tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4966869633639465579..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Jesus' historicity: an argument for being skepticalStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54998920973198668012008-10-30T16:18:00.000+00:002008-10-30T16:18:00.000+00:00I don't see that the miraculous element found in m...I don't see that the miraculous element found in many ancient sources generally leads historians to conclude that individuals mentioned in them did not exist. There are miracle stories that are connected with Alexander the Great, <A HREF="http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/rain.html" REL="nofollow">Marcus Aurelius</A>, the <A HREF="http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/chan62-ym.htm" REL="nofollow">Maccabees</A>, and the <A HREF="http://www.ecse.ukf.net/thesis/chapter2.html" REL="nofollow">Jewish war against Rome</A>. It might seem, given the tendency of miracles to be attributed to historical figures and connected with historical events, one could reverse your argument and state that the increasing number and extent of miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and post-canonical literature is precisely what we'd expect to find in the case of a historical figure in this time and place in history.James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41153671608627385142008-10-29T09:28:00.000+00:002008-10-29T09:28:00.000+00:00Hi Stephen, if you ever get around to resuming thi...Hi Stephen, if you ever get around to resuming this element of the conversation, you might find <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-jesus-exist-on-youtube.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> of interest. He's much more of an expert than me.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62501857759104916442008-09-11T05:31:00.000+00:002008-09-11T05:31:00.000+00:00Jayman's very attempt to explain why miracle stori...Jayman's very attempt to explain why miracle stories in the OT and Jesus miracle stories are so similar, merely fortify the fact that these are as much literary creations as the Book of Mormon.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3095989469267010022008-09-11T02:47:00.000+00:002008-09-11T02:47:00.000+00:00Hello, Mr. Carr.Regarding 1 Corinthians 1:23, I di...Hello, Mr. Carr.<BR/><BR/>Regarding 1 Corinthians 1:23, I did not claim that <I>parelabon</I> solely refers to the transmission of sacred tradition. Clearly context is important in determining whether it is tradition being transmitted or whether something else is meant (such as the Judas example). In Thayer's Lexicon, <I>one</I> of its definitions is "to receive something transmitted". The transmission of tradition is evident in Mark 7:4; 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 4:1; and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:23 that do not resort to appeals to revelation can be found in the NIV Study Bible (p. 1751), the NRSV Study Bible from the Society of Biblical Literature (p. 2155), and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (p. 809), among others.<BR/><BR/>Galatians 1:12 does not seem to support your contention either. In the Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians, J. Louis Martyn translates the passage as follows: "For I did not receive it from another human being, nor was I taught it; it came to me by God's apocalyptic revelation of Jesus Christ." The sentence ends with a prepositional phrase and not with a clause having its own verb. Paul meant to carry over one of the previous verbs ("receive" or "taught") or he assumes the simple "came." But the Greek phrasing is not identical to 1 Corinthians 1:23.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, Martyn makes the following note on verse 12b (p. 143):<BR/><BR/>==================================<BR/>In stating the negative part of this argument, Paul employs a technical expression. The words<BR/><BR/>to receive (tradition) from someone<BR/><I>paralambano (paradosin) para tinos</I>,<BR/><BR/>while attested in Greek writings (e.g., Plato <I>Philebus</I> 16c), constitute a literal rendering of the first half of a firmly set Hebrew formula:<BR/><BR/>to receive (tradition) from someone and<BR/>to hand (it) on to someone else<BR/><I>qibbel min . . . umasar le . . .</I><BR/><BR/>One notes, for example, the role of this formula in <I>m. Abot</I> 1.1:<BR/><BR/>Moses received the law from Sinai, and he handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders [the Judges], and the elders to the prophets [Samuel to Malachi], and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly [the sages of Ezra's time].<BR/><BR/>Of course the Galatians will not have known that Mishnaic tractate; but, especially given Paul's supplementary clause, "nor was I taught," they will have sensed that he has selected the key expression of the traditioning process in order to say with maximum emphasis:<BR/><BR/>I did not receive the gospel in the line of tradition!<BR/>==================================<BR/><BR/>Moving on to the authorship of the Gospel of John, you attacked a straw man argument, not my argument. I'll break it down more (though still briefly):<BR/><BR/>(A) The many similarities between the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles are most simply explained by the theory that they were all written by the same individual.<BR/><BR/>(B) 2 and 3 John explicitly state they were written by John the Elder.<BR/><BR/>(C) The fourth Gospel has always been attributed to a John. The simplest explanation for this fact is that a John actually wrote it.<BR/><BR/>(D) Points A-C all point to the conclusion that the fourth Gospel was written by John the Elder.<BR/><BR/>You can change my mind, Steven, but you'll have to address my actual argument with more than the word "pathetic." You'll have to provide a theory that explains the above points in a more parsimonious fashion than above.<BR/><BR/>Continuing on, I also did not say "Nobody would have been scandalized by stories of the infant Jesus killing people." I questioned whether the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was scandalized by this story. When employing the criterion of embarrassment it is important to show that the author is scandalized by an account because that suggests he probably did not make up the story. If the author was not scandalized by the story then it is possible he made it up, even if it scandalized many other people. This is why I am looking for a citation demonstrating embarrassment on the part of the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I have only an introductory familiarity with this Gospel, but nothing in its contents indicate embarrassment to me. Jesus also appears to eventually heal everyone he curses, which may explain why the author shows no embarrassment.<BR/><BR/>Your final straw man argument is: "To them, 2 stories of somebody raising the dead child of a widow that was met at the gate of a city by a prophet means there were 2 miracles, no matter how much one story uses the vocabulary, phrasing and plot of the other." My actual argument was that similarities between two stories does not mean one of the stories is fictional. I gave three reasons for that belief and you addressed none of them.<BR/><BR/>For even more clarity, here is why your first example, the similarities between the feeding of the multitude by Elisha and Jesus, unconvincing:<BR/><BR/>1) Both stories have the same plot. This provides no indication as to whether the second story is factual or fictional. If the Gospel accounts of Jesus' feeding the multitude are true then we would expect the plots of the two stories to be the same. If Jesus' feeding of the multitude was a fictional story created off of Elisha's feeding of the multitude then we would also expect the plots of the two stories to be the same.<BR/><BR/>2) Both feed a multitude with a few loaves of bread, specifically barley bread, and a little other food. Any story about a miraculous feeding of this nature would have to start with a small amount of food. The Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on "Bread" states that barley was the preferred source of bread in Mesopotamia and that, in the lands around the Mediterranean, bread was "the staple food which provided most of the proteins and carbohydrates for humans for centuries and even millenia" (vol. 1, p. 777). There's nothing noteworthy about both stories mentioning barley bread.<BR/><BR/>3) Both delegate the task of feeding. This would be the expected behavior of anyone feeding a multitude (including in a non-miraculous fashion).<BR/><BR/>4) In both accounts there is a complaint that the quantity of food is too small. The very complaint anyone would offer if they were asked to do the impossible.<BR/><BR/>5) In both accounts everyone is fed and there is a surplus of bread left over. It wouldn't be a miracle story if they went home hungry. The surplus drives home the point that a miracle did occur and the people were not left hungry.<BR/><BR/>I'll also address the similarities between the two stories dealing with a widow's son being raised from the dead since you allude to it specifically in your post:<BR/><BR/>1) Plenty of sons of widows died so it is not particularly noteworthy that two stories about someone being raised from the dead share this point in common.<BR/><BR/>2) You are correct that both accounts share the phrase "he gave him to his mother" but this does not tell us whether Luke is creating a fictional story or not. Use of similar phrases could just as easily be used in historical narratives to prompt the reader to make a connection between Elijah and Jesus.<BR/><BR/>3) Both Elijah and Jesus meet the widow near a gate, but the circumstances are different. Elijah is commanded to go to Zarephath and meets the widow as she is gathering sticks at the town gate (1 Kings 17:10). At this point the widow's son is alive. At "some time later" the son dies and Elijah raises him by laying on top of him three times (1 Kings 17:17). Jesus meets the widow as he was approaching the town gate and she is carrying her dead son out of the city (Luke 7:12). Jesus raises the son with a mere command (Luke 7:14). There are more differences between the meetings than similarities.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88878827399462589172008-09-10T05:51:00.000+00:002008-09-10T05:51:00.000+00:00''1 Corinthians 11:23 uses standard Jewish termino...''1 Corinthians 11:23 uses standard Jewish terminology for receiving and handing over sacred tradition'<BR/><BR/>No it doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Is there a factory somewhere making up this rubbish?<BR/><BR/>'Paradidomi' just means handed over.<BR/><BR/>According to the Gospels, Judas 'paradidomi' Jesus. <BR/><BR/>'paralambano' just means 'receive'. There is nothing special about the word.<BR/><BR/>Paul says in Galatians 1:12 that he 'paralamano' the Gospel NOT from men, but from a revelation from Jesus.<BR/><BR/>And he uses exactly the same word in 1 Corinthians 11:23 to say he 'paralambano' from the Lord.<BR/><BR/>And Jayman claims this means he got it from men.<BR/><BR/>Pathetic.<BR/><BR/>How can you discuss things rationally with such brain-washed people?<BR/><BR/>It is like talking to Holocaust-deniers who carefully explain that 'ausrotten' just means that the Jews were to be transported out of Germany....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20848270276161481682008-09-10T05:35:00.000+00:002008-09-10T05:35:00.000+00:00'received from the Lord' means it was handed down ...'received from the Lord' means it was handed down by people who knew the Lord.<BR/><BR/>Pathetic. I suppose I just bought my Koran from Muhammad, as it goes back to Muhammad....<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Gospel of John never names any John, but 2 and 3 John do, so they were all written by the same person.<BR/><BR/>Pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Nobody would have been scandalized by stories of the infant Jesus killing people.<BR/><BR/>Pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Historicist arguments are pathetic.<BR/><BR/>'The link on "Miracles and the Book of Mormon" was unconvincing.'<BR/><BR/>Documented evidence of plagiarism won't convince True Believers, who won't believe even the evidence of their own eyes.<BR/><BR/>To them, 2 stories of somebody raising the dead child of a widow that was met at the gate of a city by a prophet means there were 2 miracles, no matter how much one story uses the vocabulary, phrasing and plot of the other.<BR/><BR/>Truly utterly pathetic.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87882508365344224292008-09-10T01:29:00.000+00:002008-09-10T01:29:00.000+00:00Steven Carr:1) You asked: "Was Paul just lying wh...Steven Carr:<BR/><BR/>1) You asked: "Was Paul just lying when he said that the authorities held no terror for innocent people?" I find the question wrong-headed because certain assumptions seem to lie behind it. First, it assumes that Paul is speaking about each and every government. Yet it is possible that Paul is merely speaking about the government encountered by the Christians in Rome. Second, it assumes that Paul is speaking in absolute terms as opposed to speaking generally. Yet it is possible that Paul is giving general guidelines that he knows may need to be done away with in different or extreme circumstances. These two assumptions need to be demonstrated before we can even raise the issue of contradictions or lying.<BR/><BR/>2) I did not claim there is a contradiction in Mark 2:18-22 nor did I claim there was any tension in Mark's mind. Mark 2:20 states that Jesus' disciples will fast after he has left them so clearly there can be neither a contradiction nor tension in Mark's mind. I stated that Jesus' example in Mark 2:18-22 reflects neither Jewish nor Christian practice and thus is hard to explain as a story that a Christian would have made up. You provided no explanation to the actual content of that part of my post. If this story is fictional, why was it created?<BR/><BR/>Also, the fact that you could so badly misinterpret the words of a 21st-century, English-speaking American (the words "contradiction" and "tension" appear nowhere in that section of my post) should give you pause in claiming you have accurately interpreted the words of Paul, a first-century, Greek-speaking Jew, in Romans 13 or that you know a person is lying.<BR/><BR/>3) You merely asserted, not demonstrated, that the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was scandalized by the story of the boy Jesus killing another boy. On the other hand, I cited 1 Corinthians 1:23 to demonstrate that Christ crucified was an impediment to Christian missionary activity. Why would Paul create a story that thwarted his missionary goals?<BR/><BR/>3) It is true that Luke 1:1-4 does not name eyewitnesses. My point was that a number of early Christians show signs of following historiographic practice. Such a practice would seem unnecessary for followers of a non-historical Christ.<BR/><BR/>4) The author of John clearly identifies himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. His name is given as John the Elder in 2 and 3 John, which is the very name of the long-lived disciple known to Papias. The author shows knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem (e.g., the pool of Bethesda mentioned in chapter 5). It would seem at least neutrality on this issue is more rational than the complete dismissal you provide (unless you are hiding evidence that rules out an eyewitness).<BR/><BR/>5) The link on "Miracles and the Book of Mormon" was unconvincing. Similar events do happen multiple times throughout history. It is not surprising that a miracle-worker fits the mold of a miracle-worker. People can tell historical stories with clear and deliberate allusions to earlier pieces of literature.<BR/><BR/>6) You asked: "Might be so, but when did Aristion and John the *Elder* claim to have met Jesus?" You're question can be taken more than one way. Feel free to clarify if my answer does not address the question you intended. Papias is aware that Aristion and John the Elder were still teaching at the end of the first century. He is also aware that most of the disciples of Jesus had died by that time. His chronology fits with chronology found in the Gospels.<BR/><BR/>7) You're far too quick to accuse others of lying Steven. 1 Corinthians 11:23 uses standard Jewish terminology for receiving and handing over sacred tradition. The words "received from the Lord" merely show Paul's conviction that this tradition goes back to Jesus. We have no evidence that Paul or any other early Christian ever claimed to have acquired historical information ("the night he was betrayed") from revelation.<BR/><BR/>8) 1 Corinthians 15 also uses the Jewish terminology for passing down traditions. If Paul is speaking of some spiritual resurrection it is quite strange that the eyewitnesses were limited to a specific time period. Of course we know Paul, like all Jews who believed in a resurrection, believed in a physical resurrection (e.g., Romans 8:11). What about later in 1 Corinthians 15? Paul is distinguishing between our current bodies and the glorified resurrected body.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80758909643885118722008-09-09T11:32:00.000+00:002008-09-09T11:32:00.000+00:00JAYMANPapias states Aristion and John the Elder we...JAYMAN<BR/>Papias states Aristion and John the Elder were alive at some point during his life and he inquired as to what they were saying <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Might be so, but when did Aristion and John the *Elder* claim to have met Jesus?<BR/><BR/>JAYMAN<BR/>Paul notes traditions handed down to him (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:23..<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Always, always, always check what Christians say. Never assume they are telling the truth.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 11:23.. For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...<BR/><BR/>Paul got this *from the Lord*, not from any disciples.<BR/><BR/>It was a revelation...<BR/><BR/>Always, always, always check what Christians say.<BR/><BR/>And 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear that Jesus 'appeared' to people after his death.<BR/><BR/>Jesus also 'appears' on pieces of toast.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89428637443570430832008-09-09T05:43:00.000+00:002008-09-09T05:43:00.000+00:00JAYMANThis does not mean the NT writers never made...JAYMAN<BR/>This does not mean the NT writers never made a mistake, but it's clear they weren't just making up stories that fit their fancy.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>So Jesus took off into the sky , disappeared into a cloud, and ended up in heaven?<BR/><BR/>All witnessed?<BR/><BR/>The writers were not making up stories as they already had stories they could adapt to become stories about Jesus <A HREF="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" REL="nofollow"> Miracles and the Book of Mormon </A>Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23039291437608995312008-09-09T05:34:00.000+00:002008-09-09T05:34:00.000+00:00JAYMNLuke 1:1-4 notes the eyewitnesses. John purpo...JAYMN<BR/>Luke 1:1-4 notes the eyewitnesses. John purports to be written by an eyewitness to Jesus' death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, and resurrection appearances (John 19:35).<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Luke never names any of them.<BR/><BR/>As for John 19, if you read an anonymous addition to the Book of Mormon, claiming that this anonymous person testified that Joseph Smith really had seen the Golden Plates, how quick would you be to shout 'This is evidence!'<BR/><BR/>John 19:35 names nobody and has no evidential value at all.<BR/><BR/>This is all just pathetic. At least the Book of Mormon has named witnesses, none of whom recanted their stories of seeing the Golden Plates (as far as I know)<BR/><BR/>Religions are based on fraud and lies.<BR/><BR/>Get over it...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-292979854149704712008-09-09T05:29:00.000+00:002008-09-09T05:29:00.000+00:00JAYMAN1) You state, based on Romans 13, that Paul ...JAYMAN<BR/>1) You state, based on Romans 13, that Paul believed the authorities "never kill[ed] anybody and are not to be feared". Though Romans 13 is a difficult passage, we can safely reject your interpretation since it is not congruent with Paul's writings elsewhere. For example, in 2 Corinthians 11:26 Paul says he is constantly on the move because he is danger from the Gentiles (among others). In verses 32-33 he relates his escape from Damascus and the governor under King Aretas. <BR/><BR/>Clearly he did not think the government could do no wrong and thus there is no difficulty in thinking that Paul believed Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Congratulations. <BR/><BR/>You have found what is called a 'contradiction' in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Was Paul just lying when he said that the authorities held no terror for innocent people?<BR/><BR/>JAYMAN<BR/>For example, Mark 2:18-22 notes that Jesus' disciples did not fast while he was with them. First-century Jews fasted and so did Christians.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Another contradiction!<BR/><BR/>Christians fasted, yet Jesus told his disciples not to fast.<BR/><BR/>I think even the most ignorant fundamentalist would have no trouble explaining that there is no contradiction between Christians fasting while Jesus was not with them and Christians not fasting while with them.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure the anonymous author of Mark would not have felt any tension between writing stories of disciples not fasting, even though Christians fasted.<BR/><BR/>Is this really the best historicists can do?<BR/><BR/>Making up contradictions when there are none?<BR/><BR/>JAYMAN<BR/><BR/>Early Christians preserved stories that scandalized themselves<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>We now know that it really is true that the child Jesus killed people.<BR/><BR/>What Christian would make up stories of Jesus killing people, and so scandalzing their own religion?<BR/><BR/>Is this really the best historicists can do?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87272968152294358892008-09-09T04:38:00.000+00:002008-09-09T04:38:00.000+00:00I apologize ahead of time if I do not have time to...I apologize ahead of time if I do not have time to respond to responses to this comment. I merely hope this comment can provide some food for thought.<BR/><BR/>Stephen Law:<BR/><BR/>1) What is "extraordinary evidence"? Joshua notes that correctly predicting what number you will roll when rolling a million-sided die would be an extraordinary event. Yet he would accept that occurred after examining the die and seeing a video. That sounds like ordinary evidence to me.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, it seems better to accept the theory that best explains all the evidence in the most parsimonious fashion. If that theory happens to include the extraordinary, so be it. Of course we can have different degrees of certitude and change our mind in light of new evidence.<BR/><BR/>2) Testimony needs to be judged on its merits. The more we can confirm a person's testimony the more reason we have to trust that person's testimony regarding matters we cannot independently confirm. Likewise, the more we can disprove a person's testimony the more reason we have to distrust that person's testimony regarding matters we cannot independently confirm. Of course neutrality or admitting ignorance is an option.<BR/><BR/>Steven Carr:<BR/><BR/>1) You state, based on Romans 13, that Paul believed the authorities "never kill[ed] anybody and are not to be feared". Though Romans 13 is a difficult passage, we can safely reject your interpretation since it is not congruent with Paul's writings elsewhere. For example, in 2 Corinthians 11:26 Paul says he is constantly on the move because he is danger from the Gentiles (among others). In verses 32-33 he relates his escape from Damascus and the governor under King Aretas. Clearly he did not think the government could do no wrong and thus there is no difficulty in thinking that Paul believed Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.<BR/><BR/>2) You argue that James could not have known of the suffering of Jesus because he cited the example of Job's patience instead of Jesus' patience. This conclusion cannot be drawn from the premise. Plenty of modern-day Christians do the same thing and yet no logical person would conclude that they are ignorant of Jesus' passion. Moreover, it can be argued that Job showed more patience through his tribulations than Christ did through the passion.<BR/><BR/>Anticant:<BR/><BR/>1) Christians argue for the historicity of the Gospel story because that's what they believe the truth of the matter is. If a person is at all interested in the truth you should not be surprised if he argues for it. One could accept the ethical teachings of Jesus without thinking he was an historical figure. However, Christianity is more than ethical teachings.<BR/><BR/>2) Christians do not take God's love of mankind to be an example of mankind's importance, but as an example of God's boundless love. Contrary to what Joshua says, there is no contradiction between humbleness and this belief. Rather, God's love is all the more impressive due to our humble situation.<BR/><BR/>All:<BR/><BR/>Here are some reasons I find the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth to be beyond reasonable doubt:<BR/><BR/>1) Almost all the New Testament documents were written within living memory of the events they describe. This means the tradition contained therein could be controlled by the eyewitnesses and the authors were in a good position to know the facts. Paul notes traditions handed down to him (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3) and met James, the brother of Jesus, face to face (Galatians 2). Luke 1:1-4 notes the eyewitnesses. John purports to be written by an eyewitness to Jesus' death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, and resurrection appearances (John 19:35). Papias states Aristion and John the Elder were alive at some point during his life and he inquired as to what they were saying (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4). This information is in line with ancient historiography and modern studies on oral cultures.<BR/><BR/>2) Early Christians preserved stories that scandalized themselves. Christianity was (and is) a religion that seeks converts. It is inconceivable that early Christians, if they were making up fictional stories, would create stories that hindered their missionary activity. Yet we know that the preaching of a crucified Christ was a hindrance to missionary work (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:23). A theory that posits the first Christians preserved historical truth can explain this data persuasively while other theories cannot (the crucifixion is not the only scandalizing story).<BR/><BR/>3) Certain stories about Jesus do not reflect first-century Jewish or Christian practice. For example, Mark 2:18-22 notes that Jesus' disciples did not fast while he was with them. First-century Jews fasted and so did Christians. One who subscribes to the theory that the evangelists preserved history can explain this story as an actual event in the life of Jesus. One who thinks the evangelists were writing fiction have to explain why they made up a story about Jesus that had no direct relevance to their practice.<BR/><BR/>This evidence is by no means exhaustive but merely some of the broad reasons I am compelled to believe in an historical Jesus. This does not mean the NT writers never made a mistake, but it's clear they weren't just making up stories that fit their fancy.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61743614488556703262008-09-07T10:10:00.000+00:002008-09-07T10:10:00.000+00:00Meanwhile, mythicists have very plausible answers ...Meanwhile, mythicists have very plausible answers for Sam's question.<BR/><BR/>The baptism of Jesus by John was not at all an awkward fact for the anonymous author of Mark who has no birth stories, where Jesus was revealed to be something special long before the announcement of his baptism.<BR/><BR/>So Mark's story is a perfectly self-contained piece of fiction with no contradictions between the idea that Jesus had to be baptised and that Jesus was marked out from birth.<BR/><BR/>Later Christians, who had no independent knowledge of Jesus life, other than Mark, their own imagination and the Old Testament had to do the best they could with Mark's story.<BR/><BR/>Do you see how mythicists answer historicist points while historicists are reduced to silence?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2017281836047206622008-09-07T10:02:00.000+00:002008-09-07T10:02:00.000+00:00How can the mythicist/historicist position be eval...How can the mythicist/historicist position be evaluated when historicists simply refuse to engage in debate?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is it because historicists just cannot find any answers and so are reduced to silence when asked to explain what the Bible says?<BR/><BR/>All the letter of James says about Jesus is that they are followers of him.<BR/><BR/>And there is the amazing passage<BR/><BR/>Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. <BR/><BR/>For an example of patience in the face of suffering, this early Christian takes the example of JOB.<BR/><BR/>And not Jesus!<BR/><BR/>How the hell can the example of Jesus patience in the face of suffering not have leaped from the pen of the person who worshipped Jesus?<BR/><BR/>How can he not single out his Lord and Saviour as an example to be followed, rather than refer his fellow believers in Jesus to the 'prophets' who spoke in the name of the Lord?<BR/><BR/><BR/>The answer is obvious.<BR/><BR/><BR/>There was no Jesus who set an example of patience in the face of suffering.<BR/><BR/>James could not remind his fellow Christians of the example of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Because there WAS no example of Jesus to use as an example.<BR/><BR/>So the author of James uses Job as the example for his Jesus-worshippers to follow.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Romans 13<BR/>Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.<BR/><BR/>Paul was a follower of somebody allegedy crucified by Pilate although an innocent man.<BR/><BR/>And Paul wrote that!<BR/><BR/>And people claim the crucifixion of Jesus by the Roman Empire is an established fact....<BR/><BR/>When Paul writes stuff like that?<BR/><BR/>What is going on here? <BR/><BR/>How can supporters of an historical Jesus be unshaken when they read Paul say that rulers hold no terror for those who do right, when the person Paul worshipped was allegedly flogged , mocked, spat on, beaten and crucified by soldiers of Pilate and Herod?<BR/>Romans 13<BR/>Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.<BR/><BR/>Paul was a follower of somebody allegedy crucified by Pilate although an innocent man.<BR/><BR/>And Paul wrote that!<BR/><BR/>And people claim the crucifixion of Jesus by the Roman Empire is an established fact....<BR/><BR/>When Paul writes stuff like that?<BR/><BR/>What is going on here? <BR/><BR/>How can supporters of an historical Jesus be unshaken when they read Paul say that rulers hold no terror for those who do right, when the person Paul worshipped was allegedly flogged , mocked, spat on, beaten and crucified by soldiers of Pilate and Herod?<BR/><BR/>Why are these and other questions never answered by historicists?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37542382213422299932008-09-06T13:57:00.000+00:002008-09-06T13:57:00.000+00:00My essay is now posted here. I doubt anyone here w...My essay is now posted <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/09/reasonable-atheism-25-why-jesus.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I doubt anyone here will be convinced, but it was an enjoyable revision for me!Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62698364149229545762008-09-04T16:20:00.000+00:002008-09-04T16:20:00.000+00:00Hi Kyle S."Extraordinary claims": self evident I w...Hi Kyle S.<BR/><BR/>"Extraordinary claims": self evident I would have thought. The claims that Bert exists and drank coffee are mundane. They pretty much fit in with what we otherwise expect. That he turned the sofa into a donkey is extraordinary because this just does not fit in with what we know of how the world works, or how it appears to work on a day to day basis. It stands out like a sore thumb.<BR/><BR/>Or do you, Kyle S, think we really don't need better evidence for the claim that Bert drank coffee than we do for the claim he turned the sofa into a zebra?!<BR/><BR/>If you do think we need better evidence, then, hey, you clearly agree with some form of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".<BR/><BR/>So on what understanding of "extraordinary evidence" do you think it comes out as true?<BR/><BR/>Seems to me you're just raising a smokescreen here...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13667088515275838642008-09-04T15:57:00.000+00:002008-09-04T15:57:00.000+00:00"Psiomniac and Josh I think your comments point ou..."Psiomniac and Josh I think your comments point out how X:'a claim that is unlikely' is a bad definition of Extraordinary Claims."<BR/><BR/>No, that's not what I'm saying. I just think that the analogy your using doesn't work. It's like William Lane Craig's lottery analogy in that respect. Let's modify it a little.<BR/><BR/>If you toss a die and it rolls a six, no one should be surprised. Each number is as likely at every other, and you placed no particular significance on what you rolled. The chances of you getting a number when you roll a die are 1 in 1. Sure things are very ordinary<BR/><BR/>Now, if you're looking for a number in particular, then things are different. If your friend pulls out a die and says that he's going to roll a six, and then does so, now things are getting unlikely. Assuming a normal die, there was only a 1 in 6 chance of that happening. You might start to get suspicious.<BR/><BR/>Say your friend pulls out a 1 million sided die, says that he's going to roll a six, and does so. Now you'll probably start getting really suspicious. The chances of rolling a six on a 1 million sided die are one in a million. <BR/><BR/>This would be an extraordinary event, something that happens - literally - only one time in a million. Outside to ordinary, certainly, which is all the word means. And you would probably go looking for other, more ordinary, possibilities. Which is more probable, that your friend correctly predicted the roll on a 1 million sided die, or that your friend is using a loaded die?<BR/><BR/>If your friend was in the other room, there are even more possibilities. You didn't see the roll, so your friend could be lying. He could be joking. He could have hallucinated the result, or be remembering a dream. He could still have a loaded die.<BR/><BR/>This is what we mean by extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Predictions like the above happen, but extremely rarely. But people lie, cheat and hallucinate every day. You've got to provide sufficient evidence to make that extraordinary claim more likely than all these other possibilities. In this case I'd probably have to examine the die and see a video of the roll before I could accept that my friend had correctly predicted the result.Josh H-Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885079832720694678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75876900416137004282008-09-04T15:28:00.000+00:002008-09-04T15:28:00.000+00:00Likewise, since the events recorded in the NT happ...<I>Likewise, since the events recorded in the NT happened in the past they have a probability of 1 if true, and 0 if false.</I><BR/>The difference with the analogy is that if I make the claim <B>before</B> I roll the die the probability isn't 1 or 0 it is 1 in a million. So when I come back, I'm telling you that my 1 in a million claim was true. That's an extraordinary claim. When I come and tell you, the probability that it has happened is still 1 or 0 but unless you go into the room you can't know which.<BR/><BR/>Similarly the claims of the NT are a priori unlikely and even though they happened in the past we can't go back and look, which would be analogous to going in the room.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13850887939746062192008-09-04T15:08:00.000+00:002008-09-04T15:08:00.000+00:00"If I go and roll a million sided die in another r..."If I go and roll a million sided die in another room at time t and I come and tell you at t+1 that I rolled a 6, that isn't an unlikely claim at t+1. This is because the probability of it being a 6 is either 1 if the claim is true or 0 if it is false. So when I say it, either I'm lying or it isn't unlikely at all."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, since the events recorded in the NT happened in the past they have a probability of 1 if true, and 0 if false.<BR/><BR/>Psiomniac and Josh I think your comments point out how X:'a claim that is unlikely' is a bad definition of Extraordinary Claims. I think Y:'a claim that you have reason to believe is false' is a better definition but unless Stephen points out what this reason is his argument is circular because to say that the claims of the new testament are extraordinary is to assume that you have reason to doubt them.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you could say that an extraordinary claim is one that describes an event like no other. (I'm not sure that makes things any clearer).<BR/><BR/>But then why does the evidence need to be extraordinary (i.e. evidence that is like no other). A visit by aliens may be consider extraordinary, but why can't the evidence be ordinary, like arranging for me to have afternoon tea with one of the aliens.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Stephen's first premise is very clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19735295555930054232008-09-04T14:09:00.000+00:002008-09-04T14:09:00.000+00:00The same is true if I roll 238767 and come and tel...The same is true if I roll 238767 and come and tell you later. If I didn't tell you beforehand that this would be my result, then this isn't an extraordinary claim. <BR/><BR/>This has a more intuitive appeal because although it is no more likely than 6 on a million sided die, 6 has a prior cultural significance for us. So if I said 6 you might have more grounds to suppose I was lying. But that's a detail.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6812566102164552202008-09-04T14:01:00.000+00:002008-09-04T14:01:00.000+00:00kyle sNo I don't think you have interpreted your a...kyle s<BR/><BR/>No I don't think you have interpreted your analogy correctly. If I go and roll a million sided die in another room at time t and I come and tell you at t+1 that I rolled a 6, that isn't an unlikely claim at t+1. This is because the probability of it being a 6 is either 1 if the claim is true or 0 if it is false. So when I say it, either I'm lying or it isn't unlikely at all.<BR/><BR/>Compare this with the situation that I tell you I'm going to roll a 6 before I go into the room, then I go in and roll the million sided die and come back and tell you that it was indeed a 6. Can you see the difference? This is now an extraordinary claim.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12872617496081693342008-09-04T13:23:00.000+00:002008-09-04T13:23:00.000+00:00"Take for example that a die is rolled and shows t..."Take for example that a die is rolled and shows the number six, that is unlikely."<BR/><BR/>I don't think this analogy works. It strikes me that something is only likely or unlikely when compared to the other possibilities. A rolled six is no more or less likely than any of the other five numbers.<BR/><BR/>I think the only way that this analogy works is if your rolling a d4.Josh H-Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885079832720694678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79855147768912136272008-09-04T12:46:00.000+00:002008-09-04T12:46:00.000+00:00Sorry for joining this debate a bit late, but I ac...Sorry for joining this debate a bit late, but I actually wish to challenge 1.<BR/><BR/>"1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of extraordinary evidence there's excellent reason to be skeptical about the claims."<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that there are two ways to interpret 'extraordinary claims'. One is X:'a claim that is unlikely' and the other is Y:'a claim that you have reason to believe is false'.<BR/><BR/>If you opt for X then 1 is false. Take for example that a die is rolled and shows the number six, that is unlikely. However, if a person reports to you that they have just rolled a six in the next room, it is not unreasonable to believe that person. Maybe you think that rolling a six on a six-sided die is not unlikely enough.<BR/><BR/>Imagine that someone rolls a 1 million sided die in the next room, and then comes to tell you what was rolled. Whatever they say will be unlikely, however, in the absence of any other evidence, it is surely reasonable to believe that what they have reported really happened, even though that event is unlikely.<BR/><BR/>If you go for definition Y, then it seems that your argument is circular, or at least that you have some other evidence that you're not telling us about.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you have an alternative definition of 'extraordinary claim' but I think this needs unpacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75230678870932921092008-09-04T10:16:00.000+00:002008-09-04T10:16:00.000+00:00The consequences of religious belief bother me too...The consequences of religious belief bother me too. I have experienced the damage of such belief in myself and my family, some of whom still believe. The psychological damage can be immense, especially when God gives other folk outside the family strange messages that they pass on to the vulnerable family members who believe - the messages start: "God has told me to tell you..."<BR/><BR/>It is my present understanding that there was a first century Jewish prophetic movement. That movement was weaning Jews (in particlar priests) away from the cult of animal sacrifice. The process was already under way in the synagogue worship across the Jewish diaspora. <BR/><BR/>A popular misconception is that the prophets had died-out. There was a prophet among prophets, but his name wasn't Jesus, it was Judas. Judas was no Messiah, or saviour who died on a cross. He is the central character in the extant writings attributed to Josephus. I believe he was also the principal prophet in what were the original prophetic documents of the New Testament.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82966769947475929242008-09-03T17:21:00.000+00:002008-09-03T17:21:00.000+00:00I'm not interested in doing that, Geoff. What ...I'm not interested in doing that, Geoff. What I would like to see is some coherent arguments from you, Sam, and other Christians posting here in defence of your position [whatever it is].<BR/><BR/>If you think these high-powered theologians are so profound and convincing, can't you at least summarise their arguments for us? <BR/><BR/>What bothers me are the CONSEQUENCES of religious belief -Osama bin Laden & Co on the one hand, Sarah Palin and her ilk in the White House on the other. Ugh.......anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.com