Dialog 3 - Round 3

From Johnny 2/22/05

Brady,

 I am pleased that we can now begin our discussions. My arguments will deal only with the 1^st century, which was the very important foundational century for Christianity.

 Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, wrote a book titled ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ for which he received a Pulitzer Prize nomination. Stark is a prolific author. He was written over 50 books and publications, and he is a careful researcher. The bibliography in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ is 20 pages long. Chapter 1 is devoted to the size of the Christian Church at various stages of its growth. Stark estimates that there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. If Stark’s estimate is anywhere near being accurate, actually 25,000 Christians will do quite nicely, and cannot logically be ruled out, then it is my position that in the 1^st century it is plausible that the vast majority of people flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the Resurrection of Jesus. If there were no miracles and no Resurrection, then it is to be expected that the Christian Church could not have begun to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the first century.

As Richard Carrier has said, historically very small groups of people have believed in all sorts of outlandish things, to which I will add some things even more outlandish than Christianity. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool a very small group of people much of the time.

If you wish, we can discuss the growth of the Christian Church following the first century in another debate. The increase in the rate of growth following the first century is easily accounted for by secular means, just as Rodney Stark shows for both the first century and the subsequent centuries. Consider the following:

“This book raises, simply and brilliantly, just the kinds of questions anyone concerned with early Christianity should ask.” The Christian Century

“Compelling reading……..highly recommended.” Library Journal

“Anyone who has puzzled over Christianity’s rise to dominance in the Roman Empire…must read [this book]. Here is theoretical brashness combined with disarming common sense, a capacious curiosity, and a most uncommon ability to tell a complicated story in simple prose. Wayne Meeks, Yale University

“A provocative, insightful, challenging account of the rise of Christianity.” Andrew M. Greeley, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Rodney Stark is professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, and has taught at Baylor University. As his bibliography in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ shows, he has a good deal of corroborative support from a number of scholarly sources regarding not only his statistical model in chapter 1, but also regarding the growth of the Christian Church in general. 

As good as Stark’s book is, I don’t need to refer to ‘The Rise of Christianity’ in order to have good arguments. The texts mention the feeding of the 5,000, the feeding of the 4,000, the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teaching by Peter, the entire town that became Christians after hearing teaching by Peter and John, and the 500 eyewitnesses. If those numbers had been much smaller, would they have been nearly as convincing? Of course not. What if the feeding of the 5,000 had been the feeding of the ten? What if the 500 eyewitnesses had been the 15 eyewitnesses? The book of Acts mentions thousands of Christian Jews. Paul mentions the 500 eyewitnesses in 1^st Corinthians. Collectively the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians indicate a Christian Church of at least 20,000 members by 70 A.D. In Matthew Henry’s Bible commentary, Henry claims that the numbers mentioned in Acts indicate tens of thousands of believers prior to 40 A.D.

Either Rodney Stark et al are wrong or the claims of numbers mentioned in the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians are lies. Regarding the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000, if the events actually happened, surely a lot of those people would have become Christians. The texts say that the people were amazed at what they saw. 

In conclusion, there are no good reasons for anyone to assume that in the 1^st century there were anywhere near the number of Christians indicated in the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians.

From Brady   2/22/05

Johnny wrote: Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, wrote a book titled ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ for which he received a Pulitzer Prize nomination. Stark is a prolific author. He was written over 50 books and publications, and he is a careful researcher. The bibliography in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ is 20 pages long. Chapter 1 is devoted to the size of the Christian Church at various stages of its growth. Stark estimates that there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. If Stark’s estimate is anywhere near being accurate, actually 25,000 Christians will do quite nicely, and cannot logically be ruled out, then it is my position that in the 1^st century it is plausible that the vast majority of people flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the Resurrection of Jesus. If there were no miracles and no Resurrection, then it is to be expected that the Christian Church could not have begun to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the first century.

In my paper, “Atheists and the Resurrection,” I point out that most atheists or skeptics do not want to deal with the historical argument for the Resurrection. That they run from it. We see that has happened again. In my paper I call such arguments as Johnny has produced “going outside the evidence.” I call it that because this paragraph has nothing to do with the documents from eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses. It doesn’t deal with general knowledge recorded by historians. It does not deal with archaeological finds. And, of course, it comes nowhere near objective, inductive criteria for determining what events happened in the past.

I already dealt with Stark in my previous debate with Johnny. Nothing has changed since then. We have the eyewitness testimony of a hostile Roman historian and a Christian, both who lived at the time and in the place where the events were occurring. They agree on the facts of what was happening in Rome at the time. Stark, who writes two thousand years after the fact, says they are wrong, because their testimony doesn’t fit his mathematical model. For me this is a no-brainer. The rational man goes with the evidence, not against it. Mathematical models can only tell you what is likely to happen under certain circumstances, they can’t ever tell what happen. For that you need the evidence.

But, enough about Stark, this is a minor point in Johnny’s post. His more important point is, “it is my position that in the 1^st century it is plausible that the vast majority of people flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the Resurrection of Jesus. If there were no miracles and no Resurrection, then it is to be expected that the Christian Church could not have begun to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the first century.”

Here again, Johnny seeks to go outside the evidence and avoids the actual evidence and historical methods of determining the likelihood of events based on evidence. He instead provides us his speculation.  Here is the problem with his thinking: Even if most people didn’t believe the miracles happened, that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. The vast majority of the people never heard about most of the miracles. They had never seen the miracles, nor did they know anyone who had. Nor did they know anyone who knew someone who had. Nor did they know anyone who knew someone, who knew someone else who had seen the miracles. Nor did they have the writings of those who had seen the events.

Johnny wrote: As Richard Carrier has said, historically very small groups of people have believed in all sorts of outlandish things, to which I will add some things even more outlandish than Christianity. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool a very small group of people much of the time.

Johnny talks about small groups believing outlandish things. Let’s see, the census tells that only about 5% of Americans don’t believe in some form of God or Supreme Being. I guess that makes atheists and skeptics a small group, which means, according to the rest of the population, that atheists and skeptics believe an outlandish thing.

Johnny wrote: As good as Stark’s book is, I don’t need to refer to ‘The Rise of Christianity’ in order to have good arguments. The texts mention the feeding of the 5,000, the feeding of the 4,000, the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teaching by Peter, the entire town that became Christians after hearing teaching by Peter and John, and the 500 eyewitnesses. If those numbers had been much smaller, would they have been nearly as convincing? Of course not. What if the feeding of the 5,000 had been the feeding of the ten? What if the 500 eyewitnesses had been the 15 eyewitnesses? The book of Acts mentions thousands of Christian Jews. Paul mentions the 500 eyewitnesses in 1^st Corinthians. Collectively the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians indicate a Christian Church of at least 20,000 members by 70 A.D. In Matthew Henry’s Bible commentary, Henry claims that the numbers mentioned in Acts indicate tens of thousands of believers prior to 40 A.D.

Once again, this is more speculation on Johnny’s part. Thanks for sharing your opinion; do you have any evidence from the period to back it up? No? I didn’t think so.

Johnny wrote: Either Rodney Stark et al are wrong or the claims of numbers mentioned in the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians are lies. Regarding the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000, if the events actually happened, surely a lot of those people would have become Christians. The texts say that the people were amazed at what they saw. 

Well, since Paul, Luke and the Apostles lived in the Jerusalem in first century and experience the events that they speak of, and since you and Stark lives two thousand years later and has no first hand experience, I think I’ll go with the people who were there. But of course that would be the inductive, objective approach.

Johnny wrote: In conclusion, there are no good reasons for anyone to assume that in the 1^st century there were anywhere near the number of Christians indicated in the Gospels, Acts and 1^st Corinthians.

Except for the reason that those who lived through the events contradict you.

You could be considered the poster boy for how not to do historical investigation. Your post is filled with logical fallacies and never addresses the evidence from the period; it merely tries to sweep it aside and contradicts it.