Reflectorites
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:39:02 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>>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.
>SJ>As I said, even if Jesus was who He claimed to be and actually *did* fulfill
>the Old Testament prophecies claimed, one could still argue this.
>
>Geisler answers this objection:
>
>"Jesus Manipulated Events to Fulfill Prophecy. ...
>PR>This is not the objection. The objection is that the Gospel authors
>wrote the Gospels so it appeared that Jesus fulfilled prophecies.
The first part of the answer is still the same: "even if Jesus was who He
claimed to be and actually *did* fulfill the Old Testament prophecies
claimed, one could still argue this."
But in the case of Mic 5:2, i.e. Jesus birth in Bethlehem, if He was not
really born in Bethlehem, and the gospel authors just made it up, then their
opponents could easily refute it. In the 2nd Century the Christian apologists
both Justin Martyr and Tertullian could still appeal to Roman records of
Jesus birth:
"Similarly both Justin and Tertullian, another Christian apologist of
a generation or two later, were sure that the census which was held
about the time of our Lord's birth was recorded in the official
archives of the reign of Augustus, and that anyone who took the
trouble to look these archives up would find the registration of
Joseph and Mary there. Justin's statement is a bold one if in fact no
record existed. Can you imagine a respected scholar writing the
resident of the United States a letter, which he knows will be
carefully scrutinized, and building his case on official federal
documents which do not exist? (Bruce F.F., "Jesus and Christian
Origins Outside the New Testament, 1974, p.20, in McDowell J. &
Wilson B., "He Walked Among Us," 1988, Second Printing, p.24)
To claim that the Jews couldn't be bothered is against all the historical
evidence and is even against common sense. The 1st century Jews were
every bit as fanatical about their religion as fundamentalist Moslems are
today. All the evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical is that the Jews
were *very* concerned with the Christian claims. Apart from the fact that
the Jews executed Jesus because of His Messianic claims, the apostle Paul
himself, before he was converted to Christianity, was a fierce persecutor of
the Christians and was instrumental in the execution of many of them.
Besides, there is the psychological side that the New Testament contains
some of the highest ethics the world had ever seen and yet the claim is that
the writers of it were also the deliberate perpetrators of one of the greatest
hoaxes the world has ever seen.
Moreover, most of the apostles paid with their lives for their beliefs, and
while people will die for a false belief they think to be true, no one would
die for a false belief they know to be false. Because of this psychological
problem, AFAIK all radical critical theories that have tried to maintain this
fraud theory have always collapsed under detailed analysis.
Also, in the case of Dan 9:24-27 the fact is that the gospel writers did not
use this prophecy! So the theory that the "Gospel authors fashioned the
story to fit the prophecy" fails in the case of Dan 9:24-27 because: 1) they
*did not* in fact "fashion" any "story to fit the prophecy" and 2) they
*could not* control the events of Dan 9:24-27 to make them fit Jesus life,
and nor could Jesus control his life so he fitted the events of Dan 9:24-27,
because some of them occurred before He was born and after His death.
Only if Jesus was who He claimed He was, the Messiah, could He control
past, present and future events, so that His life fulfilled the prophecy.
What is needed for critics is a plausible, consistent, non ad hoc, non-
circular naturalistic theory that deals with *every* claimed OT Messianic
prophecy and shows convincingly and comprehensively that: 1) Jesus did
not actually fulfill these prophecies but rather; 2)"the Gospel authors wrote
the Gospels so it appeared that Jesus fulfilled" these "prophecies".
Such a theory would have to deal with:
1) the psychological problem of those who taught the highest ethical
standards, were really just frauds but they were prepared to, and did, die
(sometimes horribly under torture) for what they knew to be a fraud;
2) the fact that if the apostles fraudulently made out that Jesus fulfilled
prophecies when He didn't: a) how they managed to a win over thousands
of Jewish converts (within days of Jesus having been crucified in their city),
when they would be in a position to know first hand if the apostles' claims
were false; and b) why the Jewish religious leaders who had crucified Jesus
and would be in a position to refute their easily falsifiable claims, did not do
so.
BTW it has already been tried over the last 20 centuries and no naturalistic
theory has proved convincing, even to the radical liberal critics themselves
- that's why they are still being recycled endlessly.
For example, there is one fulfilled prophecy that is so implausible as an
invention that it must be true. And that is Joseph of Arimathea:
"The person of Joseph of Arimathea is probably historical. Even
skeptical scholars agree that it is unlikely that Joseph, as a member
of the Sanhedrin, could have been a Christian invention. Raymond
Brown, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of our day,
explains that Joseph's being responsible for burying Jesus is very
probable," since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist
who does what is right for Jesus would be "almost inexplicable,"
given the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish
leaders responsible for Jesus' death. In particular, it is unlikely
that Mark invented Joseph in view of his statements that the whole
Sanhedrin voted for Jesus' condemnation (14:55, 64; 15:1). Brown
notes that the thesis of Joseph's invention is rendered even more
implausible in light of his identification with Arimathea, a town of
no importance and having no scriptural symbolism. To this may be
added the fact that the Gospels' descriptions of Joseph receive
unintentional confirmation from incidental details; for example, his
being rich from the type and location of the tomb. The consistent
descriptions of the tomb as an acrosolia, or bench tomb, and
archaeological discoveries that such tombs were used by notables
during Jesus' day make it plausible that Jesus was placed in such a
tomb. The incidental details that the tomb was unused and belonged
to Joseph are quite probable, since Joseph could not lay the body of
a criminal in just any tomb, especially since this would defile the
bodies of any family members also reposing there." (Craig W.L.,
"The Empty Tomb of Jesus," in Geivett R.D. & Habermas G.R.,
eds., "In Defence of Miracles," 1997, p.250)
PR>A classic example of this is the two birth stories ; driven by
>different prophecy requirements.
The "two birth stories" are telling the same story from two different
perspectives. Matthew's account is evidently from Jesus's human `father'
Joseph's perspective (i.e. legal descent) and Luke's is from Jesus' mother
Mary's perspective (i.e. human descent).
PR>Incidentally, if the Bible is such a great book, why did Giesler write
>a book called "Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties".
One might as well say that if Darwin's Origin of Species is such a great
book, why did Darwin write a chapter called "Difficulties of the Theory"?
I am not aware that Geisler wrote a book: "Encyclopaedia of Bible
Difficulties". Perhaps Paul is getting mixed up with Archer who did?
But in general there are books on Bible difficulties because while the book
is not a difficult book to understand in its main message of salvation
through Jesus, it has difficulties in the details. The Bible is, after all a
collection of 66 books, written by many Ancient Near-Eastern authors,
over a span of 3,000+ years. Much of the difficulties are due to our 20th
century Western lack of understanding of the Eastern culture and language
that the Bible was original written in.
>SJ>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.
>PR>It says much about Giesler that he assumes "miracles in the Bibles"
>to be apparent "facts".
Geisler (like me) is a Christian and he believes the miracles of the Bible
really happened and are therefore facts. Paul is a non-Christian and he
assumes they didn't and therefore they aren't facts.
PR>In fact, they show the classic behaviour of
>stories, becoming more voluminous and more impressive as time
>goes on.
Even if this were true (and Paul has produced no evidence that it is), it
would not mean that the events the "stories" were based on didn't happen.
One can amplify the events of a true story.
>SJ>.... Second, there is no evidence that Jesus was a deceiver. To the
>contrary, his character is impeccable (see CHRIST, UNIQUENESS
>OF).
>PR>Clearly not the case. Some things have slipped through (the fig tree
>for example, and overturning the tables in the temple).
In these instances Jesus (who according to the New Testament was God in
human form) was symbolically demonstrating His righteous indignation at
Israel's sin.
BTW is interesting that Paul accepts the "overturning the tables in the
temple" as having really happened when that is also cited as a fulfilled
prophecy:
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying
and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers
and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to
them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are
making it a 'den of robbers.'" (Mt 21:12-13 = Jer 7:11).
Paul is like most Biblical critics, selective at what he accepts as history. If it
looks good for Christianity, then it didn't happen, but if it looks bad for
Christianity, then it did happen!
PR>Of course, the
>possibility that writers who wished to portray Jesus as the Messiah
>may omit to mention things that place him in a bad light (as Matthew
>did !) does not occur to Giesler.
Paul does not say which things these are. Each gospel writer had his own
target readership and purpose so he included, omitted and re-arranged
material according to that readership and purpose. But since at least one
gospel writer must have written the alleged "things that place him [Jesus] in
a bad light" this shows the `warts and all' honesty of the gospel accounts,
which the early church did not smooth out.
>SJ>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);
>PR>How did the Gospel authors know of Jesus ancestry ?
The Jews kept extensive genealogical records, both publicly and privately.
>SJ>birthplace (Micah 5:2), time of death (Dan. 9:24-27);
>PR>Neither of which is a successful prophecy IMHO, that's what this thread
>is about !
That is Paul's "IMHO", with which I disagree. All Paul has done is made
*assertions*. He has not produced any *evidence* to back up his claims.
>SJ>and conditions of his death (Isaiah 53).
>PR>It doesn't seem to occur to these people that the NT might not be
>straight historical reporting.
In a sense this is not entirely incorrect. The New Testament writers
interpreted the Old Testament material in light of the new facts of Jesus'
life, death and resurrection.
But this does not mean that the core events they base their interpretation
did not happen.
>SJ>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
>PR>So all the Messiahs who have had people believe in them are the
>"promised Messiahs" are they.
No. There is no evidence that any other claimed Messiahs fulfilled the Old
Testament as Jesus did. Besides, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
All other Messiahship claims have come to naught. Jesus is the only
claimed Messiah who has founded a world religion.
PR>Giesler underestimates human
>fallibility; which is odd because his writing suggest he understands
>it very well.
And what about the "human fallibility" of the critics? They could be wrong
and the Christians right.
>SJ>, 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.
>SJ>As I pointed out, this overlooks the fact that Christianity began in
>*Jerusalem* in the very heart of another world religion, with fanatical
>followers.
>PR>As I've pointed out three times, and you completely ignore ;
I have not ignored *any* of Paul's points AFAIK. I have explained that I
was a long way behind because of my studies and some of our posts may
have `crossed in the mail'. Exams are now over but I have a *huge*
backlog which I will try to catch up.
However, having said that, at some point I will terminate this thread when
it appears that we are just going around in circles repeating ourselves. Paul
to date has not produced any evidence to back up his claims, which consist
of ad hoc denials of the historical evidence.
I am still trying to wind down my posts on the Reflector and concentrate
on eGroups.
PR>Christianity was
>an unimportant minor cult probably till about 150AD, but certainly at its
>beginnings.
Disagree about the "150AD". The evidence is that parts of the New
Testament date from about AD37:
"Since Mark is the earliest of our Gospels, having been written
prior to A.D. 70, the pre-Markan passion story must be even older.
In fact, according to the German commentator Rudolf Pesch, this
source is incredibly old. For Paul's Last Supper tradition (1 Cor
11:23-25) presupposes the pre-Markan passion account; hence, the
latter must have originated in the first years of existence of the
Jerusalem fellowship. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that
the pre-Markan passion story speaks of the "high priest" without
using his name (Mk 14:53, 54, 60,61, 63). This implies that
Caiaphas was still the high priest when the pre-Markan passion
story was being told, since there would then be no need to mention
his name. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, the
latest date for the origin of the tradition is AD. 37." (Craig W.L.,
"The Empty Tomb of Jesus," in Geivett R.D. & Habermas G.R.,
eds., "In Defence of Miracles, 1997, pp.248-249)
That Christianity was relatively unimportant to the Romans early on I
would agree, but by AD64 it had become important enough that Nero
blamed the fire of Rome on them.
The New Testament and extra-Biblical writings document that Christianity
was *very* important to the Jews from the first, and increasingly important
to the Romans in the first century. The first century Jewish historian
Josephus, for example, writing for a Roman audience in ~ 93AD, has quite
a bit about Christianity:
"Testimony to the New Testament. Josephus referred to Jesus as
the brother of James who was martyred. He wrote: "Festus was
now dead, and Albius was but upon the raid; so he assembled the
Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of
Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some
others, [or some of his companions], and when he had formed an
accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to
be stoned" (Antiquities 20.9.1). This passage both verifies the
existence of Christ by a non-Christian first-century writer and to
what the central claim about him was by his immediate followers-
that he was the Messiah. Josephus also confirmed the existence and
martyrdom of John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus: "Now, some of
the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from
God, and very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John,
who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good
man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to
righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so
to come to baptism" (Antiquities 18.5.2). This reference confirms
the existence, name, mission, and martyrdom of John the Baptist,
just as the New testament presents him." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.254)
which would be inexplicable if "Christianity was an unimportant minor cult
probably till about 150AD".
>SJ>Think of trying to start another religion in Mecca today and the
>difficulty becomes obvious.
>PR>Actually its very easy. I can start a minor cult anywhere.
I doubt it. The point was that Christianity was not regarded as "a minor
cult" by the Jews and later by the Romans. And Christianity did not start
"anywhere"-it started in *Jerusalem*, the heart of another major world
religion-Judaism. I would like to see Paul go and try to start even a "minor
cult" in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam.
>SJ>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
>PR>One of which isn't the writing up of what Jesus did.
I note that Paul does not deal with my point.
>SJ>and b) if they tried to fabricate evidence their enemies the
>Jews and Romans would have exposed them.
>PR>They didn't give a stuff about them.
In the case of the Jews the evidence is that they did. And in the case of the
Romans, there is evidence, which I have cited, that they also became
increasingly aware of Christianity.
>SJ>The only way that Christianity could begin and grow in such an
>environment is if their claims were based on rock-solid *evidence*.
>PR>Why ? Given the incredibly slow growth of Christianity, this would
>suggest the opposite ; that the evidence was pathetic. If it had been
>any good, it would have grown much faster.
Again Paul produces *no* "evidence" for his assertions.
The fact is that by 64AD Nero blamed the fire of Rome on the Christians
so they must have been significant in the very heart of the Empire less than
30 years after the death of Christ.
By 312AD the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian, and
Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
But apparently that is not fast enough for Paul!
>SJ>Of course such historical evidence will never convince those who don't
>want it to be true.
>PR>Some people have warped ideas of what constitutes historical
>evidence.
Which confirms my point!
>SJ>But a person who approached this evidence with an open mind
>PR>i.e. someone who is already a Christian.
No, there are plenty of examples of people who approached Christianity
with an open mind (i.e. not from a Christian background) and were
convinced by the evidence that it was true-me for example.
There are even examples of sceptics who did not rule out apriori that
Christianity could be true, and read the evidence for Christianity and
became Christians. A famous case is of the writer Albert Henry Ross (aka.
Frank Morison) who set out to write a book disproving the resurrection of
Christ and after researching the evidence wrote a book proving it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310295610/qid=975374917/sr=1-1/107-8505383-4699744
Who Moved the Stone?
by Frank Morison
[...]
Paperback - 192 pages Reprint edition (September 1987)
Zondervan Publishing House; ISBN: 0310295610
[...]
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The author began to write this book with the intention of disproving the
Resurrection but found instead that the evidence supported the biblical
story. An examination of his research and the evidence. A recognized
classic on Jesus' resurrection.
[...]
All Customer Reviews
[...]
For Seekers & Skeptics, July 27, 1999
Reviewer: StLuke379@aol.com from Dublin, Oh
I've read many books on the historical reliability (and unreliability) of the
New Testament; I've seen many educated opinions varying in every way; I
done studies many resurrections-centered topics; but I've never seen a book
quite like this! Morrison takes nothing for granted. He trusts his instincts,
and, though coming shy of any kind of Biblical-Christian opinion, he
beautifully defends the resurrection in this short examination. As a doubter
I find it difficult to swallow what many Christians take for granted in their
own faith. This book is not like most. However, as a believer I was thrown
by Morrison into the last week of Jesus' life (and the following weeks) as I
never have by any lecture or writing. Morrison brings to light many
historical details missed my so many people (including myself). He is easy
to read and difficult to put down.
To the skeptics: I was once a skeptic. It was not a brief reading of one or
two apologetic works that convinced me; instead, it was months and
months of hard research, with this book as one of the many highlights. I
encourage all to read this.
Morrison's book will forever remain one of my personal favorites.
Luke Gilkerson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>would find that it *as an integrated whole* it defeats all
>naturalistic explanations.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 18:30:23 EST