Reflectorites
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:39:02 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>PR>What ; you really think it is more likely that Jesus rose from the
>dead than the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
>to push their own agenda ?
Yes. The many mutually contradictory naturalistic hypotheses advanced to
explain Jesus' life, death and resurrection are less credible than the Bible's
own account. Proof of this is that the naturalistic hypothesis come and go
and never hold a large following for long - they just tend to be recycled
endlessly.
The point is that even if Christianity was true, a sceptic could always make
ad hoc claims that "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
to push their own agenda".
And besides, even if "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and
theologized to push their own agenda", that is just another way of saying
that they emphasised and interpreted the events of Jesus life, death and
resurrection to meet the needs of their target audience. There is nothing
wrong with that.
What the sceptic needs to show is not that "the Gospel authors simply
exaggerated and theologized to push their own agenda" but that the events
never happened and that "the Gospel authors" were liars and deceivers.
>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).
>SJ>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.
>PR>This is ludicrous. This can only be a referral (presumably) to the 'Q'
>gospel
No. There is no evidence that there ever was a "Q gospel". It is a liberal
invention:
"Q Document. The Gospel of Q or Q Document is a hypothetical
collection of Jesus' sayings that supposedly antedates the four
Gospels. The Q hypothesis comes from the German word Quelle,
meaning "sources." Q was used heavily by the Jesus Seminar to
arrive at their radical conclusions. Since Q allegedly contains
sayings, not works or miracles of Jesus, it is used as a basis for
denying the resurrection. Since the earliest Q contained no
references to Jesus' deity, this too is held to be a later mythological
invention. If true, this would undermine the historic apologetic for
Christianity...A central consideration is that there is not one shred
of documentary evidence that Q ever existed. No manuscript or any
version of it has ever been found. No church Father ever cited any
work corresponding to what current scholars mean by Q. From
what is known of the documentary tradition of the early Christian
centuries, this lacuna is improbable in the extreme if the work ever
existed. Former Q proponent Linnemann observes the reverence
with which critics regard Q: "This is the stuff of fairy tales"
(Linnemann, "Is There a Q?". Apologists can assume with
confidence that Q is a modern creation and that no manuscript will
turn up next week to prove them wrong." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, pp.618-619).
I am referring to the original written sources kept by the apostle Matthew,
the record of Peter's teaching kept by Mark, the historical research
conducted by Luke: and either the notes or memory of the apostle John. I
can expand on this if necessary.
>PR>and Matthew and Luke's usage of Mark. As Steve omits to
>mention, study of this shows three things : Firstly, that Matthew
>(especially) rewrote bits he didn't like.
How can "study" show "that Matthew ... rewrote bits he didn't like"? How
do the critics know 20 centuries later what Matthew "didn't like"? And
what is the original that Matthew is supposed to have rewritten?
PR>Secondly, that Matthew
>and Luke rewrote things to fit their own personal views.
See above. This is not necessarily wholly false. Like eyewitnesses to a
traffic accident, the gospel authors all report the same core events from
their own particular perspective and emphases.
PR>And thirdly,
>the 'Q' Jesus is a far more credible, demythologised Jesus than
>anything in the Bible.
Not surprising since Q is a naturalistic invention. And after naturalistic
critics have finished removing `bits *they* didn't like" and "rewrote things
to fit *their* own personal views" they are of course left with a naturalistic
Jesus which to them would seem "far more credible".
Naturalistic critics have been doing this `search for the historical Jesus' for
centuries, but all they end up with is a pale reflection of *themselves*!
>SJ>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.
>PR>It amazes me that you can write such nonsense. Paul had no knowledge
>of the Jesus in the Gospels.
Since Paul's companion for much of his Christian life was Luke who wrote
one of the gospels, this bit of modern liberal scholarship dogma is itself
"nonsense".
PR>The "main facts" were that he was born,
>lived a quiet life, and was crucified at some time. Paul apparently knew
>nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels beyond the very basic outline.
See above re Luke.
The only writings we have of Paul are letters written to already established
churches for specific purposes. There would be no point in Paul repeating
the gospel stories to these churches since these were not in dispute.
PR>[snip Aliens stuff]
I note that Paul just ignores my point!
>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. ...
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>PR>This presumably is written by a priest who is dumb enough to by the
>"opponents never questioned it".
Note how Paul just dismisses any evidence against his position, even if it
comes from a secular source like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
PR>Steve, nobody wrote ANYTHING.
What does this mean? And what is the evidence for it?
PR>If the "facts" in the Gospel
>are true, and as widespread as they claim to be, don't you think the total
>paucity of any reporting strange ?
No. For starters the level of extra-Biblical "reporting" of nascent
Christianity, is quite high, given the tendency of much written material to
be lost:
"People frequently ask if any record has been preserved of the
report which, it is presumed, Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea sent to
Rome concerning the trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. The
answer is none. But let it be added at once that no official record
has been preserved of sny report which Pontius Pilate, or any other
Roman governor of Judea, sent to Rome about anything. And only
rarely has an official report from any governor of any Roman
province survived. They may have sent in their reports regularly,
but for the most part these reports were ephemeral documents, and
in due course they disappeared. (Bruce F.F., "Jesus and Christian
Origins Outside the New Testament," 1974, p.17, in McDowell J.
& Wilson B., "He Walked Among Us," 1988, Second Printing,
p.23).
The level of "reporting" of Christianity is about what I would expect, given
that Christianity's focus was on the personal salvation of individuals and
not the overthrow of existing political and religious systems.
>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?
>SJ>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!
>PR>I think he is suggesting it is an equally feasible suggestion.
No doubt. But that does not alter my point.
>SJ>The purpose of my post is to show that there is *evidence* for the
>existence of the supernatural in the case of fulfilled prophecy.
>PR>And you have failed miserably.
No. I have succeeded in presenting the *evidence*. As I said, I did not
expect (barring a miracle) that the evidence would convince committed
atheists like Chris (and I presume Paul?) to become Christians.
SJ>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)..
PR>[snip]
>>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.
>SJ>I am not sure what Chris is saying here. Clearly the events had to happen
>first before they were committed to writing.
>PR>I think he's suggesting that the only evidence is the NT itself (not strictly
>true ;
It is not true at all! It shows how so-called sceptics can dismiss Christianity
out of hand, without ever seriously considering the *evidence* for it.
PR>there are the other Gospels but Christians don't want to talk about
>those)
It is not that Christians don't want to talk about these other (i.e.
Apocryphal) gospels. They are mentioned in New Testament Introduction
textbooks. It is that these so-called gospels were not accepted as genuine
(for good reason) by the early church.
BTW it is interesting that Paul rejects the real gospels as history but he
appears willing to accept the false ones as history!
PR>and claim of other people after they were written i.e. Church
>Fathers. This is accurate.
Yes, There are thousands of pages of writings by the early Church Fathers.
I have read somewhere that one could reconstruct most of the New
Testament from their quotations of it.
>CC>I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
>*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done.
>SJ>See above EB quote.
>
>What "evidence" is that Chris has in mind which "shows, almost
>*conclusively*, that Jesus did *not* exist"?
>PR>I agree. The evidence shows that there probably was a Jesus.
Thanks to Paul for that. But the difference between Chris and Paul is just
one of degree, not of kind. There is no criteria by which Paul can show
Chris is wrong that would not destroy Paul's position as well. That is
because it is just subjective picking and choosing among the evidence what
one likes and rejecting what one doesn't like.
PR>There is no support for virtually anything else though.
See above. Paul has not produced any "support" for his position which is
just dismissing out of hand any "support" that I cite for mine.
PR>Christians scoff at this,
>but are loathe to produce it, other than quoting the Bible of course.
No one is scoffing, except the so-called critics. Christians have been
presenting the evidence for their position for two millennia.
And Paul "of course" Christians have been "quoting the Bible". What does
Paul expect Christians to quote to "support" Christianity - Darwin's Origin
of Species"?
>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.
>SJ>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.
>PR>Oh yes. Those sources. Josephus (born AD37) Tacitus (writing 114AD).
>Why didn't anyone else notice at the time, Steve ?
The EB article I quoted mentioned as well as "Josephus, the Jewish
historian" and "the Roman historian Tacitus", "the emperor Nero", "the
governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger", "the emperor Trajan", the
"Roman historian, Suetonius" and "the emperor Claudius":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
[...]
The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian
Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note.
In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero,
which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in
order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called
Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in
explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator
Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily
suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea
soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus
but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very
early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The
passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as
the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of
that movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny
the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he
should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the
same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude
superstition, who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his
earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from
Christians.
Another Roman historian, Suetonius, remarked in his life of the emperor
Claudius (Vita Claudii 25:4; after AD 100): "He [Claudius] expelled the
Jews, who had on the instigation of Chrestus continually been causing
disturbances, from Rome." This may refer to turmoils occasioned among
the Jews of Rome by the intrusion of Christianity into their midst. But the
information must have reached the author in a completely garbled form or
was understood by him quite wrongly to mean that this "Chrestus" had at
that time appeared in Rome as a Jewish agitator. Claudius' edict of
expulsion (AD 49) is also mentioned in Acts 18:2.
Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has depicted
the history of his people and the events of the Jewish-Roman war (66-70),
only incidentally remarks about the stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother
of Jesus, who was called Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What else does Paul want-Jesus' to have had a personal home page? :-)
PR>There were dead saints resurrected in Jerusalem.
Indeed! And as I pointed out in a previous post, there is no reason this
would have been included unless it was true. Matthew does not claim it
was a fulfilment of prophecy and if it wasn't true it could be easily refuted
by the citizens of Jerusalem.
The book of Acts records that there were thousands of Jews in Jerusalem
became Christians after the events of Jesus resurrection:
Acts 2:41 "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and
about three thousand were added to their number that day."
Acts 6:7 "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in
Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became
obedient to the faith."
and this fits a pattern of the extraordinary events following Jesus death
claimed by the NT.
PR>Herod wiped out half of Bethlehem.
No. Herod ordered that all the children of Jesus' age be killed:
Mt 2:16 "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the
Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in
Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in
accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."
At the time Bethlehem was only a small town, so the number of children
there may not have been large. And compared to the atrocities that the
Herods and the Romans committed, it was comparatively minor:
"16. The ruthlessness of Herod's later years, particularly where a
potential rival was concerned, is well documented; the victims
included three of his own sons (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 392-394 xvii.
182-187), as well as several large groups of actual or suspected
conspirators (Ant. xvi. 393-394; xvii. 42-44, 167), in one case with
their families (Ant. xv. 289-290). It is thus not improbable that his
fear of a potential rival should lead him to kill a few babies in
Bethlehem. (The number of boys under two if Bethlehem's
population was about 1,000 - and AB, p. 19, estimates only 300 -
would not be more than twenty.) It was a minor incident in a period
full of atrocities, and the absence of clearly independent accounts in
secular history is not surprising." (France R.T., "Matthew: An
Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK,
1985, pp.86-87)
Again, if this was false it could easily have been refuted.
PR>Jesus fame had spread far and wide. But no-one else, outside the
>Christian faith, appears to have noticed.
See previous on Jesus "fame" (AV) being during His public ministry being:
a) just "news" (NIV); and b) confined to Judea and surrounding countries.
But later if one counts "Josephus, the Jewish historian", "the Roman
historian Tacitus", "the emperor Nero", "the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny
the Younger", "the emperor Trajan", the "Roman historian, Suetonius" and
"the emperor Claudius" as "no-one" then Paul is right!
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
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 - 18:30:32 EST