Again I have had to do a lot of editing of *your* sections as well
as my own, eg. cutting out extraneous paragraphs and putting our
initials in front of our text. As previously advised, unfortunately
I haven't the time to do it any more, so if you haven't the time
either, your replies will go unanswered.
In any event, this debate about Jesus is an off-topic red- herring
to the question of Creation/Evolution. This will probably therefore
be my last post on this topic.
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:04:57 +1000, Derek McLarnen wrote:
[...]
>SJ> This is shifting ground. The original question was whether
>>Christian claims were in principle testable and hence scientific
>>The fact that Jesus offered *evidence* to Thomas and the rest of
>>the disciples, and didn't just say "believe" argues that it is.
>>
>>That it is impossible after 2000 years to empirically test Jesus
>>wounds, does not rule out that it was empirically testable when it
>>occurred. If present-day empirically testing was a scientfic
>>criteria, then all historical science, including macroevolution,
>>would be ruled out.
DSM>You may have misunderstood me. I was not arguing whether it is now
>possible to test Jesus' wounds. This would, indeed, have been "shifting
>ground. However, I was calling into question whether there actually was
>an invitation to Thomas by Jesus to investigate his wounds "hands-on, so
>to speak.
We have the testimony of an eye-witness that there was. Why would
the Early Church perpetuate a story that showed one of its leaders
(Thomas) as a doubter, if it wasn't true?
[...]
>SJ> The text makes it plain that Jesus was physically real but
>>no longer bound by the contraints of three-dimensional space.
>>In this day of subatomic particles like neutrinos that can pass
>>through miles of matter undetected, I would have thought this
>>argument that God couldn't pass through a 6-inch wall
>>is a bit out-of-date!
DM>Fine - if you have some evidence that Jesus' post-resurrection body was
>made of neutrinos or other particles with the appropriate properties.
I didn't say that Jesus "post-resurrection body was made of
neutrinos". My argument was that in this day of such "subatomic
particles" such an argument that Jesus' body could not pass through
matter is "out-of-date".
And what possible "evidence" can there be 2,000 years later except
that an eye-witness recorded it? The story itself is so
unembellished that it has what JB Phillips called "the ring of
truth".
DM>To say nothing of the fact that you are begging the question of whether
>Jesus is God!
I am not "begging the question" at all. Jesus claimed to be God and
the New Testament writings all say that he was God. The very passage
we are referring to says Jesus was God (Jn 20:28 Thomas said to him,
"My Lord and my God!").
DM>And what exactly does "physically real but no longer bound by the
>contraints of three-dimensional space" *mean*?
Just what it says. I can't make it any plainer.
[...]
DM>I see what you mean. The ability of a claim to stand up to critical
>scrutiny is less of an issue when preaching to believers. This is not
>intended as a specific slight to theists. It is no different in the
>sales and marketing world.
No. The New Testament has been subject to more "critical scrutiny"
than any other set of ancient documents (with the possible exception
of the Old Testament). It has passed these tests with flying
colours.
It is critics like you who are the real `believers', who refuse to
accept the evidence on philosophical grounds, even though they can't
refute it.
[...]
>SJ> Yes "all of the events described in all of the gospels" (apart from
>>parables) did "actually occur as described". Their veracity has been
>>validated in the same way that all past history is validated, by the
>>testimony of reliable witnesses, and by their after-effects. In this
>>case the eye-witnesses who were prepared to suffer and die for what
>>they really believed to be true.
DM>So you believe that the authors of the gospels either were eyewitnesses,
>or were first-hand reporters of eyewitnesses? The findings of Biblical
>scholarship do not mostly agree with this belief.
It depends on which "Biblical scholarship" you mean. I have books by
both theistic naturalistic and Christian theistic "Biblical
scholarship", and the latter easily refute the former.
No doubt you can always find some `Biblical' scholars who are so
influenced by naturalistic and evolutionary presuppositions that they
cannot accept the plain evidence. Such scholars often contradict
each other and they often drift into atheism/agnosticism, or they
recant later but no one hears about it.
For example here is something I got from another list which shows how
one very powerful critic, Wrede, later changed his mind, but your
so-called `Biblical' scholarship will continue to claim his theory is
still part of what they call "the assured results of scholarship":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A German scholar, William Wrede, wrote a book on Mark's Gospel early this
century entitled THE MESSIANIC SECRET. In seeking to explain Mark's
presentation of e.g. Jesus' reticence about his messiahship, his commands
either of various people to silence about his miracles or of his disciples
about his messiahship, Wrede argued that the whole thing was a clever
fabrication by Mark (and the early church) designed to mask the fact that
Jesus never actually claimed to be the Messiah at all. Given that the
church was proclaiming him as such, some rationale for the historical
Jesus' "silence" on the matter had to be found, and so Mark created the
so-called Messianic Secret. Though not without its critics, this theory
has had enormous influence in Western theology and has given considerable
legitimation to reconstructions that present Jesus as merely a reformer or
wandering cynic teacher, indeed as anything but a Messianic figure.
It is therefore of great interest that a letter has recently been
discovered written by Wrede, some weeks before his death, addressed to a
fellow German scholar which basically repudiates his theory. Unless, he
admitted as he neared the end, Jesus had made some sort of Messianic claims
(whether by word and/or deed), the origins of Christianity would forever
remain the ancient world's greatest riddle. He was right of course. The
chances of Jesus being merely a reforming Jew and Christianity emerging as
a result are on the very FAR SIDE of vanishingly small."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>SJ>OK. But you seem to disbelieve it just because it is included in
>>the Bible! You appear to have a double-standard of historical truth.
>>Any historical source that would cast doubt on the Bible is
>>held by you to be automatically true while the historical sources
>>that are in the Bible or support the Bible are automatically false.
DM>My confidence in historical accounts of any type rests firstly on the
>quality and volume of consistent independent interpretation of physical
>evidence, then on the quality and volume of consistent independent
>eyewitness accounts.
What books do do you own or have read on the topic of Biblical
scholarship in general and New Testament Introduction in particular?
If the answer is little or none, then I will have to conclude that
you are ruling out the evidence on apriori philosophical grounds.
IOW it wouldn't matter how much "quality and volume" of evidence
there was, you would disbelieve it anyway.
Like the atheist/agnostic Aldous Huxley, you so much want not to
believe the evidence, that you find any reason you can not to:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning;
consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most
ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want
to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we
shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world
generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their
books that the world should be meaningless..." (Huxley a., "Ends and
Means", 1946, p270, in Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God",
1994, p30)
[...]
>SJ> I am not aware that there *are* supernatural claims of Judaism or
>>Islam that contradict those of Christianity. Christians accept the
>>supernatural claims of Judaism in the Old Testament and I am not
>>aware of any afterwards.
DM>The contradictory claims of Judaism and Islam are naturalistic, not
>supernatural, in the sense that they deny the occurence of supernatural
>events such as the resurrection of Jesus.
Even this may not be true. There are Messianic Jews who accept "the
resurrection of Jesus" but claim not be be Christians. And as I
understand it, Islam accepts that Jesus rose from the dead, but he
was only a prophet.
>SJ>As for Islam, I understand it accepts that
>>Jesus was a prophet and even rose from the dead.
DM>My understanding is that Islam claims that Jesus resurrection was faked,
>i.e. he didn't really die. I think that one claim is that Simon of
>Cyrene, the man conscripted to carry Jesus' cross (Matt 27:32), was
>crucified in his place. Ihaven't been able to confirm this; maybe
>someone else can assist.
It seems we both may not know in detail what Islam believes about
Jesus' resurrection. It is irrelevant in any event.
>SJ> But in any event, it is not necessary for Christians to claim that
>>all supernatural claims in other religions are false. The point is
>>that if the core Christian claims are true, that Jesus rose from the
>>dead and appeared to many eye-witnesses, then the supernatural
>>claims of other religions are largely irrelevant.
DM>No argument. *IF* "the core Christian claims are true, that Jesus rose
>from the dead and appeared to many eye-witnesses".
Agreed. So what was your point about other religions?
[...]
>SJ> Derek, when I have previously asked you for what evidence you
>>would accept for God's existence, you said words to the effect that
>>you would only accept God revealing Himself to you personally and
>>speaking to you! I presume that the "extraordinary evidence" you
>>demand for "the resurrection of Jesus" is in the same category? IOW,
>>*no* amount of evidence that I or any Christian apologist could give
>>you would make any difference?
>>
>>But in case I am being unfair, I will give you the opportunity
>>to say in advance what "extraordinary evidence" you would
>>accept that would convince you that Jesus rose from the dead?
DM>On further reflection, I am prepared to moderate my requirement. My
>requirement is now for one global core of religious understanding, at
>least to the extent that there is one global core of scientific
>understanding.
So you would believe "that Jesus rose from the dead" if there was
"one global core of religious understanding"! But since Christianity
claims that other religions are false, and that only a minority will
become Christians, what in effect you are saying is that you would
believe Christianity is true when it has been proved to be untrue!
This is just raising the bar to an impossible height so that you
could never get over. It is obvious that "*no* amount of evidence that
I or any Christian apologist could give you would make any difference."
I think I have said all I can say to you Derek regarding
Christianity. I will therefore in future not respond to your
questions about Christianity unless I sense there has been a change
of heart on your part. In future I will leave it up to other
Christians on this Reflector to respond to you on this topic.
[...]
>SJ> No Christian apologist to my knowledge says that "past, present or
>>future specific actions by a deity" are "exempt from the processes of
>>scientific methodology in assessing their validity". Christianity
>>has been the subject of two millennia of intense scrutinty by its
>>critics, and Christians have never objected in principle to this.
DM>Then, perhaps you might like to explain the purpose of the Inquisition.
>Was it to encourage or supress "intense scrutiny"? For the modern-day
>Australian version, read "Heretic" by Peter Cameron.
I do not defend "the Inquisition". By New Testament standards the
Inquisitors were not truly Christians.
As for "Peter Cameron" from what I saw he disagreed with the credal
statements of his Church. He was therefore expelled from membership.
This is normal practice in any organisation, club or workplace. I am
sure if I joined the Australian Skeptics and started espousing
creationism, I would be out faster than Peter Cameron was.
In fact in my early days I logged onto a Fidonet echo called Atheism.
I saw they were saying patently false things about the Bible and
Christianity. But when I pointed out that what they were saying was
not true, they threatened to expel me from the echo and if I did not
leave they would have me expelled from *every* echo on Fidonet! This
was my first experience of atheist/agnostic `free-thinking'
tolerance!!
>SJ> Indeed, it has strengthened Christian apologetics immeasurably.
DM>In terms of making it more believable, I agree. In terms of bringing it
>closer to reality, I'm not convinced.
>SJ> But if the "scientific methodology" you have in mind is based on the
>>philosophies of materialism (matter is all, therefore there is no God)
>>and naturalism (even if there was a God, He could not intervene in
>>the natural chain of cause-and-effect), then by definition under this
>>philosophy there can be no "assessing their validity".
DM>I am presuming that repeatable supernatural causes can produce
>repeatable physical effects that are intrinsically impossible to produce
>by natural causes. As an assessment of validity, that would do.
>
>There is a Bible story claiming that Elijah produced such an effect for
>Ahab and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:19-46).
I doubt that even that would convince you Derek! You would just say
it was an amazing coincidence or that Elijah was a good weather
forecaster!
By your "head in the sand" attitude, you have made sure that if there
was a God, you would not be able to know it. So you had better be
right!
We have been debating Christianity for the last 2-3 years, and I
think we have both said all that can be said on this topic. I don't
think there is any real point in debating Christianity with you any
further. I will let others have a go to see if they can do better
than me.
But as a parting shot, I would just remind you again of Pacal's Wager
(paraphrased):
1. If there is no God, the Christian has had as good a life as the
athest (better in fact when Christian hope is contrasted with
atheist/agnostic despair), and when he dies and if he is wrong and
there is nothing, he has lost nothing.
2. The atheist/agnostic, on the other hand, may live a good life, but
often there is despair at the meaningless of it all, revealed in
athist/agnostic writings (e.g. Betrand Russell) and I daresay some
worry that the Christian may be right. When the atheist/agnostic
dies and if he is right and there is nothing, then the
atheist/agnostic has gained nothing and lost nothing.
3. But if the Christian is right, and there is a God who
rewards with Heaven those who trust in Christ and punishes with Hell
those who don't, then the Christian has gained everything and the
atheist/agnostic has lost everything.
As I see it the Christian has everything to gain and nothing to lose,
while the atheist has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
This is not an argument for the existence of God, but a practical
reason to believe in God, in the face of intractable uncertainty.
I remember myself thinking not long after I was first converted,
before I had ever heard of Pascal's Wager, that the acceptability of
the length of the odds are proportional to the value of what is at
stake. IOW, if I was gambling $5, I would not mind if the chance of
winning:losing is 1:1 million. But if I was gambling my house I
might not be happy with 10:1 or even 100:1 odds. But if I was
gambling my life I might not be willing to bet on odds of 1
million:1.
Yet if the Bible is right and believers in Christ are rewarded with
eternal heaven and non-believers with eternal hell, then I
reasoned that the odds would need to be something like infinity:1
that the Christians are right, before I could risk disbelieving in
Christ. But I reasoned then that the odds that Christians are right
are much better than infinity:1. Even if the probability that
Christians are right was only 1 in 100, that to me was far too low
odds to risk an eternity in Hell. This was just one of the factors
in me continuing to believe in Christ.
In the end, you have to assess the risk yourself. You have heard
reasons from me and testimony from other Christians like Burgy, how
by seeking God with their whole heart they found Him, and life took
on a whole new wonderful meaning.
The bottom line is that if there is a God, like the Bible describes,
you will have no excuse.
The decision is yours.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------