>PR>What ; you really think it is more likely that Jesus rose from the
>dead than the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
>to push their own agenda ?
Steve Jones:
Yes. The many mutually contradictory naturalistic hypotheses advanced to
explain Jesus' life, death and resurrection are less credible than the
Bible's
own account. Proof of this is that the naturalistic hypothesis come and go
and never hold a large following for long - they just tend to be recycled
endlessly.
Paul Robson:
Is this proof of the paucity of apologetics. You haven't provided evidence
for any of these "mutually contradictory". True there are different
explanations for different parts but no-one claims they are all true.
Steve Jones:
The point is that even if Christianity was true, a sceptic could always make
ad hoc claims that "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
to push their own agenda".
Paul Robson:
True. But this is supported by simply reading the Gospels together.
And it is far more common for Christians to make ad hoc explanations !
Steve Jones:
And besides, even if "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and
theologized to push their own agenda", that is just another way of saying
that they emphasised and interpreted the events of Jesus life, death and
resurrection to meet the needs of their target audience. There is nothing
wrong with that.
Paul Robson:
True. And they did that. But they changed bits to fit their own theology.
Some things don't fit at all (for example, Jesus last words). John
doesn't fit the other three at all well.
Steve Jones:
What the sceptic needs to show is not that "the Gospel authors simply
exaggerated and theologized to push their own agenda" but that the events
never happened and that "the Gospel authors" were liars and deceivers.
Paul Robson:
No, you need to show they are true.
It is impossible to show the events never happened, and people do not
claim "liars and decievers", an apologist straw man. This presumes
historical accuracy was an aim of the Gospels.
>SJ>See above. There is no evidence that "the gospel stories" were "cobbled
>together". AFAIK, most (if not all) Biblical scholars whether liberal or
>conservative, believe that the gospels were based on earlier written
>sources.
PR>This is ludicrous. This can only be a referral (presumably) to the 'Q'
gospel
Steve Jones:
No. There is no evidence that there ever was a "Q gospel". It is a liberal
invention:
Paul Robson:
No, its the bits of Matthew and Luke that are common and not in Marcan
material, Steve.
Steve Jones:
"Q Document. The Gospel of Q or Q Document is a hypothetical
collection of Jesus' sayings that supposedly antedates the four
Gospels. The Q hypothesis comes from the German word Quelle,
meaning "sources." Q was used heavily by the Jesus Seminar to
arrive at their radical conclusions.
Paul Robson:
Oohhh... Radical, Must be bad then.
Steve Jones:
Since Q allegedly contains
sayings, not works or miracles of Jesus, it is used as a basis for
denying the resurrection.
Paul Robson:
No it isn't actually. It is an attempt to discover the written sources used
by Matthew and Luke.
Steve Jones:
Since the earliest Q contained no
references to Jesus' deity, this too is held to be a later mythological
invention. If true, this would undermine the historic apologetic for
Christianity.
Paul Robson:
All this really means is "ignore it, because we don't like it".
Steve Jones:
..A central consideration is that there is not one shred
of documentary evidence that Q ever existed. No manuscript or any
version of it has ever been found.
Paul Robson:
This is true. There are overlaps in other Gospels but the document
itself does not exist.
Steve Jones:
No church Father ever cited any
work corresponding to what current scholars mean by Q. From
what is known of the documentary tradition of the early Christian
centuries, this lacuna is improbable in the extreme if the work ever
existed. Former Q proponent Linnemann observes the reverence
with which critics regard Q: "This is the stuff of fairy tales"
(Linnemann, "Is There a Q?". Apologists can assume with
confidence that Q is a modern creation and that no manuscript will
turn up next week to prove them wrong." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, pp.618-619).
I am referring to the original written sources kept by the apostle Matthew,
the record of Peter's teaching kept by Mark, the historical research
conducted by Luke: and either the notes or memory of the apostle John. I
can expand on this if necessary.
Paul Robson:
Okay, I mean this has to be a joke, doesn't it Steve. I mean , look at your
complaints above about 'Q', and then you write this !
I mean you are complaining about the large amount of work gone into 'Q'
(all this says is "we don't like it" "there's no manuscripts" "fundie
scholars
hate it") and then you've just made up this codswallop.
I mean, you are taking the mickey, surely ?
PR>and Matthew and Luke's usage of Mark. As Steve omits to
>mention, study of this shows three things : Firstly, that Matthew
>(especially) rewrote bits he didn't like.
Steve Jones:
How can "study" show "that Matthew ... rewrote bits he didn't like"? How
do the critics know 20 centuries later what Matthew "didn't like"? And
what is the original that Matthew is supposed to have rewritten?
Paul Robson:
Er. Read the bits of Matthew that came from Mark and see how he changed
some of them.
I don't know how much simpler I can make this. All suggestions gratefully
accepted.
PR>Secondly, that Matthew
>and Luke rewrote things to fit their own personal views.
Steve Jones:
See above. This is not necessarily wholly false. Like eyewitnesses to a
traffic accident, the gospel authors all report the same core events from
their own particular perspective and emphases.
Paul Robson:
No, they are rewriting Mark's version, [and the "core event" document you
don't like]. You surely don't think this is based on eyewitness testimony
do you ? Well, you probably do.
PR>And thirdly,
>the 'Q' Jesus is a far more credible, demythologised Jesus than
>anything in the Bible.
Steve Jones:
Not surprising since Q is a naturalistic invention. And after naturalistic
critics have finished removing `bits *they* didn't like" and "rewrote things
to fit *their* own personal views" they are of course left with a
naturalistic
Jesus which to them would seem "far more credible".
Paul Robson:
I can't believe you are so stupid to believe that 'Q' was constructed this
way.
Steve Jones:
Naturalistic critics have been doing this `search for the historical Jesus'
for
centuries, but all they end up with is a pale reflection of *themselves*!
Paul Robson:
Of course, it doesn't occur to you that the Gospel authors could do this too.
Actually I agree with your "reflection of themselves" remark.
>SJ>In any event, the major letters of Paul are, AFAIK, accepted as genuine
by
>most (if not all) Biblical scholars, whether liberal or conservative, and
>these letters predate the gospels in their final form, and yet contain all
the
>main facts that are in the gospels.
>PR>It amazes me that you can write such nonsense. Paul had no knowledge
>of the Jesus in the Gospels.
Steve Jones:
Since Paul's companion for much of his Christian life was Luke who wrote
one of the gospels, this bit of modern liberal scholarship dogma is itself
"nonsense".
Paul Robson:
Well, point out to me where Paul refers to the life and works of Jesus
outside
the absolute basics then.
PR>The "main facts" were that he was born,
>lived a quiet life, and was crucified at some time. Paul apparently knew
>nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels beyond the very basic outline.
Steve Jones:
See above re Luke.
The only writings we have of Paul are letters written to already established
churches for specific purposes. There would be no point in Paul repeating
the gospel stories to these churches since these were not in dispute.
Paul Robson:
Odd this doesn't apply now. Tell me, do you have any original ideas of your
own or do you just copy everything from apologetics books. I mean, this
is a really pathetic excuse don't you think, given that Paul talks about
Christ risen a lot ; or was this "in dispute".
PR>[snip Aliens stuff]
Steve Jones:
I note that Paul just ignores my point!
Paul Robson:
I don't remember exactly, but you wrote some stuff about aliens. If you don't
like the snip, please reinsert it.
CC>Is there any reason for believing that Jesus existed?
>
>I repeat what the Encyclopaedia Britannica said:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. Jesus Christ. Non-Christian sources.
>... These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
>opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was
>disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the
>18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. ...
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>PR>This presumably is written by a priest who is dumb enough to by the
>"opponents never questioned it".
Steve Jones:
Note how Paul just dismisses any evidence against his position, even if it
comes from a secular source like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Paul Robson:
You really think the person who wrote this was "secular".
PR>Steve, nobody wrote ANYTHING.
Steve Jones:
What does this mean? And what is the evidence for it?
Paul Robson:
There are no non-Biblical records confirming the existence of Jesus
before 93AD (Josephus, a smidgeon expanded). The "evidence" is
they aren't there.
You've got some apologetics books. They'll all have the same stuff.
Josephus (treated dishonestly in ETDAV), Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius,
Africanus comment and odd stuff like Ben Pantera and Bera-Scorption.
That's it.
I mean, if there were lots of reference to Jesus et al in the histories of
that time Christians would tell us about it repeatedly.
PR>If the "facts" in the Gospel
are true, and as widespread as they claim to be, don't you think the total
paucity of any reporting strange ?
Steve Jones:
No. For starters the level of extra-Biblical "reporting" of nascent
Christianity, is quite high, given the tendency of much written material to
be lost:
Paul Robson:
And what little there is ? What is there ? Go on, tell me ! Dead saints
coming to life in Jerusalem : no one noticed. Herod wipes out village :
no one noticed (not even the other Gospel authors !)
Steve Jones:
The level of "reporting" of Christianity is about what I would expect, given
that Christianity's focus was on the personal salvation of individuals and
not the overthrow of existing political and religious systems.
Paul Robson:
You keep saying its significant. Show it ! Go on, you're always complaining
I don't. Now we're getting pathetic excuses as to why there isn't much.
>CC>Or
>>that Allah exists? I don't think so, but I'm willing to examine the claims
>>and the claims of evidence. Would Stephen, having done so poorly the first
>>time, like to have another go at it in hopes of coming up with something a
>>little less flimsy?
>SJ>I assume that (barring a miracle) no amount of "evidence" for
Christianity
>would convince a committed atheist like Chris that it was true.
>
>For example, Chris has just said that even if I could show that all the
>evidence for Christianity was true, he would rather believe it was a hoax
by
>aliens!
>PR>I think he is suggesting it is an equally feasible suggestion.
Steve Jones:
No doubt. But that does not alter my point.
Paul Robson:
If it is an equally feasible suggestion why believe yours ?
>SJ>The purpose of my post is to show that there is *evidence* for the
>existence of the supernatural in the case of fulfilled prophecy.
>PR>And you have failed miserably.
Steve Jones:
No. I have succeeded in presenting the *evidence*. As I said, I did not
expect (barring a miracle) that the evidence would convince committed
atheists like Chris (and I presume Paul?) to become Christians.
Paul Robson:
That's it ? You are aware that many Christians (who you would label
"radical" or "liberal" but are in FACT "not fundies") do not take such a
simplistic view of the Bible.
SJ>And as I said, quoting Pascal, I don't believe the evidence is strong
enough
>to constitute absolute proof, but I do believe it is strong enough to leave
>those who refuse to accept it without excuse (see tagline again)..
PR>[snip]
>>CC>I do want to comment at this point that the "evidence" for the
existence
>of Jesus appears, as far as I've been able to find out from Christians,
>>consists exclusively of the New Testament and claims of other people
>>*after* the relevant stories that ended up in the New Testament were
>>written.
>SJ>I am not sure what Chris is saying here. Clearly the events had to
happen
>first before they were committed to writing.
>PR>I think he's suggesting that the only evidence is the NT itself (not
strictly
>true ;
Steve Jones:
It is not true at all! It shows how so-called sceptics can dismiss
Christianity
out of hand, without ever seriously considering the *evidence* for it.
Paul Robson:
It is near as dammit true, Steve.
PR>there are the other Gospels but Christians don't want to talk about
>those)
Steve Jones:
It is not that Christians don't want to talk about these other (i.e.
Apocryphal) gospels. They are mentioned in New Testament Introduction
textbooks. It is that these so-called gospels were not accepted as genuine
(for good reason) by the early church.
BTW it is interesting that Paul rejects the real gospels as history but he
appears willing to accept the false ones as history!
Paul Robson:
No, the reasons were often to do with whether they painted the "correct"
picture of Jesus. Even ETDAV alludes to this.
PR>and claim of other people after they were written i.e. Church
>Fathers. This is accurate.
Steve Jones:
Yes, There are thousands of pages of writings by the early Church Fathers.
I have read somewhere that one could reconstruct most of the New
Testament from their quotations of it.
Paul Robson:
Given the datings, this wouldn't be surprising.
>CC>I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
>*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done.
>SJ>See above EB quote.
>
>What "evidence" is that Chris has in mind which "shows, almost
>*conclusively*, that Jesus did *not* exist"?
>PR>I agree. The evidence shows that there probably was a Jesus.
Steve Jones:
Thanks to Paul for that. But the difference between Chris and Paul is just
one of degree, not of kind. There is no criteria by which Paul can show
Chris is wrong that would not destroy Paul's position as well. That is
because it is just subjective picking and choosing among the evidence what
one likes and rejecting what one doesn't like.
Paul Robson:
It's called "apologetics" isn't it ?
PR>There is no support for virtually anything else though.
Steve Jones:
See above. Paul has not produced any "support" for his position which is
just dismissing out of hand any "support" that I cite for mine.
Paul Robson:
You don't. You just quote fundies who agree with you.
PR>Christians scoff at this,
>but are loathe to produce it, other than quoting the Bible of course.
Steve Jones:
No one is scoffing, except the so-called critics. Christians have been
presenting the evidence for their position for two millennia.
Paul Robson:
Usually at the point of a sword.
Steve Jones:
And Paul "of course" Christians have been "quoting the Bible". What does
Paul expect Christians to quote to "support" Christianity - Darwin's Origin
of Species"?
Paul Robson:
True, but Christians including those who claim to have been rampant
skeptics seem unable to comprehend that quoting the Bible tells us nothing
other than what's in the Bible.
>CC>I make this claim
>>on the basis of the "Elephant at the Garden Party" argument: If Jesus
>>existed, he'd have stuck out like an elephant at a garden party, and he'd
>>have been heard of by nearly *everyone* in the area.
>SJ>Jesus *was* "heard of by nearly everyone in the area" and in fact was
>mentioned independently by Roman and Jewish sources. See the EB article
>I quoted from.
>PR>Oh yes. Those sources. Josephus (born AD37) Tacitus (writing 114AD).
>Why didn't anyone else notice at the time, Steve ?
Steve Jones:
The EB article I quoted mentioned as well as
"Josephus, the Jewish historian"
- one throwaway, one short passage expanded by Christians.
"the Roman historian Tacitus"
- mentioned in 114AD when it was felt necessary to explain what a
Christian was. Only supports existence of Christians, not in debate.
"the emperor Nero"
this belongs with Tacitus.
"the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger"
Only supports existence of Christians. Pliny is confused and doesn't
know what they are or what to do with them. Writes to :-
"the emperor Trajan",
Actually I now think you wrote Nero seperately to lengthen the list
because you've done it below again.
the "Roman historian, Suetonius" and "the emperor Claudius":
Mentions "Chrestus" in one line as instigating troubles during
Claudius' reign. Again, only supports existence of Christians,
some debate about whether "Chrestus" actually refers to
"Christ". The author of this passage says it might do ; that's
about it.
The problem with most of this stuff is you don't know where the
information came from. Tacitus' information about the crucifixion
almost certainly didn't come from official records, which are
unlikely to describe the crucifixion of the Messiah (as opposed to
Jesus).
Steve Jones:
What else does Paul want-Jesus' to have had a personal home page? :-)
Paul Robson:
Well, actually, most of these aren't about "Jesus". Josephus almost
certainly is. Tacitus and Suetonius (arguably) are talking about
"Christ" and only in the sense that Christians believed in him. Jesus
wasn't alive at the time of Claudius or Nero.
Despite the dishonest presentation of the list, there are precisely
three references here (four if you count the two Josephus ones
seperately)
PR>There were dead saints resurrected in Jerusalem.
Steve Jones:
Indeed! And as I pointed out in a previous post, there is no reason this
would have been included unless it was true. Matthew does not claim it
was a fulfilment of prophecy and if it wasn't true it could be easily
refuted
by the citizens of Jerusalem.
Paul Robson:
It beggars belief that you apparently think no-one would have thought this
worthy of record besides one of the Gospel authors.
Steve Jones:
The book of Acts records that there were thousands of Jews in Jerusalem
became Christians after the events of Jesus resurrection:
Paul Robson:
If one believed Christian claims for their conversion rates there are more
Christians than there are people on the planet ! Don't you know about
"pulpit legends" ; stories which invariably end in the mass conversion
of skeptics.
Steve Jones:
Acts 2:41 "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and
about three thousand were added to their number that day."
Acts 6:7 "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in
Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became
obedient to the faith."
Paul Robson:
But outside Christian writings nobody noticed.
Steve Jones:
and this fits a pattern of the extraordinary events following Jesus death
claimed by the NT.
Paul Robson:
It's just a huge circular argument.
PR>Herod wiped out half of Bethlehem.
Steve Jones:
No. Herod ordered that all the children of Jesus' age be killed:
Paul Robson:
A bit of poetic licence :)
Steve Jones:
At the time Bethlehem was only a small town, so the number of children
there may not have been large. And compared to the atrocities that the
Herods and the Romans committed, it was comparatively minor:
"16. The ruthlessness of Herod's later years, particularly where a
potential rival was concerned, is well documented; the victims
included three of his own sons (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 392-394 xvii.
182-187), as well as several large groups of actual or suspected
conspirators (Ant. xvi. 393-394; xvii. 42-44, 167), in one case with
their families (Ant. xv. 289-290). It is thus not improbable that his
fear of a potential rival should lead him to kill a few babies in
Bethlehem. (The number of boys under two if Bethlehem's
population was about 1,000 - and AB, p. 19, estimates only 300 -
would not be more than twenty.) It was a minor incident in a period
full of atrocities, and the absence of clearly independent accounts in
secular history is not surprising." (France R.T., "Matthew: An
Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK,
1985, pp.86-87)
Again, if this was false it could easily have been refuted.
Paul Robson:
Nonsense. This is an apologetic for it not being there. There were
historians who wrote down Herod's dastardly deeds in detail, and
not this one. More to the point, the other Gospel authors didn't
either. It is more likely that Matthew created this tale in supposed
"fulfilment" of a frankly bizarre piece of prophecy.
PR>Jesus fame had spread far and wide. But no-one else, outside the
>Christian faith, appears to have noticed.
Steve Jones:
See previous on Jesus "fame" (AV) being during His public ministry being:
a) just "news" (NIV); and b) confined to Judea and surrounding countries.
But later if one counts "Josephus, the Jewish historian", "the Roman
historian Tacitus", "the emperor Nero", "the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny
the Younger", "the emperor Trajan", the "Roman historian, Suetonius" and
"the emperor Claudius" as "no-one" then Paul is right!
Paul Robson:
I don't know whether you are dishonest, or you've just copied it from
somewhere.
This list is actually three people.
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius.
None of these people write much about Jesus. Suetonius writes nothing at all.
Tacitus writes about his death (and implicitly him being the Christ).
Josephus
writes "Him called Christ" and the TF ; we don't know what is original here
or not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 29 2000 - 06:10:17 EST