>"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.
SEJones:
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."
Paul Robson:
One could argue this for any counter argument. However, Giesler
does not address the issue.
SEJones:
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)
Paul Robson:
This presupposes the existence of the "census". Most intelligent
Biblical scholarship views the census as a literary device to get
Jesus to where the Gospel author wants him.
Steve Jones:
To claim that the Jews couldn't be bothered is against all the historical
evidence
Paul Robson:
Produce some then !
Steve Jones:
and is even against common sense. The 1st century Jews were
every bit as fanatical about their religion as fundamentalist Moslems are
today.
Paul Robson:
Didn't notice Moslems refuting the Heaven's Gate cult. Or Christians.
(If they hadn't killed themselves they still wouldn't have)
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Err... this is just in the Bible. Do you know what extra-biblical means ?
It is a serious question as to whether the Jews executed Jesus
because of his Messianic claims, (even from a biblical viewpoint).
You will find a staggering number of Christian apologists who claim
to be anti Christian. One, is McDowell. A Christian on another list
knew him as a young man (16 ish) and says this wasn't true then.
(It's an exaggeration lie)
Steve Jones:
Besides, there is the psychological side that the New Testament contains
some of the highest ethics the world had ever seen
Paul Robson:
Odd so few of them, if any, are original.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Nope. The claim is that the writers weren't historians. It's a kind of
theological story cum conversion cum reporting. Given the date of
the Gospels (arguably not John, but just arguably) they weren't
at that time aware they were founding a "world religion".
I am aware of all the boiler plate fundie arguments ; for example
this one (the Gospel authors were telling the truth or deliberate
frauds).
Steve Jones:
Moreover, most of the apostles paid with their lives for their beliefs,
Paul Robson:
According to the Bible, and rather inconsistently at that.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
It is not a good idea to discuss psychology with me, but you can try
if you like. Your statement is basically incorrect. People wish away
contrary evidence, however blatant. As a participant on CvE groups
you should know this.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
The prophecy claim is made by recent Christian apologists, mostly
originating in Anderson's calculations.
Steve Jones:
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".
Paul Robson:
Yet another logical error. You are requiring proof of these being erroneous.
I refer you again to the subtle rewrites Matthew does of Mark.
Steve Jones:
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;
Paul Robson:
See above. Basically we have their word for all of this. Given the behaviour
of modern apologists this is not a good start. You also assume they knew
it to be a fraud. You also assume that you know who the Gospel authors
were.
Matthew changes bits of Mark he doesn't care for Steve. Read the bits
they have in common.
Steve Jones:
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),
Paul Robson:
Let me guess. Where is this claim ? How come none of your stuff
appears in any of the non-Christian "histories" ?
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
You can ignore my "they didn't care" argument all you like, but they
didn't.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Prophecy claims by apologists are recycled endlessly. Frequently they
do not address the problems involved, or do so dishonestly ; for example
claiming "Almah" meant "Virgin".
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Don't you think this implies that some things are invented because of
having scriptural symbolism ?
Steve Jones:
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)
Paul Robson:
I don't get it. You say JoA is in fulfilment of a prophecy. WLC et al
say the A part has no scriptural symbolism. They seem to be arguing
it's plausible because it doesn't have this symbolism.
PR
A classic example of this is the two birth stories ; driven by
different prophecy requirements.
Steve Jones:
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).
Paul Robson:
There's rather more differences than that Steve. Haven't you read it ?
PR
Incidentally, if the Bible is such a great book, why did Giesler write
a book called "Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties".
Steve Jones:
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"?
Paul Robson:
Honesty ? However, the ENTIRE BOOK isn't about difficulties !
Steve Jones:
I am not aware that Geisler wrote a book: "Encyclopaedia of Bible
Difficulties". Perhaps Paul is getting mixed up with Archer who did?
Paul Robson:
Yes he is :) I'm always getting Gielser (God is not a religious concept)
and Archer (f**k you Till) mixed up.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Oh, I thought it was because the books on any sane reading weren't
coherent.
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".
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
True. Though only a subset of Christians take such a simplistic view of
the Miracle stories.
However, Giesler claims that these "facts" destroy the passover plot.
If he is doing this he has to demonstrate they are facts.
If he is writing for Christians presumably they think Jesus was
resurrected anyway.
PR
In fact, they show the classic behaviour of
stories, becoming more voluminous and more impressive as time
goes on.
Steve Jones:
Even if this were true (and Paul has produced no evidence that it is),
Paul Robson:
Oh read the bloody Bible Steve. Compare Mark and John. That shouldn't
be too hard !
Steve Jones:
It would not mean that the events the "stories" were based on didn't happen.
One can amplify the events of a true story.
Paul Robson:
True. But it doesn't bode well for accurate reporting, does it ?
SJ.... Second, there is no evidence that Jesus was a deceiver. To the
contrary, his character is impeccable (see CHRIST, UNIQUENESS
OF).
PRClearly not the case. Some things have slipped through (the fig tree
or example, and overturning the tables in the temple).
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Yes, you can make excuses, but this just is assuming what you want
to accept. The sensible interpretation of the Fig Tree is it is a tantrum,
which is why it is CHANGED IN LATER ACCOUNTS.
Steve Jones:
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:
Paul Robson:
Are you really this stupid ? I am stating that they are in the Gospels.
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson:
No, I suspect this may have been based on a real incident, but the
main function is seeming prophecy fulfilment, always one of Matthew's
favourite approaches.
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Yep. I suggested some above. You suggest they don't. Quite how I'm
supposed to tell you what the Gospel authors omitted is beyond me.
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 ?
Steve Jones:
The Jews kept extensive genealogical records, both publicly and privately.
Paul Robson:
Oh did they ! Care to comment on the wierd convergence and divergence
of the genealogies ?
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 !
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
You haven't demonstrated they are prophecy. At best you've produced
a possible way in which they can be interpreted as such. And that's
being kind.
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Which means what PRECISELY ?
Steve Jones:
But this does not mean that the core events they base their interpretation
did not happen.
Paul Robson:
But it does suggest they might add some to help that "interpretation"
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.
Steve Jones:
No. There is no evidence that any other claimed Messiahs fulfilled the Old
Testament as Jesus did.
Paul Robson:
There is no evidence that Jesus did either ! What they are doing is going
through the OT looking for anything that can be "read" as being a
"prophecy".
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
It is highly questionable whether this was his function.
PR>Giesler underestimates human
>fallibility; which is odd because his writing suggest he understands
>it very well.
Steve Jones:
And what about the "human fallibility" of the critics? They could be wrong
and the Christians right.
Paul Robson:
Oddly, a lot of the "critics" are Christians. Just not fundies.
[..]
>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 ;
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
You KEEP saying "why did no-one refute it at the time ?". Nobody cared.
There is not only no refutation, there are no records outside the
Gospels even remotely dated close to the Gospel stories.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Well, you just assume the Bible is "historical evidence".
PR>Christianity was
>an unimportant minor cult probably till about 150AD, but certainly at its
>beginnings.
Steve Jones:
Disagree about the "150AD". The evidence is that parts of the New
Testament date from about AD37:
Paul Robson:
Still doesn't mean "unimportant minor cult" doesn't describe it accurately.
Steve Jones:
"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.
Paul Robson:
Or they simply didn't know !
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
I've commented elsewhere. Briefly, in 114AD it was still felt
necessary to explain what Christianity was (inaccurately), same
document.
Steve Jones:
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:
Paul Robson:
This is a blatant lie. There are TWO passages which mention
Christianity I know of. One throwaway line "him called Christ"
and the TF, which we really are guessing at.
It does describe John the Baptist, (in more detail than it does
Jesus)
Steve Jones:
which would be inexplicable if "Christianity was an unimportant minor cult
probably till about 150AD".
Paul Robson:
Actually, in all the history one throwaway line and one small passage
(expanded by Christians) would suggest it very well to me.
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.
Steve Jones:
I doubt it. The point was that Christianity was not regarded as "a minor
cult" by the Jews and later by the Romans.
Paul Robson:
Look. Do you accept that in 114AD it was necessary to explain what
a Christian was (Tacitus) ? Do you accept that Josephus wrote
very little about Jesus ?
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Piece of cake. There are lots of them.
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.
Steve Jones:
I note that Paul does not deal with my point.
Paul Robson:
Actually it does. On your reckoning followers of Jesus did the write up,
so they have a vested interested in making their pet Messiah fit the
prophecies, didn't they ?
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.
SJ
In the case of the Jews the evidence is that they did.
Paul Robson:
No there isn't. Where ? (not the Bible, I know what that says).
SJ
And in the case of the
Romans, there is evidence, which I have cited, that they also became
increasingly aware of Christianity.
Paul Robson:
To the extent that both Pliny and Tacitus were confused about what they
were.
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.
SJ
Again Paul produces *no* "evidence" for his assertions.
Paul Robson:
Translation: I can't answer this. You don't produce any evidence for
anything you write. You keep claiming
SJ
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.
Paul Robson:
Despite the fact that when it was written, as he ought to know, in 114AD
Tacitus needs to explain what Christians are. This still doesn't address
the incredible paucity of information about Christianity if it was so
"significant".
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson:
What on earth does that mean ? I never suggested Christianity wasn't
significant in 312 AD. Do you REALLY believe that rebuttal evidence
was available 300 years later ?
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.
Steve Jones:
Which confirms my point!
Paul Robson:
Well, you keep claiming its historical to someone who doesn't believe it,
and arguing from that, but you can't even show it is historical.
SJ>But a person who approached this evidence with an open mind
PR>i.e. someone who is already a Christian.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
And there are an awful lot of apologists who are liars. McDowell for
example.
None of these arguments would convince you, unless you are dumb
enough to be convinced by circular arguments.
Steve Jones:
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:
Paul Robson:
Apologists and Christians say with staggering regularity that they were
skeptics, but they don't know the responses to skeptic's arguments,
let alone the arguments themselves. This does not persuade me of
their honesty.
They also are unwilling to understand the skeptic's viewpoint. Your
claims of open mindedness are not impressive. You keep quoting
Tacitus but you don't apparently know that the Nero claim is
debatable ; and you omit to mention that Tacitus then explains
(in 114AD) what Christianity is, inaccurately. You cite Josephus
but he says little about either Christians or Christianity ; he writes
more about John the Baptist.
More to the point, you don't seem to understand why "it says so
in the Bible" is described as "history". You claim (true to some
extent) that Christians believe it, but you aren't writing for
Christians, you are writing for "open mind". An open mind
assumes history is written from a viewpoint, and that early
history especially (ever read Gildas ?) may be more interested
in the message than the "history".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 29 2000 - 06:10:12 EST