Reflectorites
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:47:36 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[continued]
>PR>that's why there is no
>>response, or no commentary on dead people walking around in Jerusalem,
>SJ>What "response, or no commentary" could there be? Only Matthew records
>that:
>
>Mt 27:52-53 "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy
>people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the
>tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and
>appeared to many people."
>
>and no further implications are drawn from it. Matthew does not even
>claim it was a fulfillment of prophecy. The only reason for it being
>recording therefore seems to be that it was reported by eyewitnesses as
>actually having happened. If it was false, Matthew would hardly have
>included it because: a) it could be easily refuted; and b) there was no
>advantage to be gained. It is consistent with the evidence that not long
>afterwards 3,000 Jerusalem Jews became Christians in one day (Acts 2:41).
>PR>Well, how come no-one else bothered to note this occurrence. That is the
>refutation !
No. See previous. This is just an argument from silence.
PR>Incidentally, Christians make claims of large numbers of
>conversions all the time.
Which "claims of large numbers of conversions" is Paul referring to?
PR>It amuses me that you uncritically accept this as "evidence".
I don't "*uncritically* accept this as evidence" (i.e. the "Acts 2:41" claim
"that not long afterwards 3,000 Jerusalem Jews became Christians in one
day"). I accept it as evidence like I accept any other historical claim. That
is, I accept it as true unless I know of any reason not to accept it.
If Paul has any actual evidence against it, let him post it.
>PR>and nothing on Jesus despite the Gospel claims of his fame spreading far
>>and wide.
>
>The "Gospel claims of his [Jesus'] fame spreading far and wide" was in
>respect of Judea and surrounding countries only (e.g. Mt 4:24; Mk 1:28;
>Lk 4:14) and the word [Gk. akoe] rendered "fame" in the AV is literally
>"news" and is so rendered in the NIV.
>PR> Hmmm... certainly don't trust the NIV :) Still, no reports, no-one bothered
>to write anything down who wasn't a believer. Dead bodies came to life ;
>well who cares, happens all the time.
See previous.
>PR>Please note: there is a vast difference between the "existence of Jesus"
>>which almost everyone accepts,
>SJ>But not everybody. Some atheists like Frank Zindler (and Chris) claim that
>Jesus never even existed.
>PR>Didn't think Frank was a Jesus absolutist. Must check that one.
Paul should watch the video tape of Zindler's debate with William Lane
Craig entitled "Atheism vs Christianity". In it Zindler several times claimed
that Jesus never existed.
Zindler got trounced BTW. Even sone atheists in the audience voted that
Craig won. The atheist arguments about the non-existence of Jesus might
look good among the narrow circle of one's fellow `sceptics' but they look
*pathetic* outside that circle.
PR>Can't comment on Chris, of course. I don't agree.
The point is that if Paul doesn't have any principled reason to disagree with
Chris. Paul subjectively accepts some things in the NT and extra-Biblical
evidence for the existence of Jesus, but subjectively rejects others. At least
Chris is consistent and rejects the lot!
>PR>and the existence of the persion described in the NT.
>SJ>Of *course* there is a difference between "the person described in the NT"
>and the "existence of Jesus" as recorded by non-Christian sources. If non-
>Christians believed what the NT described Jesus as they would probably be
>Christians (this is precisely the objection to the Josephus quote below
>being fully genuine).
>
>But there is no "difference" at all in respect of the "existence of Jesus".
>Both non-Christian and Christian sources say that Jesus existed. The best
>non-Christian description of Jesus with possible Christian interpolations is
>found in Josephus:
>
>"In a disputed text, Josephus gives a brief description of Jesus and
>his mission:
>
>`Now there was about this, time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
>to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,-a teacher
>of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
>both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]
>Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men
>amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him
>at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again
>the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
>thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
>Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day,
>[Antiquities 18.3.3]'
>
>This passage was cited by Eusebius in its present form
>(Ecclesiastical History 1.11) and the manuscript evidence favors it.
>PR>No it doesn't ! It didn't appear until Eusebius quoted
That's what I said!
I have Eusebius and he quotes the TF quite matter-of-factly, as though he
was stating something that everyone knew:
"After relating these things concerning John, Josephus in the same
work, also makes mention of our Saviour in the following manner:
`About the same time, there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if
indeed it is proper to call him a man. For he was a performer of
extraordinary deeds; a teacher of men, that received his doctrine
with delight; and he attached to himself many of the Jews, many
also of the Greeks. This was Christ. Pilate having inflicted the
punishment of the cross upon him, on the accusation of our
principal men, those who had been attached to him before did not,
however, afterwards cease to love him: for he appeared to them
alive again on the third day, according to the holy prophets, who
had declared these and innumerable other wonderful things
respecting him. The race of the Christians, who derive their name
from him, likewise still continues.' When such testimony as this is
transmitted to us by an historian who sprung from the Hebrews
themselves, both respecting John the Baptist and our Saviour, what
subterfuge can be left, to prevent those from being convicted
destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them ? This
however, may suffice on this subject." (Cruse C.F., transl., "The
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," [1955], Baker:
Grand Rapids MI, 1966, Fourth Printing, p.42)
PR>it and didn't appear again for about another 50 years or so. It
>wasn't quoted by the Church Fathers, despite their using Josephus.
This actually defeats Paul's argument. If the claim is that because apologists
before Eusebius never quoted from the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) it
never existed, here we have apologists not quoting from it "for about
another 50 years or so" even though it did exist!
Yet AFAIK almost all scholars accept that the TF itself existed, but that the
more explitly Christian parts of it were a later Christian interpolation.
However without the interpolation, Christian apologists still would have
used the TF since it is still evidence for the existence of Jesus.
A reasonable explanation is that the TF is genuine but Christian apologists
before Eusebius were reluctant to use it because of the obvious problem
that Josephus was thought not to be a Christian and it can be interpreted
sarcastically.
Another possibility is that the section of the Antiquities was suppressed by
the Romans and not generally known. Apparently there are only three
surviving manuscripts of book XVIII, so the whole book (or at least the
section mentioning Jesus) may have only come to light after Christianity
became the official religion of the Roman Empire, which was just before
Eusebius's time.
Based on the fact that Josephus was born in Jerusalem in 37AD, only 4
years after Jesus had been executed, and lived there as a "precocious
youth" and later a Pharisee, he would have been in an *excellent* position
to produce evidence against Christianity's central claims about the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus, if there was any. That Josephus didn't
produce any such evidence is itself good evidence that Christianity's central
claims were rock-solid.
In that case it is IMHO possible that Josephus towards the end of his life
quietly became a Christian and the TF quoted by Eusebius was genuine.
Apparently in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD Joseph did not mentioned Jesus, John
the Baptist, or James, while in the Antiquities, written 20 years later, he
mentions all three.
>SJ>Yet it is widely considered to be an interpolation, since it is unlikely
>that Josephus, a Jew, would affirm that Jesus was the Messiah and
>had been proven so by fulfilled prophecy, miraculous deeds, and the
>resurrection from the dead. ... It may be that a tenth-century Arabic
>text (see McDowell, 85) reflects the original intent:
>
>`At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his
>conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many
>people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples.
>Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who
>had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They
>reported that he had appeared to them three days after his
>crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the
>messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.'
>PR>Yep, this would fit the Q Jesus pretty well.
It is interesting that Paul accepts the real existence of a hypothetical source
document called "Q" that: 1. "there is not one shred of documentary
evidence that Q ever existed" -"No manuscript or any version of it has ever
been found"; 2. "No church Father ever cited any work corresponding to
what current scholars mean by Q"; and 3. for which "Former Q proponent
Linnemann observes ... `This is the stuff of fairy tales'" (Linnemann, "Is
There a Q?" 19)(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," 1999, p.619).
Since there is no existing manuscript of Q it would have to be made up
mainly from the gospels even though Paul does not accept they are reliable!
>SJ>In this form it does not affirm that Josephus believed in the
>resurrection but only that his disciples "reported" it. This would at
>least reflect an honest report of what his immediate disciples
>believed. Bruce observes that there is good reason for believing that
>Josephus did refer to Jesus bearing witness to his date, reputation,
>family connections to James, crucifixion under Pilate at the
>instigation of the Jewish leaders, messianic claim, founding of the
>church, and the conviction among his followers of the resurrection."
>PR>Not really. At best it is "just what Christians said" ; i.e. it is severalth
>hand. It is rather difficult to conclude anything very much from this.
It is of course possible to apply radical scepticism to any historical figure
but then one won't have much history left.
BTW the same methodology would destroy "Q" also, since that was based
on ultimately on "what Christians said"?
The bottom line is that if the individual sceptic living 20 centuries later
becomes a sort of Maxwellian daemon letting through only those particles
of history he finds congenial with his modern preconceptions, all we would
get from him is a sort of mirror image of the sceptic!
>SJ>(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,"
>1999, p.254)
>PR>Nuff said.
See above on Maxwellian daemon!
>SJ>, 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>You also should be aware that Enc. entries on this are written by
>Christians.
>SJ>First, I am not "aware" of that. For all I know it could have been written
>>by a non-Christian historian. Some of them seem to be.
>PR>I think it highly unlikely.
Ditto.
>SJ>Second, even if it was "written by Christians", so what? Paul's criteria
>would then be that if it was "written by Christians" it must be wrong!
>PR>No, that it is merely "pushing a line". For example "Why didn't they
refute
>the claims ?" is not coming from someone who knows anything about the
>early history of the Church ; it is an apologists argument.
Ditto.
>PR>That's why the "opponents never doubted...." argument appears, no
doubt.
>SJ>Paul presents no evidence for his "no doubt".
>PR>The para is in itself "evidence".
Ditto.
>SJ>At all times Paul works from his basic philosophical *assumption* that
>Christianity must be false, brushing aside any evidence that it might be
>true, and he then presents his conclusion as though it was an empirical finding!
>PR>No, actually it is an empirical finding. There is nothing about Christianity
>in the early years, it was nothing beyond a minor cult existing on the edge
>of society. There were many then, as there are now. The fact that their
>claims were not rebutted does not make them true.
See previous.
>PR>Christians have a hard time grasping the insignificance of Christianity in
>>the first 100 years or so.
>SJ>Personally it would not worry me in the slightest if Christianity was
>insignificant "in the first 100 years or so". But I have produced evidence
>in a previous post that it was significant enough that only 30 years after
>Christ's death (i.e. Nero in 64AD blaming the fire of Rome on Christians),
>and Paul has produced no evidence for his assertions.
>PR>This was, of course, written in 114AD. It is questionable whether Nero
>did this. Christians are mentioned, occasionally, before this ; a reasonable
>interpretation of Suetonius wrt Claudius time states their existence.
See previous.
PR>Steve omits to mention that Tacitus feels the need to explain to his
>readers what Christians are. This hardly suggests they are significant.
See previous.
>>PR>It is only his effects that are significant.
>>SJ>>Indeed! So here we have a prophecy hundreds of years before that on a
>>reasonable set of assumptions
>>PR>A reasonable set of assumptions ? Hundreds of years ? Surely you don't
>>believe Daniel is 6th century BC ?
>SJ>From the predictive standpoint it would not matter if Daniel was not "6th
>century BC" (that's why I said "hundreds of years"). I own a copy of the
>Septuagint (LXX) which was written in the third century BC and the book
>of Daniel, including his "seventy weeks" prophecy is in that.
>
>Indeed, so clear are Daniel's predictions that it has been an article of
>faith among anti-supernaturalistic radical liberal critics that Daniel's
>prophecies must have been written after the event. But this fails in the
>case of Dan 9:24-27 because its fulfillment is after the LXX.
>PR>I agree. You just said "hundreds of years".
That's right. If the LXX was "written in the third century BC and the book
of Daniel, including his "seventy weeks" prophecy is in that" then Dan
9:24-27 was "a prophecy hundreds of years before" its fulfillment.
PR>I was just interested to see if you believed in a 6th C. Daniel.
It is not that I *believe* "in a 6th C. Daniel". The *evidence* is in favour
of "a 6th C. Daniel".
It is the anti-supernaturalistic sceptics (so-called) who are the true
believers!
PR>Incidentally, the reason for Daniel's
>dating is that it is so hazy about the "present" and more accurate
>about the "future".
This is not so. Daniel cites names and places that have been found to be
accurate and which a later 3rd century Jew would have difficulty knowing.
But even if it were true, it would not be an argument against Daniel's 6th
century dating since Daniel is not a prophet making statements also about
the present, but a seer, making predictions about the distant future.
PR>Despite this quote (one wonders about the
>quoting, as Daniel dating is nearly as bent as 69 weeks), you must be
>aware that generally only fundie types date Daniel at 600BC.
Even if "only fundie types date Daniel at 600BC" that is not an argument
against them being right. If Daniel in fact is supernatural prophecy and the
"fundie types" are consistent Christian supernaturalists, then they will be
right and the anti-supernaturalist critics will be wrong.
The fact is that "the anti-supernaturalist critics" have been in retreat for
over a century and even a relatively liberal OT Introduction I cited admits
that the linguistic evidence of the book of Daniel is 4th or 5th century BC.
>>SJ>predicts the period of Jesus public ministry
>>and death, and in a nutshell what Jesus did: "to finish transgression, to
>>put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting
>>righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy"
>>(Dan 9:24).
>>PR>Does it ever occur to you that this might be why they tortured this
>passage?
>SJ>There is no torturing of this passage, all Newman did was quote it:
>
>Dan 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city
>to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in
>everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most
>holy."
>
>But maybe that qualifies as torturing it to Paul?
>PR>I'm amused you think it's as clear as you apparently do.
I am not "amused" that it appears unclear to an unbeliever like Paul. I
*expect* that it would be.
>PR>It's working backwards !
>SJ>I am not sure what Paul means by this.
>PR>See earlier
See previous.
>>SJ>Non-Christians are free to reject this but if Jesus in fact was who He
>>claimed to be, then they will be held accountable for that rejection. And
>>they certainly can't claim they didn't have *any* evidence!
>>PR>Ah, we're stuck so we're onto threats of hell again.
>SJ>I said nothing about "Hell". But I did say that "if Jesus in fact was who He
>claimed to be, then they [non-Christians] will be held "*accountable* for
>that rejection".
>PR>Oh, bullshit. "They will be held accountable" means "God will get you and
>throw you into Hell".
Paul said it.
PR>Anyone else (other than Steve) think this is unfair ?
I said nothing about it being "unfair" either.
>SJ>If Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be, does Paul think that non-
>Christians will *not* be held accountable for rejecting His claims?
>PR>In what way will they be held accountable. What's gonna happen ?
First things first. My question was that if Jesus was the Messiah, does Paul
think that he will not be held accountable by Jesus for rejecting Him?
Note I do not expect Paul to accept that Jesus was the Messiah. I am just
asking Paul to consider what if Jesus was the Messiah?
After Paul has answered that, then we can discuss the further questions: "In
what way will they be held accountable" and "What's gonna happen"?
>SJ>As Pascal wisely observed in the tagline (paraphrasing), there is enough
>>evidence for Christians to know that their faith is reasonable, but not
>>enough for them to avoid being mocked by unbelievers. And there is not
>>enough evidence to force those unwilling to believe, but there is enough
>>evidence to leave them without excuse. That is IMHO *exactly* as it should
>>be!
>>PR>So, are you a Catholic ?
>SJ>No. I am an evangelical Protestant.
>PR>You're stuffed then. You're supposed to be a Catholic, like Pascal.
Not really. And Pascal was a *Jansenist* Catholic, which makes him an
Augustinian theological `blood-brother' of mine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,114515+1+108317,00.html
[...]
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Pascal, Blaise
[...]
Until 1646 the Pascal family held strictly Roman Catholic principles,
though they often substituted l'honnetete ("polite respectability") for
inward religion. An illness of his father, however, brought Blaise into
contact with a more profound expression of religion, for he met two
disciples of the abbe de Saint-Cyran, who, as director of the convent of
Port-Royal, had brought the austere moral and theological conceptions of
Jansenism into the life and thought of the convent. Jansenism was a 17th-
century form of Augustinianism in the Roman Catholic Church. It
repudiated free will, accepted predestination, and taught that divine grace,
rather than good works, was the key to salvation. The convent at Port-
Royal had become the centre for the dissemination of the doctrine.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,117866+7,00.html
[...]
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
[...]
Roman Catholicism, history of
[...]
Jansenism
The church in France was the scene of controversies other than these
administrative and political ones. In 1640 there was published,
posthumously, a book by the Dutch theologian Cornelius Jansen, entitled
Augustinus, which was a defense of the theology of Augustine against the
dominant theological trends of the time within Roman Catholicism. Its
special target was the teachings and practices associated with the Jesuits.
Jansen and his followers claimed that the theologians of the Counter-
Reformation in their opposition to Luther and Calvin had erred in the other
direction in their definition of the doctrine of grace; i.e., emphasizing
human responsibility at the expense of the divine initiative and thus
relapsing into the Pelagian heresy, against which Augustine had fought in
the early 5th century. Over against this emphasis, Jansenism asserted the
Augustinian doctrine of original sin, including the teaching that man cannot
keep the commandments of God without a special gift of grace and that the
converting grace of God is irresistible. Consistent with this anthropology
was the rigoristic view on moral issues taken by Jansenism in its
condemnation of the tendency, which it claimed to discern in Jesuit ethics,
to find loopholes for evading the uncompromising demands of the divine
law. When it was espoused in the Lettres Provinciales ("Provincial
Letters") of Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, this campaign against
Jesuit theology became a cause celebre. The papacy struck out against
Jansenism in 1653, when Innocent X issued his bull Cum Occasione ("With
Occasion"), and again in 1713, when Clement XI promulgated his
constitution Unigenitus ("Only-Begotten").
Theologically, Jansenism represented the lingering conviction, even of
those who refused to follow the Reformers, that the official teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church was Augustinian in form but not in content;
morally, it bespoke the ineluctable suspicion of many devout Roman
Catholics that the serious call of the Gospel to a devout and holy life was
being compromised in the moral theology and penitential practice of the
church. Though Jansenism was condemned, it did not remain without
effect, and in the 19th and 20th centuries it contributed to an evangelical
reawakening not only in France but throughout the church.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>PR>Of course, one of the reasons people are "unwilling" to believe these
>>"prophecies" is because the apologist always presents this kind of
>calculation as the only one that works ; they never mention the multiple starting points,
>ending points (birth of Jesus, ministry start, crucifixion), the flexibility in the
>ending points, the (at least) 3 different counting methods and so on.
>>
>>It's just presented as a single accurate calculation.
>SJ>This is simply not the case. McDowell, Newman, Geisler and Archer all
>point out there are alternative starting points and calculations.
>
>Maybe Paul will state which "apologist" he has in mind?
>PR>I will have to research this myself.
So Paul admits he makes confident-sounding claims (even quite detailed ones like
the above) without any evidence?
PR>Can you let me know which books you
>are referring to here ? Many thanks, PSR
Since Paul made the claim, the *real* question is "which books" was
*Paul* (not me) "referring to"?
But as to my sources on Dan 9:24-27, Paul can start with the books and
web article by "McDowell, Newman, Geisler and Archer" that I have
already quoted from in this thread.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridicule is a popular and political tool but not a scientific tool. If you want
to challenge a thesis, you do it with facts and science." (Douglas K.,
"Taking the plunge," New Scientist, Vol. 168, No. 2266, 25 November,
2000, pp28-33, p.33. http://www.newscientist.com/nl/1125/taking.html).
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 17 2000 - 18:12:04 EST