Reflectorites
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:45:48 -0600, Chris Cogan wrote:
>CC>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.
See my response to Paul's post.
CC>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.
As I said, even if Jesus was who He claimed to be and actually *did* fulfill
the Old Testament prophecies claimed, one could stll argue this.
Geisler answers this objection:
"Jesus Manipulated Events to Fulfill Prophecy. Another argument
used by critics was popularized by Hugh Schonfield's Passover Plot.
He argued that Jesus manipulated people and events so as to make
it appear that he was the predicted Messiah. This interesting theory
is destroyed by the facts. First, numerous miracles (see MIRACLES
IN THE BIBLE) confirmed Jesus to be the Messiah. .... Second,
there is no evidence that Jesus was a deceiver. To the contrary, his
character is impeccable (see CHRIST, UNIQUENESS OF). Third,
Jesus had no control over some predictions over which he had no
control, such as, his ancestry (Gen. 12:3; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:12-16);
birthplace (Micah 5:2), time of death (Dan. 9:24-27); and
conditions of his death (Isaiah 53). Fourth, in order to manipulate
all the people (including his enemies) and even his disciples in order
to make it appear that he was the promised Messiah, Jesus would
have needed supernatural powers. But if he had such powers, he
must have been the Messiah he claimed to be." (Geisler N.L.,
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.616)
CC>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.
As I pointed out, this overlooks the fact that Christianity began in
*Jerusalem* in the very heart of another world religion, with fanatical
followers. Think of trying to start another religion in Mecca today and the
difficulty becomes obvious. There is no way that Jesus and his followers
could do this because: a) there were some things he and they had no
control over and b) if they tried to fabricate evidence their enemies the
Jews and Romans would have exposed them. The only way that
Christianity could begin and grow in such an environment is if their claims
were based on rock-solid *evidence*.
Of course such historical evidence will never convince those who don't
want it to be true. But a person who approached this evidence with an
open mind would find that it *as an integrated whole* it defeats all
naturalistic explanations.
CC>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).
See above. There is no evidence that "the gospel stories" were "cobbled
together". AFAIK, most (if not all) Biblical scholars whether liberal or
conservative, believe that the gospels were based on earlier written
sources.
In any event, the major letters of Paul are, AFAIK, accepted as genuine by
most (if not all) Biblical scholars, whether liberal or conservative, and these
letters predate the gospels in their final form, and yet contain all the main
facts that are in the gospels.
CC>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."
Again, this cannot be disproved. But there is no evidence that there are (or
even *could be* any "aliens".
The world's leading evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, considers that,
based on we know of the "miracle" that human-level intelligence arose on
Earth it would be "an even greater miracle" if there even was another
human-level intelligence in the whole universe:
"Looking at the SETI project from a biologist's point of view in
Essay 4, I demonstrate that each step leading to the evolution of
intelligent life on earth was highly improbable and that the evolution
of the human species was the result of a sequence of thousands of
these highly improbable steps. It is a miracle that man ever
happened, and it would be an even greater miracle if such a
sequence of improbabilities had been repeated anywhere else."
(Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology," 1988, p.5)
let alone them having travelled to Earth to set up an elaborate hoax over
the space of 3,000 years to simulate Christianity.
BTW, there is an interesting twist to Chris' "alien" scenario above. If it was
true, then Christians would be those who are actually accepting the
empirical evidence!
CC>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.).
See above. On Chris' "theory" the events themselves really happened, and
Christians therefore cannot be blamed for believing the evidence!
CC>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?
There is *evidence* that the "supernatural exists" (e.g. Biblical prophecies)
but not enough to "prove" it to someone who wants it not to be true.
CC>Is there any reason for believing that Jesus existed?
I repeat what the Encyclopaedia Britannica said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. Jesus Christ. Non-Christian sources.
... These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was
disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the
18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. ... ---------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CC>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?
I assume that (barring a miracle) no amount of "evidence" for Christianity
would convince a committed atheist like Chris that it was true.
For example, Chris has just said that even if I could show that all the
evidence for Christianity was true, he would rather believe it was a hoax by
aliens!
The purpose of my post is to show that there is *evidence* for the
existence of the supernatural in the case of fulfilled prophecy.
And as I said, quoting Pascal, I don't believe the evidence is strong enough to
constitute absolute proof, but I do believe it is strong enough to leave those
who refuse to accept it without excuse (see tagline again)..
CC>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.
See above.
[...]
>CC>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 am not sure what Chris is saying here. Clearly the events had to happen
first before they were committed to writing.
CC>I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
>*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done.
See above EB quote.
What "evidence" is that Chris has in mind which "shows, almost
*conclusively*, that Jesus did *not* exist"?
CC>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.
Jesus *was* "heard of by nearly everyone in the area" and in fact was
mentioned independently by Roman and Jewish sources. See the EB article
I quoted from.
CC>But, instead, we have
>recyclings of stories that were around *before* the alleged birth of Jesus,
>and no evidence that these stories gained factuality.
There is no "recycling". No one else in history before or since came
anywhere *close* to fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament.
CC>Of course, I could be wrong. But then, where's the *evidence*?
The "evidence" is right there where it has always been. All it takes is for
one to read it with an open mind!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate and
enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
(Pascal B., "Pensees," [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl., Penguin: London,
Revised edition, 1966, p.73)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 00:36:02 EST