Chris
Paul does such as good a job on this one as I would have, and probably in
less space, that I won't repeat what he says. One of main arguments was
going to be to the effect that the accounts of Jesus, having been written
by people who knew of the earlier predictions, would simply write their
character to fit the predictions. I could easily do the same; gather up
some old prophecies, create a name for my character (assuming the
prophecies did not include the names), and then simply design his "career"
to match the prophecies. In fact, *other* writers of fiction (than those
who created and cobbled together the gospel stories) use this technique
more or less frequently (but usually more honestly).
But, I would add that, even if we *assume* the claimed empirical facts,
there is no reason to attribute them to supernatural (i.e., metaphysically
transcendent) intervention. At most, a few wacky aliens with sufficiently
advanced technology would be able to cause the prophecy to "come true."
This theory has the advantage of not requiring the introduction of a new
(and usually logically incoherent) metaphysical realm or any special powers
other than those that may well be available via technology. There is no
excuse at all, with respect this and many similar stories (not, by any
means, all of them supportive of the belief in Stephen's Jesus), for
assuming that there is something *metaphysically* strange going on, even if
we assume that the observational facts are true (i.e., apparent miracles,
the resurrection story, etc.).
So, the question remains: Is there any way to prove (even in a
less-than-strict sense of "prove") that anything supernatural exists or
ever did exist? Is there any reason for believing that Jesus existed? Or
that Allah exists? I don't think so, but I'm willing to examine the claims
and the claims of evidence. Would Stephen, having done so poorly the first
time, like to have another go at it in hopes of coming up with something a
little less flimsy?
What is needed, of course, is something that is well-established as true
*and* that *distinguishes* between naturalistic causes (including
technologically advanced aliens) and supernaturalistic causes, and does so
in favor of supernaturalistic ones. Stories from the Bible don't really
count because a) we can't verify them in the relevant respects, and, b),
even if accepted as observationally true, the facts are subject to *much*
less drastic explanations than supernaturalistic causes.
>Steven Jones:
> I can see no point in even having a discussion with someone who rejects
> outright the very possibility of my position being true.
>
>Paul Robson:
> Who does this ? Chris doesn't ; he just applies the analysis continually
> to all religions, whereas you apply it to everyone except one.
>
>Steven Jones:
> Such dogmatism is just a form of extreme fundamentalism which closes its
> mind against any possibility of disproof. It is in fact the very
> attitude it
> professes to despise!
>
> Although this has generally been off-topic, since Chris has raised it, I
>will
> post some of the clearest evidence of the existence of the supernatural in
> the Bible involving predictive prophecy. Such prophecy is, of course, not
> absolute proof, and those who deny outright the very possibility of the
> supernatural no doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it
> (apart from outright `head-in-the-sand' denial).
>
> For examples, in Micah 5:2, the prophet, living in QQ BC predicted that
> the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem:
>
>Paul Robson:
> Only Christians think this. Only Christians think Isiah predicts a Virgin
> Birth. It is very simple to do.
>
> You have an old book, and someone you think is a Messiah. So when
> you write his life story, you go through the "old book" looking for
> paragraphs which can be made to look like "prophecies".
>
> Of course, you don't always get it right, so people who write later
> versions will amend your work to add corrections and push their own
> theological viewpoint.
>
> The "Bethlehem" is a classic example of this. Bethlehem is bunged
> in *because* of this reference. That's why the two nativity stories send
> everyone off in different directions "Out of Egypt...." "He shall be called
> a Nazarene...." etc etc.
>
>Steven Jones:
> In Daniel 9:25-27 there is a prediction that works out to the very year 27
> AD when Jesus began his public ministry:
>
>Paul Robson:
> Really. I am amazed you don't know the history of this one.
> Or perhaps you do and didn't want to mention it.
>
> Notwithstanding the minor details that there are about 4 or 5 decrees,
> 3-4 ways of counting the years, and several target points. This one,
> I believe, uses the 360 day years to hit its target.
>
> Christians are when making this claim for some reason unwilling to
> mention these minor details.
>
> It is difficult to say for sure because Christian apologists have been
> so staggeringly dishonest over his particular passage it's difficult to
> know which you copied.
>
>Steven Jones:
> Here is what theologian Robert C. Newman (who is also an astrophysicist
> and a leader of the ID movement) writes about this:
>
> [snip]
>
> There has been considerable argument about the interpretation of this
> passage. 30 A very reasonable interpretation, however, notes the
> significance of a decree issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes I during his
> twentieth year (445 B.C.). This edict officially approved Nehemiah's return
> to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls (Neh 2:1-9)
>
>Paul Robson:
> This is not true. This is in Nehemiah 2:1-6 and refers to giving Nehemiah
> letters of safe conduct. The decree to rebuild is in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23
> and Ezra 1:1-4, but is in 538BC.
>
> Using 445BC comes out at 39AD anyway, which is why the cheat of
> 360 day years is used, and here it comes.
>
>Steve Jones (quoting):
> The "sevens" of Daniel 9 (open translated "weeks") most likely refer to
> the recurring seven-year sabbatical cycle for land use, 31 since
> sixty-nine weeks of days would have run out before Daniel's prophecy
> could even have been circulated, and these weeks of years were an
> established institution in Israel. Using these cycles as units of
> measurement, the sixty-ninth such cycle (7 + 62),
> measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans the years A.D. 28-35.
>
>Paul Robson:
> Nope, he hasn't mentioned it. Surprise.
>
>Steve Jones: (quoting)
> One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the "Anointed
> One" is "cut off" precisely when Jesus is crucified!
>
>Paul Robson:
> Well, I thought Jesus Ministry lasted four years, and most crucifixion
> dates are 32-33AD (though every date between 20 and 60 seems to
> have been pushed at some time).
>
>Steve Jones:
> So the only Jew claiming to be Messiah
>
>Paul Robson:
> Really ?
>
>Steve Jones:
> who has inaugurated a world
> religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when
> Daniel predicted!
>
>Paul Robson:
> Odd definition of precise. Well, actually it's a fib, given that as any
> fule kno we don't know when Jesus was crucified.
>
>Steve Jones:
>And the significance Christians ascribe to Jesus' death is
> given by Daniel-"to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone
> for
> wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness." As it happens, Jesus
> Christ is also one of the most significant figures in world history, as
> even
> secular historians acknowledge.
>
>Paul Robson:
> Not really. It depends what you mean. Christians are significant, but
> Christ himself is not as a person. It is only his effects that are
> significant.
Chris
I do want to comment at this point that the "evidence" for the existence of
Jesus appears, as far as I've been able to find out from Christians,
consists exclusively of the New Testament and claims of other people
*after* the relevant stories that ended up in the New Testament were
written. I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done. I make this claim
on the basis of the "Elephant at the Garden Party" argument: If Jesus
existed, he'd have stuck out like an elephant at a garden party, and he'd
have been heard of by nearly *everyone* in the area. But, instead, we have
recyclings of stories that were around *before* the alleged birth of Jesus,
and no evidence that these stories gained factuality.
Of course, I could be wrong. But then, where's the *evidence*?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:45:42 EST