In a message dated 13/11/00 05:36:42 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
CC>One of main arguments was
>going to be to the effect that the accounts of Jesus, having been written
>by people who knew of the earlier predictions, would simply write their
>character to fit the predictions.
Steve Jones:
As I said, even if Jesus was who He claimed to be and actually *did* fulfill
the Old Testament prophecies claimed, one could stll argue this.
Geisler answers this objection:
"Jesus Manipulated Events to Fulfill Prophecy.
Paul Robson:
This is not the objection. The objection is that the Gospel authors
wrote the Gospels so it appeared that Jesus fulfilled prophecies.
A classic example of this is the two birth stories ; driven by
different prophecy requirements.
Incidentally, if the Bible is such a great book, why did Giesler write
a book called "Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties".
Steve Jones:(quoting)
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.
Paul Robson:
It says much about Giesler that he assumes "miracles in the Bibles"
to be apparent "facts". In fact, they show the classic behaviour of
stories, becoming more voluminous and more impressive as time
goes on.
Steve Jones:(quoting)
.... Second, there is no evidence that Jesus was a deceiver. To the
contrary, his character is impeccable (see CHRIST, UNIQUENESS
OF).
Paul Robson:
Clearly not the case. Some things have slipped through (the fig tree
for example, and overturning the tables in the temple). 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:(quoting)
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);
Paul Robson:
How did the Gospel authors know of Jesus ancestry ?
Steve Jones:(quoting)
birthplace (Micah 5:2), time of death (Dan. 9:24-27);
Paul Robson:
Neither of which is a successful prophecy IMHO, that's what this thread
is about !
Steve Jones:(quoting)
and conditions of his death (Isaiah 53).
Paul Robson:
It doesn't seem to occur to these people that the NT might not be
straight historical reporting.
Steve Jones:(quoting)
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
Paul Robson:
So all the Messiahs who have had people believe in them are the
"promised Messiahs" are they. Giesler underestimates human
fallibility; which is odd because his writing suggest he understands
it very well.
Steve Jones:(quoting)
, Jesus would have needed supernatural powers. But if he had such
powers, he must have been the Messiah he claimed to be."
(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.616)
CC>I could easily do the same; gather up
>some old prophecies, create a name for my character (assuming the
>prophecies did not include the names), and then simply design his "career"
>to match the prophecies.
Steve Jones:
As I pointed out, this overlooks the fact that Christianity began in
*Jerusalem* in the very heart of another world religion, with fanatical
followers.
Paul Robson:
As I've pointed out three times, and you completely ignore ; Christianity was
an unimportant minor cult probably till about 150AD, but certainly at its
beginnings.
Steve Jones:
Think of trying to start another religion in Mecca today and the
difficulty becomes obvious.
Paul Robson:
Actually its very easy. I can start a minor cult anywhere.
Steve Jones:
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
Paul Robson:
One of which isn't the writing up of what Jesus did.
Steve Jones:
and b) if they tried to fabricate evidence their enemies the
Jews and Romans would have exposed them.
Paul Robson:
They didn't give a stuff about them.
Steve Jones:
The only way that Christianity could begin and grow in such an
environment is if their claims were based on rock-solid *evidence*.
Paul Robson:
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.
Steve Jones:
Of course such historical evidence will never convince those who don't
want it to be true.
Paul Robson:
Some people have warped ideas of what constitutes historical
evidence.
Steve Jones:
But a person who approached this evidence with an
open mind
Paul Robson:
i.e. someone who is already a Christian.
Steve Jones:
would find that it *as an integrated whole* it defeats all
naturalistic explanations.
Paul Robson:
What ; you really think it is more likely that Jesus rose from the
dead than the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
to push their own agenda ?
CC>In fact, *other* writers of fiction (than those
>who created and cobbled together the gospel stories) use this technique
>more or less frequently (but usually more honestly).
Steve Jones:
See above. There is no evidence that "the gospel stories" were "cobbled
together". AFAIK, most (if not all) Biblical scholars whether liberal or
conservative, believe that the gospels were based on earlier written
sources.
Paul Robson:
This is ludicrous. This can only be a referral (presumably) to the 'Q'
gospel and Matthew and Luke's usage of Mark. As Steve omits to
mention, study of this shows three things : Firstly, that Matthew
(especially) rewrote bits he didn't like. Secondly, that Matthew
and Luke rewrote things to fit their own personal views. And thirdly,
the 'Q' Jesus is a far more credible, demythologised Jesus than
anything in the Bible.
Steve Jones:
In any event, the major letters of Paul are, AFAIK, accepted as genuine by
most (if not all) Biblical scholars, whether liberal or conservative, and
these
letters predate the gospels in their final form, and yet contain all the
main
facts that are in the gospels.
Paul Robson:
It amazes me that you can write such nonsense. Paul had no knowledge
of the Jesus in the Gospels. The "main facts" were that he was born,
lived a quiet life, and was crucified at some time. Paul apparently knew
nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels beyond the very basic outline.
[snip Aliens stuff]
CC>Is there any reason for believing that Jesus existed?
I repeat what the Encyclopaedia Britannica said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. Jesus Christ. Non-Christian sources.
... These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was
disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the
18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. ...
---------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Robson:
This presumably is written by a priest who is dumb enough to by the
"opponents
never questioned it". Steve, nobody wrote ANYTHING. If the "facts" in the
Gospel
are true, and as widespread as they claim to be, don't you think the total
paucity of any reporting strange ?
CC>Or
>that Allah exists? I don't think so, but I'm willing to examine the claims
>and the claims of evidence. Would Stephen, having done so poorly the first
>time, like to have another go at it in hopes of coming up with something a
>little less flimsy?
Steve Jones:
I assume that (barring a miracle) no amount of "evidence" for Christianity
would convince a committed atheist like Chris that it was true.
For example, Chris has just said that even if I could show that all the
evidence for Christianity was true, he would rather believe it was a hoax by
aliens!
Paul Robson:
I think he is suggesting it is an equally feasible suggestion.
Steve Jones:
The purpose of my post is to show that there is *evidence* for the
existence of the supernatural in the case of fulfilled prophecy.
Paul Robson:
And you have failed miserably.
And as I said, quoting Pascal, I don't believe the evidence is strong enough
to
constitute absolute proof, but I do believe it is strong enough to leave
those
who refuse to accept it without excuse (see tagline again)..
[snip]
>CC>I do want to comment at this point that the "evidence" for the existence
of
>Jesus appears, as far as I've been able to find out from Christians,
>consists exclusively of the New Testament and claims of other people
>*after* the relevant stories that ended up in the New Testament were
>written.
Steve Jones:
I am not sure what Chris is saying here. Clearly the events had to happen
first before they were committed to writing.
Paul Robson:
I think he's suggesting that the only evidence is the NT itself (not strictly
true ; there are the other Gospels but Christians don't want to talk about
those) and claim of other people after they were written i.e. Church
Fathers. This is accurate.
CC
I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done.
Steve Jones:
See above EB quote.
What "evidence" is that Chris has in mind which "shows, almost
*conclusively*, that Jesus did *not* exist"?
Paul Robson:
I agree. The evidence shows that there probably was a Jesus. There is
no support for virtually anything else though. Christians scoff at this,
but are loathe to produce it, other than quoting the Bible of course.
CC>I make this claim
>on the basis of the "Elephant at the Garden Party" argument: If Jesus
>existed, he'd have stuck out like an elephant at a garden party, and he'd
>have been heard of by nearly *everyone* in the area.
Steve Jones:
Jesus *was* "heard of by nearly everyone in the area" and in fact was
mentioned independently by Roman and Jewish sources. See the EB article
I quoted from.
Paul Robson:
Oh yes. Those sources. Josephus (born AD37) Tacitus (writing 114AD).
Why didn't anyone else notice at the time, Steve ? There were dead
saints resurrected in Jerusalem. Herod wiped out half of Bethlehem.
Jesus fame had spread far and wide. But no-one else, outside the
Christian faith, appears to have noticed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 05:39:13 EST