Hi Johnny,

Johnny wrote:

According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, Nero lived from 37-68. It also says “In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of the accusation. According to some accounts, (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians - few at that time – and persecuted them. He sheltered the homeless, however, and rebuilt the city with fire precautions.” 

Is that not credible evidence that during Nero’s reign there were only a few Christians?  

Johnny, that is not evidence at all. If someone 2,000 years after the fact wants to disagree with all the sources from the time and place of the event, then he is going to have to come up with a real cogent argument, with real evidence. What is the basis for the encyclopedia’s conclusion?

Listen, I gave you two independent sources, one associated with the people doing the killing and the other one from the group being killed. They both agree that not just a few Christians were being killed, but that immense multitudes of Christians were being killed. In response to that you presented a conclusion that it didn’t happen, with no argument, no evidence and no sources to back up the conclusion. I know you wouldn’t accept that kind of nonsense from me. If I said, “J.P. Moreland PhD says that the resurrection took place, is that not credible evidence that it did?” you would laugh at me. No, Johnny, you are going to have to start stepping up to the plate. Instead of just referring to things like, “Stark said x,y and z and the encyclopedia said a,b and c” you are going to have to come up with the arguments, sources and evidence to support your conclusions.

Johnny wrote:

It is important to note that none of Tacitus’ writings reasonably prove that during the first decade following the Resurrection, the Christian Church comprised many thousands of members and that the majority of Christians living during that time period believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. If only a few Christians living during that time period believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then possibly Jesus did not physically rise from the dead after all.

The only thing I sited Tacitus, Pliny and Clement to prove was that Stark’s hypothesis was wrong. The book of Acts, the Gospels and the letters of Paul show that there were thousands of Christians during the first couple of decades and that Christians believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Moreland has shown, using a real criteria and real evidence, that these documents are historically reliable. You have already stipulated to that. If you have a problem with that now, then once again I ask you to show which criterion did Moreland not meet? You keep avoiding this issue.

Regards,

Brady

Round 10 - From Johnny

In a previous post I wrote:

According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, Nero lived from 37-68. It also says “In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of the accusation. According to some accounts, (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians - few at that time – and persecuted them. He sheltered the homeless, however, and rebuilt the city with fire precautions.” 

          Is that not credible evidence that during Nero’s reign there           were only a few Christians?

Brady responded:

Johnny, that is not evidence at all. If someone 2,000 years after the fact wants to disagree with all the sources from the time and place of the event, then he is going to have to come up with a real cogent argument, with real evidence. What is the basis for the encyclopedia’s conclusion?

The Microsoft Encarta 2002 encyclopedia is not just “someone.” Do you have any idea what is takes to put together an encyclopedia? Encyclopedias are the result of a consensus of scholarly research taken from a wide variety of sources. The prestigious and scholarly Encyclopedia Britannica fully concurs with the Microsoft encyclopedia. It says “He (Nero) became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.” 

Regarding “What is the basis for the encyclopedia’s conclusion?,” I have no idea, but I am certain that I could find out. The majority of Americans, even some conservative Christians, will take Microsoft’s and Britannica’s word over yours. There is no way that you and other conservative Christians can effectively take on not only the Microsoft Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, but the vast majority of historical and sociological scholars as well. I believe that you are simply trying to use a delaying tactic here, hoping that I won’t contact the researchers at the Microsoft Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, but rest assured that I will if necessary. I love conducting detailed research. It would be a great pleasure for me to contact researchers at the Microsoft Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Would you like me to contact them? If so, after I get details of their research methods, we’ll see who people believe, you or the encyclopedias, not to mention the vast majority of other historical and sociological research.  

Brady wrote:

 Listen, I gave you two independent sources, one associated with the people doing the killing and the other one from the group being killed. They both agree that not just a few Christians were being killed, but that immense multitudes of Christians were being killed. In response to that you presented a conclusion that it didn’t happen, with no argument, no evidence and no sources to back up the conclusion. I know you wouldn’t accept that kind of nonsense from me. If I said, “J.P. Moreland PhD says that the Resurrection took place, is that not credible evidence that it did?” you would laugh at me. No, Johnny, you are going to have to start stepping up to the plate. Instead of just referring to things like, “Stark said x,y and z and the encyclopedia said a,b and c” you are going to have to come up with the arguments, sources and evidence to support your conclusions.

Rodney Stark is just one man. However, as I said, the vast majority of historians and sociologists disagree with you.

I wrote in my previous post:

“It is important to note that none of Tacitus’ writings reasonably prove that during the first decade following the Resurrection, the Christian Church comprised many thousands of members and that the majority of Christians living during that time period believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. If only a few Christians living during that time period believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then possibly Jesus did not physically rise from the dead after all.”

Brady responded:

The only thing I sited Tacitus, Pliny and Clement was to prove was that Stark’s hypothesis was wrong. The book of Acts, the Gospels and the letters of Paul show that there were thousands of Christians during the first couple of decades and that Christians believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

You must be kidding. Like many other Christians, you are calling upon the Bible to be its own witness.

Brady wrote:

Moreland has shown, using a real criteria and real evidence, that these documents are historically reliable. You have already stipulated to that. If you have a problem with that now, then once again I ask you to show which criterion did Moreland not meet? You keep avoiding this issue.

When I stipulated that, I didn’t know what you meant. Now that I know what you meant, I believe that whatever the criteria are that the vast majority of historical and sociological scholars use, which as I said I can find out if necessary, are the criteria that I would accept.

There is a very good reason that I am willing to take as much time as necessary regarding countering your claim that the Christian Church during the first few decades following the Resurrection contained many thousands of members. If the consensus of historical and sociological research suggests otherwise, then skeptics can credibly claim that the main reason for that small size was that only a few people at that time believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead, regardless of what the Gospels say. As the so-called eyewitnesses began to die out, it became much easier for some Christians to establish the myth that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

Whether you know it or not, you are basically calling the vast majority of historical and sociological scholars liars, claiming that their sole motive was to discredit Christian and Biblical claims that the early Christian Church during the first few decades following the Resurrection was very small. You might counter that their motives were good, but that they were incompetent scholars, but the general public would never buy an excuse like that.  

Sincerely,