Catholic Answers on how to confront anti-Catholicism (crucified, Mormon, testimony)

[Taiko]

The rate if abuse was never the issue. It was the bureaucracy transferring and covering up for the guilty in an attempt to look better. When they got caught it was doubly worse.

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by cupper3

You really need to get to know your bible better than an atheist.

No it is NOT of topic, as we are discussing the veracity of gospel claims.

Now, please pick up your bible and read Matthew 27:52-53

Here is what the KJV says:

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Dead bodies rising and walking around is the definition of a zombie. According to that gospel, those zombies appeared to many. Who I am sure told many others about this fantastic phenomena.

So, please don't just take this atheist's word for it, go read it for yourself. Zombies, in Matthew (there are more in Ezekiel and Revelations, but let's just stay with the gospels for now).

So, explain to me why no concurrent discussion outside of Mattew (who wrote this probably 70-80 years after the time frame it supposedly happened) in any recorded history?????

Explain that, please.

Allow me to jump in. Feel free to split this off if the mods so desire.

Dead bodies rising and walking around is the definition of a zombie.

No, cupper3.

This is a zombie:



This is not a zombie:



I think we can forgive you for your category error.

A "zombie" is one who is raised from the dead with a body but no soul to work in the sugar plantations of Haiti (if you believe in voodoo) or who returns from the dead with a body but no soul to feast on the flesh of the living (if you follow the cinematic oeuvres of Messrs. Richard Matheson and George Romero, or if you just watch AMC regularly.

What is described in Matthew is a resurrection, apparently body and soul, one of several resurrections performed by Jesus before His Resurrection. Neither the resurrected nor Jesus came to feast on the flesh of the living, although interestingly, Jesus offered His own flesh for us to consume, body and soul.

I know many atheists like to described the resurrection of the dead as creating "zombies," in the same way that many Christians like to characterize atheists as "genocidal maniacs," just because some were. Neither term is helpful in coming to an understanding of how the other side thinks.

This is not actually discussed only in Matthew, despite what you wrote. The resurrected dead were people were known and honored, according to the (extra-Biblical) early writings of the Church, and lived long lives, into the reign of the Emperor Hadrian. None of them were said to have worked in Haiti, or to have consumed the flesh of anyone, with the possible and notable exception of the Eucharist. Quite a different thing, that.

The early Church fathers discussed this. We have no idea how many years these people had been dead. From what was written, these appear to have been physical resurrections, like Lazarus, (not "ghosts" or "spirits") and many of them lived many years before passing away (again).

Papias, the Bishop of Hieropolis and an early Father of the Church, wrote a book ("Exposition of the Logia of the Lord") that, sad to say, exists only in fragments and in references to his works in other, later authors. That's really, really unfortunate, as Papias's book would be one of our best sources on the origin of the Gospels. He was personally acquainted with the daughters of Philip (mentioned in Acts 21:8-9), from whom he gained most of his information about the events and writing of the Gospels. We're not even sure exactly when Papias's book was written, but some have suggested c. 130 A.D. Papias quoted 1 Peter and 1 John, and was familiar with the Book of Revelation, so the dating for this seems reasonable.

Papias collected the orthodox oral traditions (or as Catholics would say, the Deposit of Faith) from those who had been around Jesus. He described his research technique thus:

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

Irenaeus, later in the 2nd century, wrote that Papius was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." (Adversus Haereses V 33.4), so he seems to have been a good source for primary and secondary witnesses to the events pre- and post-Crucifixion.

The early 5th century writer Philip of Side, who apparently did have a copy of Papias's book, wrote in The History of the Church according to Philip of Side, Codex Baroccianus 142 (Lightfoot-Holmes 5) that Papius wrote that those who were raised from the dead by Jesus survived to the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (circa 117-138 A.D.):

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian." ( και Παπιας δε περι την χιλιονταετηριδα σφαλλεται, εξ ου και ο Ειρηναιος.)

Papias of Hierapolis.

Eusebius also attributes a similar statement to Quadratus of Athens, another second-century author. This could be a corroborative statement, or Philip of Side may have confused Papias's writing with that if Quadratus.

Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, chapter 3:

1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Ælius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodoxy. 2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:— those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day. Such then was Quadratus.

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book IV (Eusebius)

It's not fully clear if Quadratus and/or Papius referred solely to those three people who are named in the Gospels that Jesus raised from the dead, pre-crucifixion (Lazarus, the 12-year old girl who died in bed, and the only son of the widow of Nain), or additionally to those who were raised from the dead after his crucifixion. So we have at least one, possibly two extra-Biblical sources suggesting that these may have been post-crucifixion appearances that were physical resurrections, not metaphorical or merely spiritual, "ghost-like" appearances, but quite long-lasting ones) on the nature of Lazarus.

Early Church attestations on Lazarus refer to his becoming the first Bishop of Kition and Provence, and the first Bishop of Marseille. He was said to have been a tireless evangelizer, and a rather grim man, based on what he saw of the afterlife, and his desire to save others. During the persecution of the Christians under Emperor Domitian, he was imprisoned and finally beheaded and buried beneath the prison Saint-Lazare. His body was later moved to Autun, where he is buried in the Autun Cathedral:



So, those resurrected by Jesus, pre- and post-Resurrection, were considered celebrities in their days, and were known to the early Church.

And, as you asked for extra-Biblical sources, I identified two sources outside the Gospel that appear to refer to this. We know of numerous events within the early Church that are referred to by the patristic fathers that are not referenced by Peter or Paul, including miraculous events.

As to why this event is not described in the other Gospels, we know that different writers had different foci (based on their intended audience, their primary and secondary sources of information, the lessons about Jesus's life that they intended to impart, etc.), and not every event is described by every one of the Gospel writers, including events that are far more astounding as proof of the divinity of Jesus. You will agree, I think that the appearance of a multitude of angels in the sky attendant upon Jesus's virgin birth certainly was an unusual event, yet it is not in every gospel.

In a way, your argument can be considered a kind of unintentional defense of the Faith. The fact that not every book of the New Testament repeats the same exact story, in lockstep, reflects that many elements of the narrative were already known within the Christian community, and it was not necessary to recount each event in every epistle (like a character in a poorly written novel, who provides exposition by lighting his pipe and saying, "as you know...") The epistles themselves were not meant to be an intro to Christianity, Peter and Paul did that through oral preaching. They were meant as corrective letters to remind the faithful of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The epistles do not provide all of the elements of the Faith already known through the oral tradition shared by the apostles and their successors. There are a large number of miraculous events in the life of Jesus and His Resurrection that are not referenced by either Peter or Paul.

Had the epistles and the Gospel been written in the style you would seem to prefer - with each text endlessly repeating the information already known to everyone in the community, atheists would argue collusion. Textual preservation was also expensive at the time, you had to keep the text tight and comparatively short, so some information would have to be excluded.

As the Lucan texts were written prior to Matthew, there is a possibility that the author of Matthew had access to a source with whom neither Peter nor Paul were familiar at the time. (as seems likely also with the Nativity story, in which Matthew seems likely to have had Syriac witnesses to which Luke did not have access.). It is also possible that this was not an event that was known widely at the time of Luke and Acts. We know only that the resurrected (how many?) came and spoke to "many." How many witnesses is that? 5? 10? 100? 1000? We have no idea. As the early Christians still were living in an environment uncongenial to the new Faith, in either the religious or the political sense, widely proclaiming what had happened would be dangerous, especially if one were to claim that the respected dead repudiated the beliefs of the Pharisees, and such a miraculous event might only be shared carefully within the nascent Christian community around Jerusalem, until later years. I don't now how likely that is, but it's another possibility.

It is also possible, of course, that those described in Matthew 27:53 were solely spiritual, non-corporeal manifestations, and that the people I described in the two non-Biblical cites as living long lives were solely those Jesus raised from the dead prior to his crucifixion, as well as those raised from the dead by Christ acting through the apostles. In such a case, there would be (obviously) less physical evidence, and it might be seen as less persuasive evidence by Paul and Peter, and not worth bringing up. Both events would still be miraculous, but Paul does not cite every miracle in Christ's life. His epistles were not introductions to the Faith ("Catholicism 101"), they were pastoral documents to correct errors and reinforce concepts in the newly developing churches.

It is also possible that Paul and Peter were aware of the event, did discuss it as evidence for the resurrection, and that these references were not written down, only mentioned in sermons, or were included in one of the lost Pauline epistles, such as the first Epistle to Corinth (referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9) the third Epistle to Corinth (referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8–9), the earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3–4, or the Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced at Colossians 4:16. Neither Peter nor Paul say anything contradicting Matthew's account in the texts we have, and we know they preached on many things during their lives to which we do not have access. In this case, we would have to say that absence of further evidence (aside from the one, possibly three textual sources) is not evidence of absence.

Others of the early Christian church referenced the event as truth and obviously believed it happened, like Irenaeus and Ignatius of Antioch, neither of whom were afraid to call a spade a spade if they doubted something. Ignatius, who was martyred for the truth, received the truth directly from John the Apostle. So it seems unlikely that John, who knew the Gospels and experienced the events directly, ever took Ignatius aside and told him, "You know, (looks around carefully) that whole business about the tombs opening up was just, umm, a pious fiction. I don't believe it"). Think about that. Ignatius's teacher was present at the Crucifixion. Do you see why we think that Ignatius accepting this event is powerful evidence that it happened? Ireneaus was taught by Polycarp, who was himself taught by John. Again, good strong evidence from 1st and 2nd generation sources, who would be in a position to know if it was false, yet proclaimed it as truth.

Not all NT scholars agree on the physical resurrection of those described in the passage you cite. John Nolland speculated on that issue in The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text (2005). I'd refer you there. Nolland apparently did not consider the two texts I cited as relevant to the issue, and thought that after a brief time on earth, they were translated bodily into Heaven, like the prophet Elijah. Saying they came out of their graves could be a lyrical way to describe the dead returning to speak with the living, if we are talking about a spiritual manifestation. It doesn't have to mean the 1st Century Jews witnessed something out of a Jimmy Sangster Hammer flick, or whispy figures scooting out of an open mausoleum like Casper. Other commentators have made the argument that "the Holy City" in this passage Matthew refers to Heaven, not Jerusalem, but that's problematic.

Another explanation that has been posited is that Matthew was describing an event out of chronological context. St. John is the only Gospel to describe the resurrection (after 4 days) of Lazarus, and chapter 12 says this event was widely known and the reason why a crowd gathered to greet his arrival into Jerusalem with palm branches and cries of "Hosanna!" This puts events into context: Jesus has brought a man back from the dead, the news spreads far and wide, of this Jesus displaying the power of God, so he must be King in the eyes of the greeters.

Now, such a miraculous, pivotal event, and one tied to Jesus's entry into Jerusalem should have been mentioned in every Gospel...but no, only John mentions it. (Matthew 11:5 contains an off-hand reference) Why?

Perhaps Matthew was referring to the Lazarus event (and possibly, the other resurrections) non-chronologically in the post-crucifixion resurrections, which he seems to do, grouping events by topical category (a not uncommon literary trope in the ancient world) rather than by strict timeline. Matthew does this in grouping the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7), miracles of Jesus (8-9), parables (chapter 13), Jesus's addresses to the apostles (10), doctrines of the kingdom (17:24-20:16), prophecy of the end of times (24-25), and concludes with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Lazarus, so close in time to Jesus's entry into Jerusalem and crucifixion, may have seemed appropriate to Matthew to group thematically with Jesus' own Resurrection. This would answer a lot of the questions you had about why no one seems to have known about this - according to John, a primary witness, many did, as this was the primary event that triggered the adulation of the crowd upon His entry into Jerusalem.

So Matthew and Luke (who provides Jesus's parable (?) of Lazarus, where we also meet Abraham in the anteroom of Hades, and hear Abraham talk about one who rises from the dead) leave this open whether the post-crucifixion event refers to Lazarus or not. John, who always seems to want to set the record straight as an eye-witness, ties the whole thing up with his description of the Lazarus event. We learn from the Patristic fathers that Lazarus, and the other pre- and post-crucifixion resurrected people survived for a good long time.

Would Lazarus have become a travelling side-show attraction / evangelist in 1st century Palestine? Well, it would have been risky, based on the description of his dinner with Jesus 6 days before Passover and Jesus's crucifixion. Jesus and Lazarus attracted a lot of attention among the Jews, and John said the Pharisees considered arresting Lazarus and putting him to death because so many people were beginning to believe in Jesus on account of this miracle (John 12:9-11). As to what he did in the time of his second life, there are numerous narratives in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and a possible tomb.

Just a thought. Not sure how convinced I am that this is the correct explanation of the passage in Matthew. I don't doubt that it happened in some form.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by cupper3

What is it about so many christians who WILL NOT ANSWER A QUESTION but need to obfuscate? I asked YOU a direct question, you keep referring to an outside source, but won't answer a direct question.

It seems you have not read his book, or if you did, you did not comprehend it. You say he has more than four answers, then it should be easy peasey for you to pick up his book, refresh your memory, and answer the question.

Just in case you missed it, give us four facts from outside of the bible that prove Jesus of the bible existed. Oh, and since thread is about Catholicism, some of the best teachers I had were two nuns and one priest. I had an interesting discussion with the priest in grade 12, the premise of which was, either Mary committed adultery or Jesus was a bastard. Discussion lasted 45 minutes or so, and in the end, all the priest could say is "You have to have faith". In other words, he could not give any sources outside of the bible either.

Originally Posted by Arizona Mike

Why do you exclude the multiple texts that comprise the Bible, which constitute almost the only contemporaneous historical texts (of any kind) from 1st century Palestine that are extant, unless you are begging the question?

Because the bible cannot prove itself, that is a circular reference. The Book of Mormon cannot prove itself. Dyanetics cannot prove itself.

That's not good historical scholarship, cupper3. It doesn't even make sense. That's like saying, prove to me that George Washington actually existed, but you have to exclude any documents from his time where people said he actually existed. You'd be laughed out of any history department in the world if you advanced that kind of criteria. And you're not even asking for evidence of Christ's divinity, just His existence. Outside of a couple of scholars on the very fringes (which every field has), the vast body of historical scholarship, by both religious and atheist/agnostic scholars alike, agree that Jesus was a real person and that the "mythicist" position can't be seriously considered by anyone other than conspiracy nuts.

But you see, there are plenty of independent records of Washington, none of Jesus. Especially ones that were concurrent with the time period outlined in the gospels. None exist. All are from at least 40-110 years after the supposed events.

The (atheist) historian Michael Grant wrote in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels:

From what source do you get that he was an atheist?

Why don't we look at what a scholarly review of Grant's book says. This is a review from the University of Western Pennsylvania History Department, and not an opinion piece. Source

The Gospels are the only source of substantial information on the life of Jesus, and the fact is that, at the very least, the gospel writers, whoever they were, had a very different understanding of history than modern historians. To impose modern criteria upon them is, at best, a guessing game which can never be won, given the present sources. That Grant plays the game is the weakness of his study.

They also say:

.... Grant often veers from the common historical norms...
.......Grant is not a historian here; he is a speculative theologian presenting his own judgments.
...Grant's provocative conclusion to his major theme is not history but theology...

Clearly this one doesn't pass the "history" test.

The (atheist/humanist) scholar Will Durant wrote in the 3rd volume of his monumental The Story of Civilization:

Hard to quote what you copied, as it was in quotes itself.

At any rate, Durant bases his view on analysis of the bible and not any concurrent external evidence. In other words, he adds no new information that does not exist within the bible, and therefore presents a circular argument. He does say this, however:

“Does history support a belief in God? If by God we mean not the creative vitality of nature but a supreme being intelligent and benevolent, the answer must be a reluctant negative.”

—Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (1968)

There are many more cites I can give you that reflect that yours is the historical equivalent of a disbelief in the Moon landings, cupper3. You're welcome to your idiosyncratic beliefs, but no one in a history department is going to take them seriously.

Apparently the University of Western Pennsylvania History Department agrees with me, not you. Nice try at an insult. I suspect my course load at comparative religions is substantially more than yours at the university level. We can go around this for a long time, but you have yet to produce ANY evidence that there are concurrent records of the events outlined in the gospels.

Even outside the numerous NT texts, from contemporaneous to near-contemporaneous (which is the best you can get for any historical figure, such as Alexander) in ancient history, we have attestations from Josephus, from the Didache, from numerous early Church fathers, indirect first-level oral history collection from writers such as Papias which exist in fragments and secondary quotations, from Pliny the Younger, from Tacitus, the extraordinarily rapid growth of a social movement which existed as a pariah within the faith tradition in which it began and the larger dominant colonial society, population-based lexigraphic studies of naming traditions within the Gospels as internal evidence of their veracity, and much more.

I'm sure you are aware that it is almost universally accepted that the 147 words referring to Jesus in Josephus is a forgery and added later. You ARE aware of that, are you not? Forgeries prove nothing.

I've outlined concurrent proofs of Alexander earlier, including from his generals That canard commonly thrown out is debunked.

Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were contemporaries, who knew each other, and corresponded. Pliny the Younger only talks about Christians and their belief in Jesus, as does Tacitus. It proves nothing about there being a historical Jesus, just historical Christians.

Nice try, but these "proves" are so often thrown out by apologists, without understanding what was actually said by these Romans.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by denverian

Oh please Stop it with the martyrdom! No matter what brand of Christianity you belong to, other Christian "brands" think you're wrong and going to hell.

Plenty of Protestant denominations share the same views on "moral issues" as Catholicism. And often, those views push people away from Catholicism and branches of Protestantism.

too funny tooooo true

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Your making some assertions here without substantiation. Could you please provide some that verifies both of these assertions?

Thank you.

Very welcome.

I'm actually working on a study that compares sexual abuse within different social groups, based on reported arrests. Look in any major newspaper for a couple of months. I guarantee you that you will see more abuse by teachers and others in the public education system than clerical, and more protestant/evangelical/house church members than Catholic clergy. That could be a function of actual numbers within the population, but it doesn't appear to be so.

For comparison, the rate of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy:

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.

([iv]Alan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.[v]Laurie Goodstein, “Decades of Damage; Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads to Nearly Every Diocese,” New York Times, January 12, 2003, Section 1, p. 1.)

Remember, those stats (1.5% and 1.8%) are for the entire number of priests during those 4 decades, not the total number of current priests. That's a VERY small number in comparison to other professions.

In the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (himself a Protestant), Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent. (Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 50 and 81)

On the rate of abuse and cover-up in other denominations:

In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources. The conclusion: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers. (Mark Clayton, “Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches,” Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 2002, p. 1.)

Within Protestant Youth Ministry Programs:

How The Youth Minister Became A Sexual Predator | The American Conservative

The Church of England:

Fresh allegations of child sex abuse against the Church of England (CofE) are likely to surface, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.

The Most Rev Justin Welby said he was braced for an abuse inquiry to reveal "bad stories" about the Church.

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that he dealt with the issue daily and that the Church needed to be transparent.

It comes after the Home Office backed Baroness Butler-Sloss as the right person to lead that inquiry.

Concerns have been raised about her over a previous review role in which she is alleged to have told an abused choirboy that she wanted to exclude some of his allegations in order to protect the CofE.

BBC News - CofE braced for new sex abuse claims

According to a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention in Texas, “The incidence of sexual abuse by clergy has reached ‘horrific proportions.’” It noted that in studies done in the 1980s, 12 percent of ministers had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40 percent had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.” The report concluded that “The disturbing aspect of all research is that the rate of incidence for clergy exceeds the client-professional rate for physicians and psychologists.(Michael Dobie, “Violation of Trust,” Newsday, June 9, 2002, p. C25)

The problem of sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses is evident among church elders but most of the abuse comes from congregation members. “The victims who have stepped forward are mostly girls and young women,” writes Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times, “and many accusations involve incest.” There is a victims support group available, “silentlambs,” that has collected more than 5,000 Witnesses contending that the church mishandled child sexual abuse. (Laurie Goodstein, “Ousted Members Say Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Policy on Abuse Hides Offenses,” New York Times, August 11, 2002, Section 1, p. 26.)

On the rate of abuse in public education:

According to a report prepared for the US Department of Education entitled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, “9.6 percent of all students in grades 8 to 11 report … educator sexual misconduct that was unwanted.” You can read it here, cupper3: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/researc...iew/report.pdf

I can link to literally hundreds of reports of child sexual abuse arrests within the school system in 2014. Not many for Catholic clergy. (Again, even one is too many.)

On the cover-up of abuse within the public education establishment:

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. (Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants)

All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package. (ibid)

In New York City alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day. One study concluded that more than 60 percent of employees accused of sexual abuse in the New York City schools were transferred to desk jobs at district offices located inside the schools. Most of these teachers are tenured and 40 percent of those transferred are repeat offenders. They call it “passing the garbage” in the schools. One reason why this exists is due to efforts by the United Federation of Teachers to protect teachers at the expense of children. (Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.)

The American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls, and one in eight boys, are sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. Two years later, a study included in The Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, reported that one in four girls, and one in six boys, is sexually abused by age 18. ( Michael Dobie, “Violation of Trust,” Newsday, June 9, 2002, p. C25.)

It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher. (Daniel Wishnietsky, “Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment,”Journal of Ed Research, Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 164-69.)

On Teacher's Unions cover-up of abuse by its members: Campbell Brown: Teachers Unions Go to Bat for Sexual Predators - WSJ


On the rate of abuse within child protective services:

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems was developed by the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Human Services in partnership with the States to collect annual statistics on child maltreatment from State child protective services agencies. For the year 2001, it was found that approximately 903,000 children were victims of child maltreatment, 10 percent of whom (or 90,000) were sexually abused. It also found that 59 percent of the perpetrators of child abuse or neglect were women and 41 percent were men. (“Child Maltreatment 2001: Summary of Key Findings,” National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, )

This is not to say that cover-ups of abuse don't occur in other professions, of course, as anyone who reads the paper and has witnessed Hollywood's communal closing of the ranks to protect Woody Allen or Roman Polanski has noted, or the BBC's decade-long protection of Jimmy Saville, or the protection within the science fiction community of Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband, or the music industries protection of Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis, or the protection within the athletic community for Jerry Sandusky, etc. etc.

Were there past abuses within the Catholic Church establishment? Without a doubt. Was it any worse than any other denomination? Clearly not, and probably better. (We can only go by arrests.) Was it better than the performance of men in American society as a whole? Yes. Has the Church taken substantive actions to stop it? Also without a doubt. This is from the far-reaching John Jay College study on instances of abuse within the Church:



The reasons for that bulge are societal and relate to other factors than the doctrine and teaching of the Church, IMO. There's still room for improvement, but we are left with the conclusion that the Catholic Church has taken steps that many other denominations have not, and that they have largely been successful, albeit controversial.

The other fact is that any organization that allows access to children and other vulnerable victims will attract offenders, and that members of that profession - any profession - will often try to protect its members.

I can post a lot more cites if you'd like, but they're pretty depressing for everyone. Let me know if there are specific issues you would like addressed.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Arizona Mike

................
The early Church fathers discussed this. We have no idea how many years these people had been dead. From what was written, these appear to have been physical resurrections, like Lazarus, (not "ghosts" or "spirits") and many of them lived many years before passing away (again)...............

And, as you asked for extra-Biblical sources, I identified two sources outside the Gospel that appear to refer to this. We know of numerous events within the early Church that are referred to by the patristic fathers that are not referenced by Peter or Paul, including miraculous events. ....................

All not concurrent.

As the Lucan texts were written prior to Matthew, there is a possibility that....
....It is also possible that this was not an event that was known widely at the time of Luke and Acts. We know only that the resurrected (how many?) came and spoke to "many." How many witnesses is that? 5? 10? 100? 1000? .......
It is also possible, of course, that those described in Matthew 27:53 were solely spiritual, non-corporeal manifestations,.............

Maybe's don't prove anything.

It is also possible that Paul and Peter were aware of the event, did discuss it as evidence for the resurrection, and that these references were not written down, ..........
Neither Peter nor Paul say anything contradicting Matthew's account in the texts we have....

Pretty hard for Paul to contradict Matthew when Matthew was written AFTER Paul, don't you think?

Others of the early Christian church referenced the event as truth and obviously believed it happened, like Irenaeus and Ignatius of Antioch, neither of whom were afraid to call a spade a spade if they doubted something. Ignatius, who was martyred for the truth, received the truth directly from John the Apostle. So it seems unlikely that John, who knew the Gospels and experienced the events directly, ever took Ignatius aside and told him, "You know, (looks around carefully) that whole business about the tombs opening up was just, umm, a pious fiction. I don't believe it"). Think about that. Ignatius's teacher was present at the Crucifixion. Do you see why we think that Ignatius accepting this event is powerful evidence that it happened? Ireneaus was taught by Polycarp, who was himself taught by John. Again, good strong evidence from 1st and 2nd generation sources, who would be in a position to know if it was false, yet proclaimed it as truth.

None of these others could have been witnesses. I was looking for four CONCURRENT recordings by anyone. As Romans were prodigious record keepers, what possible reason would there be for NO Roman writings on this at the time. It stretches credulity to the limit.

Another explanation that has been posited is that Matthew was describing an event out of chronological context......

Perhaps Matthew was referring to the Lazarus event (and possibly, the other resurrections) non-chronologically in the post-crucifixion resurrections................

And more maybes, could bes, possibles and what ifs. That's like me asking you how long a piece of string is.

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Because the bible cannot prove itself, that is a circular reference. The Book of Mormon cannot prove itself. Dyanetics cannot prove itself.

But you see, there are plenty of independent records of Washington, none of Jesus. Especially ones that were concurrent with the time period outlined in the gospels. None exist. All are from at least 40-110 years after the supposed events.

No.

We are not asking "the Bible to prove itself." We are asking whether the texts that comprise the NT are contemporaneous, or nearly so; whether a span of 50 to 100 years should be close enough for historical purposes when we are examning a period 2 millennia ago; and whether they are reliable evidence that a man named Jesus lived. It is not a circular argument. (That would be arguing, "I know Jesus existed because the Bible tells me so, and I trust the Bible because Jesus told me I should." Do you see the difference?)

We have other records within the Bible than the Gospels, such as the epistles, which were written close in time to the events we are discussing.

Again, it makes no sense to try to a priori exclude documents that don't support your position, simply because they don't support your position. That's junk history, and making an appeal to a circular argument fallacy doesn't apply here. We are not arguing for the literal truth of every claim in the Bible, but for whether the texts support an historical claim. Right? The book "Dianetics" may not be able to prove its claims about Thetans or Engrams or what have you, but it is actually powerful evidence that a man named L. Ron Hubbard existed.

I also think you need to catch up on the more recent scholarship on Josephus.

More on that, and your other arguments later.

[Arizona Mike]

None of these others could have been witnesses. I was looking for four CONCURRENT recordings by anyone. As Romans were prodigious record keepers, what possible reason would there be for NO Roman writings on this at the time. It stretches credulity to the limit.

One last thought for now, why do atheists seem to believe that the Romans in a backwater province were such excellent record keepers, and that there is some vast, Indiana Jones-like storehouse containing documents describing all the events that were going on in 1st century Palestine?

It doesn't exist. It just doesn't. When it comes to real contemporaneous, not near-contemporaneous documents and histories from that era and place, we have the Biblical texts, Josephus....and that's about it.

On your argument, we write off all possibility of knowledge about 1st century Palestine.

So here's a homework assignment for you:

We have multiple individuals in 1st century Palestine who claimed to be Messiahs and attempted military insurrections against the Roman occupation, something Jesus never did. Surely, these Roman historians to which you refer will have documented these insurrections.

Give me some contemporaneous references in the prodigious Roman histories to which you refer, to the following individuals from ancient Palestine:

1) Athronges, who declared himself King of the Jews and inflicted a series of humiliating military defeats on the Romans in 4 BC before his eventual defeat.

2) The unnamed messianic Prophet of Gerizim, who led thousands of followers to Mt. Gerizim who had to be dispersed by Roman infantry and cavalry circa 36 AD.

3) Theudas, who claimed to be able to part the River Jordan and led a large group of his followers into the desert circa 46 AD before a military battle with Roman forces.

4) The unnamed Jewish Egyptian "prophet" who led his 30,000 followers to Jerusalem (before its destruction) in the early 1st century, with the promise that the walls would fall at his command and he would take control of the city. Roman military forces attacked and he ran away.

So, these were pretty significant events from the view of the Romans, right? Big military battles, threats to the Roman state. Far bigger events than the life of Jesus, from the Roman's perspective. There should be, like hundreds of references in these records you cite, if this period was so well recorded.

Let me know just, say, four references for each of these worthies. I'll wait here until you can look them up. Should be easy.

(Hint: You're only going to find those references from one historian. Guess who?)

Then we'll discuss why the references you claim to exist, don't. And why what you think is a forgery, clearly isn't.

[janelle144]

cupper3 you never answered my question about Saint Paul. He believed Jesus existed and you believe he existed so how to you square that with your argument.

Don't tell me, you think Saint Paul was a shyster?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by janelle144

cupper3 you never answered my question about Saint Paul. He believed Jesus existed and you believe he existed so how to you square that with your argument.

Don't tell me, you think Saint Paul was a shyster?

Oh boy, you really want to get into Paul. OK, but it is going to be a long treatise, and really should be another thread, as I suggested earlier.

Short answer is, just because YOU believe in a god, or a Jesus, doesn't prove anything.