Jesus in the first century, sub Pontio Pilato). The extreme outlier idea is that Jesus was active in the second century.

But if you do hold such a view, then you are implying that those who made Jesus a first century figure were mythicizing: putting a figure in a more remote time.

The main point was something else: non-mention of Christianity in certain extant authors' works can be of highly dubious argumentative value (if it has any at all).
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: 1st & 2nd C writers who missed Christianity

Post by Joseph D. L. »

pavurcn wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 am You seem to make fundamentalists out of all mainstream New Testament scholars (who put Jesus in the first century, sub Pontio Pilato). The extreme outlier idea is that Jesus was active in the second century.
Not at all. In fact I'm not aware of any mainstream academic or Biblical scholar or historian who has made such an argument, and I'm only aware of one other person who came to a similar conclusion as myself, but through a different avenue. (In fact, I owe a lot of my own thinking to him, even if I believe he was mistaken in a few areas. But that's neither here nor there.)
But if you do hold such a view, then you are implying that those who made Jesus a first century figure were mythicizing: putting a figure in a more remote time.
I think there is a difference between mythicizing, and a deliberate ploy to undercut their opponents. The necessity of having Jesus where he is was to conform to 1), place him back far enough that the heretics could not claim him as their own, and 2) to comply with the prophecies of Daniel and Ezekiel. (The fact that the numbers are not at all precise should be cause for alarm, if the Gospels were relaying the history of someone who lived not too long before hand).
The main point was something else: non-mention of Christianity in certain extant authors' works can be of highly dubious argumentative value (if it has any at all).
No, it does have value. If Jesus was active in the time he is said to be, and Christians were gaining ground in religious and political spheres as Acts of the Apostles would have us believe, then it is bloody well unlikely that no one would have missed it. And yet, they did. Even if you want to dismiss it as an argument from silence, you still have to address the silence; you still have to explain why no one bothered to jot it down, even a brief mention. And saying that it was because it so marginal is not a satisfactory answer, given that Jesus would have to have had enough notoriety as to be crucified by the ruling procurator, and his disciples hunted for following him.

Or the alternative: that everyone is looking in the wrong place--the wrong time.
Post Reply