Why were people offended when Christ came?

[Elioenai26]

The account of the events authored from their side doesn't exist. The first opposition accounts to Christianity are not contemporary to the claimed timing of Jesus.

If such a document did exist we would have a good understanding of the controversy, as we have it, we have a one sided account speaking for the opponents of the ideas they espouse.

It would be like if only MY account of our discussion survived and people of the future had to glean from it what happened without hearing anything you had to say except through my filter.

First you said we have no accounts from the "people", now you are changing it to be the "opposition".

Your second point seems to be that since we do not have any accounts from the opposition that therefore, the accounts we do have are not reliable accounts of how the opposition viewed Jesus and His teachings.

The above bolded portion can be written as follows:

1. If we do not have historical accounts of Jesus's opponents in their own words, then the accounts we do have written by Jesus's contemporaries is unreliable.
2. We do not have historical accounts of Jesus's opponents in their own words.
3. Therefore, Jesus's contemporary historical accounts are unreliable.

Now, I will need you to provide support/argument to demonstrate why both premises 1. and 2. are more plausibly true than their opposites in order for your reasoning to be valid and sound.

 

[variant]

First you said we have no accounts from the "people", now you are changing it to be the "opposition".

Really?

And I quote myself:

Sadly we don't get the contemporary opposition argument from people who actually saw Jesus (such a thing simply doesn't exist), our entire outline of them comes from believers after the fact.

If you can't comprehend that straight forward a point, I will digress from the rest of this conversation.

Your second point seems to be that since we do not have any accounts from the opposition that therefore, the accounts we do have are not reliable accounts of how the opposition viewed Jesus and His teachings.

The above bolded portion can be written as follows:

1. If we do not have historical accounts of Jesus's opponents in their own words, then the accounts we do have written by Jesus's contemporaries is unreliable.
2. We do not have historical accounts of Jesus's opponents in their own words.
3. Therefore, Jesus's contemporary historical accounts are unreliable.

Now, I will need you to provide support/argument to demonstrate why both premises 1. and 2. are more plausibly true than their opposites in order for your reasoning to be valid and sound.

With respect to your original context of how these people felt about things (and why they felt that way), the argument stands in it's simplicity, that we can not trust their opponents to fairly or accurately represent them.

So, we don't know how they felt, much less the harder, why they felt that way.

Our historical inferences on this subject are suspect from the get go.

 

[Elioenai26]

Really?

Yes really. I was referring to this post.

That we don't really have a good account of how the people themselves felt, they are spoken for by their historical opponents (at best).

So, I can't answer your question as to why they felt that way.

Notice how I used the word "first". You first started out talking about the people.

And I quote myself:

If you can't comprehend that straight forward a point, I will digress from the rest of this conversation.

No need to digress. Just remember what it is that you have written and in what order.

With respect to your original context of how these people felt about things (and why they felt that way), the argument stands in it's simplicity, that we can not trust their opponents to fairly or accurately represent them.

So, we don't know how they felt, much less the harder, why they felt that way.

Our historical inferences on this subject are suspect from the get go.

Several things to note Variant:

1. All I asked was why were people offended at Christ when He came preaching and teaching. So far several people have answered the question without any misgivings whatsoever about there being or not being any written accounts of those offended.

2. You say the argument stands in it's simplicity. But I am not persuaded. You will have to support your statement, otherwise it is simply an assertion.

3. You say that we can not trust their opponents to fairly or accurately represent them. Well that brings us back to the syllogism and premises 1. and 2. which you have failed to support. You have not demonstrated that the gospel accounts and other accounts of the life and teachings of Christ as well as the response of the religious elite and detractors of Jesus are unreliable. Saying that there is no historical record of the events in question by Christ's opponents is not even something you have substantiated, let alone demonstrated to us how this leads to the conclusion that the accounts we do have are unreliable.

4. You say our historical inferences are "suspect" from the get go....

What do you mean by this?

 

[variant]

Yes really. I was referring to this post.

Notice how I used the word "first". You first started out talking about the people.

No need to digress. Just remember what it is that you have written and in what order.

You are quoting post #30 I am quoting post #12

Try to keep up.

My reply to you assumes you've read the post you were quoting.

(it should be pretty easy to understand who "the people" are in that context).

Several things to note Variant:

1. All I asked was why were people offended at Christ when He came preaching and teaching. So far several people have answered the question without any misgivings whatsoever about there being or not being any written accounts of those offended.

People are free to go on flights of fancy all they like, they don't know any better than you or I how these people felt or why.

2. You say the argument stands in it's simplicity. But I am not persuaded. You will have to support your statement, otherwise it is simply an assertion.

That you can't be persuaded by a simple argument is not my problem.

3. You say that we can not trust their opponents to fairly or accurately represent them. Well that brings us back to the syllogism and premises 1. and 2. which you have failed to support. You have not demonstrated that the gospel accounts and other accounts of the life and teachings of Christ as well as the response of the religious elite and detractors of Jesus are unreliable. Saying that there is no historical record of the events in question by Christ's opponents is not even something you have substantiated, let alone demonstrated to us how this leads to the conclusion that the accounts we do have are unreliable.

4. You say our historical inferences are "suspect" from the get go....

What do you mean by this?

These are not just my biases, they are how historical inference is done.

With respect to the question of how these people felt and why, you are on very shaky ground muddled by assumptions and biased reference material.

 

[Elioenai26]

People are free to go on flights of fancy all they like, they don't know any better than you or I how these people felt or why.

I did not ask how the people felt about Christ or why they felt that way. I asked "WHY WERE PEOPLE OFFENDED WHEN CHRIST CAME PREACHING THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD COME TO MEN?"

The question is not who "felt" what or "why", but "WHAT" was it that Christ did that was so offensive to them. The scriptures give us several reasons. It is not a trick question.

I do not have to know how someone feels to know that they are offended at something that I have said or done.

That you can't be persuaded by a simple argument is not my problem.

I am persuaded by good arguments. Thus far, you have not even supplied an argument, let alone a good one. You have asserted something, yes, but that is not an argument.

These are not just my biases, they are how historical inference is done.

References? Citations? This is simply another bald assertion you are making.

 

[variant]

I did not ask how the people felt about Christ or why they felt that way. I asked "WHY WERE PEOPLE OFFENDED WHEN CHRIST CAME PREACHING THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD COME TO MEN?"

Taking offense is a feeling, so it would behoove us to understand that that is what they felt. You know, if we actually want to know something rather than just preach a viewpoint dogmatically.

As to why they felt that way, assuming of course they did, it would be remarkably difficult to piece that together even if we did have an account of their side of the story.

The question is not who "felt" what or "why", but "WHAT" was it that Christ did that was so offensive to them. The scriptures give us several reasons. It is not a trick question.

Good question, now how do we go about answering it?

While the "scriptures" give us many possible explanations they are indeed those of the opposition. Any alternative explanation for both the nature of the the feelings were talking about and the depth of reasoning behind them is entirely lost.

I do not have to know how someone feels to know that they are offended at something that I have said or done.

That is your perspective. An inherently biased one assuming the source material you believe to be true is true.

I am persuaded by good arguments. Thus far, you have not even supplied an argument, let alone a good one. You have asserted something, yes, but that is not an argument.

The argument is pretty simple. We don't simply accept characterizations about groups of people from their historical opponents if we want to actually know what is going on.

You can indeed rely on such shady characterizations if you so desire, but you know, as with all analysis, garbage in, garbage out.

References? Citations? This is simply another bald assertion you are making.

That we tend not to rely on one sided accounts to accurately portray their opposition?

Start here:

Multiperspectivity: What Is It, and Why Use It? | Teachinghistory.org

 

[Elioenai26]

That we tend not to rely on one sided accounts to accurately portray their opposition?

Start here:

Multiperspectivity: What Is It, and Why Use It? | Teachinghistory.org

You keep talking about opposition...

Who are you talking about?

Jesus, His disciples?

Who were they opposing? The Jewish Religious Leaders? The Romans?

If so, how do you know this?

What are your references, your sources for this information?

 

[variant]

You keep talking about opposition...

Who are you talking about?

Jesus, His disciples?

Who were they opposing? The Jewish Religious Leaders? The Romans?

If so, how do you know this?

What are your references, your sources for this information?

The people who you say were offended.

We don't have any non-believer accounts of what they thought about Jesus at the time or why.

 

[Gadarene]

So we need to have writings from Caiaphas in order to hold the gospel accounts as trustworthy?

Your reasoning for this view is?????

It would make them more credible, at least.

When you have two people on different political sides of the aisle agreeing on facts, then those facts are better evidenced. This, as mentioned, is something the documented life of Julius Caesar has but the documented life of Jesus Christ has not.

We have documents from Julius Caesar's political and military enemies like Cicero and Scipio corroborating the accounts of his life written by those sympathetic to him.

By contrast, we only have the word of the second-hand gospel accounts that the Pharisees really were the 2D cartoon villains they are made out to be, which is a one-sided situation. It doesn't mean the gospels are wrong, but they would be a lot more credible if we have the other side of the story as well and they corroborated the gospel claims.

 

[Gadarene]

And this thread is very enlightening to see how a Christian responds to historical practice when it DOESN'T back up his apologetics.

 

[Elioenai26]

The people who you say were offended.

We don't have any non-believer accounts of what they thought about Jesus at the time or why.

Where are you getting this information from?

 

[Elioenai26]

And this thread is very enlightening to see how a Christian responds to historical practice when it DOESN'T back up his apologetics.

Historical practice actually does back up my apologetic, multidiversity is nothing new Gadarene.

And besides, biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians in general already accept the NT as an accurate historical text, so the point is actually moot.

 

[Gadarene]

Historical practice actually does back up my apologetic, multidiversity is nothing new Gadarene.

And yet you query the argument.

And besides, biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians in general already accept the NT as an accurate historical text, so the point is actually moot.

Yes, a bunch of terminally credulous evangelical "scholars" and apologists do, I'm sure. Not that this really means much.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, a bunch of terminally credulous evangelical "scholars" and apologists do, I'm sure. Not that this really means much.

Biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians do not qualify as "terminally credulous evangelical scholars and apologists.

You never answered my question by the way about where you got your information from regarding Jesus of Nazareth....

 

[Gadarene]

Biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians do not qualify as "terminally credulous evangelical scholars and apologists.

They are if they're terminally credulous evangelicals, which I suspect many of your sources are.

You never answered my question by the way about where you got your information from regarding Jesus of Nazareth....

Which question and which information?

 

[variant]

Where are you getting this information from?

There isn't any information!!!!

If there were contemporary accounts that give us insight into the various ideas of non-believing people's reactions to Jesus and their account of events, they would be incredible historical documents of great importance.

They would be convincing proof of Jesus's existence and well known in apologetics circles.

It's like I'm arguing for the non-existence of red giant in the solar system. WE WOULD KNOW IF WE KNEW.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

We don't have anything attributable to Caiaphas, for example. We only have what was written by his adversaries, early Christians. Now, if there were writings by Caiaphas as well, and they corroborated the miracle claims in the gospel account, that would be something.

This is why the claim that Christ/events in the life of Christ are better evidenced than Julius Caesar/events in the life of Julius Caesar doesn't hold up.

Precisely the point that Elio irrationally refuses to ackknowledge.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

So?

What is your point?

So my point is the evidence for the life and death of jesus were at best just second hand testomonies. Therefore it can be deduced that Jesus made little or no impression on any historian or scholar of his day. Ceasar was better evidenced.

 

[bhsmte]

Historical practice actually does back up my apologetic, multidiversity is nothing new Gadarene.

And besides, biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians in general already accept the NT as an accurate historical text, so the point is actually moot.

There are a lot of historians and biblical scholars who do not accept the NT as accurate historical text. The scholars who claim the NT is historically accurate, are of the conservative christian variety, who happen to work for religious based universities. Too many errors, too many changes to the text over time, no known authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, no eye witness accounts and no original texts of the NT exist.

The majority of credible biblical scholars will claim; bits and pieces of the NT may be historically significant, but as a whole, it doesn't meet the standard of being reliable. 200 christian scholars at the Jesus seminar looked at the historical reliability of what was attributed to jesus in the NT and their findings were 18% of what the NT claimed about Jesus, was reliable, based on historical method.

I would read up on "historical method" and how it is applied to determine "what likely happened in the past".

 

[bhsmte]

Biblical scholars, critical historians, and historians do not qualify as "terminally credulous evangelical scholars and apologists.

You never answered my question by the way about where you got your information from regarding Jesus of Nazareth....

When these scholars are employed by religious institutions, it can tend to alter your perceptions a bit.