FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

[Trout]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

by Frank Turek

Chapter 10

Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. SIMON PETER

WE HAVE SEEN good evidence that the New Testament documents are early, so they meet historical test #1. But what about historical test #2? Do the New Testament documents contain eyewitness testimony? Let's begin by taking a look at the eyewitness claims of the New Testament writers.
If you accept the plain reading of the text, the New Testament certainly contains eyewitness testimony. Notice how many times various apostles claim to be eyewitnesses:

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact (Acts 2:32).

You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this (Acts 3:15).

Then [the rulers, elders, and teachers of the law] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:18-20).

The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:30-32).

We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen (Acts 10:39-40).

. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed (1 Pet. 5:1).
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Pet. 1:16).

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true (John 19:33-35).

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book (John 20:24-30).

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us (1 John 1:1-2).

You get the impression that these folks wanted everyone to know they actually saw something, don't you? Furthermore, Luke and the writer of

Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word (Luke 1:1-2).

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Heb. 2:3-4).

In short, Peter, Paul, and John all claim to be eyewitnesses, and Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses. In addition, the New Testament writers name others who saw the Resurrection. Paul specifically lists 14 people whose names are known as eyewitnesses of the Resurrection (the 12 apostles, James, and himself) and claims that there were more than 500 others. Matthew and Luke confirm the appearances to the apostles. All four Gospels mention the women as witnesses, with Mark identifying them as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke adds Joanna. That's four more. Acts 1 also reveals that Joseph called Barsabbas was an eyewitness (Acts 1:23).

Not only do the apostles claim to be eyewitnesses, on several occasions they tell their audiences that everyone knows what they're saying is true. These are not offhanded comments but bold proclamations to powerful people.
Perhaps the boldest eyewitness claim comes from Paul as he stands trial before King Agrippa and Governor Festus. Paul has just begun to tell Agrippa and Festus why he has been converted to Christianity and how Christ rose from the dead as predicted by the Old Testament, when suddenly Festus interrupts and calls Paul insane! The dramatic exchange is recorded by Luke in Acts 26:24-28:

At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. AYou are out of your mind, Paul! he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane".

"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."

Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

Do you see how brave, almost brash, Paul is? He not only boldly witnesses to the king and the governor, but he has the audacity to tell the king that he already knows Paul is telling the truth! Why is Paul so confident of this? Because the events of Christianity were "not done in a corner." They were common knowledge and surely had not "escaped [the king's] notice." Imagine a defendant challenging a ruler or judge in that way! Such a witness must know that the events he describes are well-known.

This provocative approach is taken by several New Testament characters, who are not shy about challenging their hearers to test the truth of their testimony. For example, the other apostles, led by Peter, are just as brash and confident when they are questioned by angry Jewish authorities. Luke records the incident in Acts 5:27-32:

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

The account goes on to say that the Jewish authorities "were furious and wanted to put [the apostles] to death," but a well-respected Pharisee named Gamaliel talked them out of it.

The risk Paul, Peter, and the other apostles took to claim that they were providing eyewitness testimony certainly suggests that they were telling the truth. If these accounts are true, the apostles' unwavering testimony and provocative challenges demonstrate that they were eyewitnesses who really believed Jesus rose from the dead.

But are these accounts true? After all, why should we trust that Luke is telling us the truth about these events? It's one thing to claim that you're an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it's another thing to prove it. What evidence do we have that the New Testament writers were really eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitness testimony? Much more than you might think.

WERE THEY REALLY EYEWITNESSES?

Eyewitness Evidence: Luke

Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town's politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town's roads and geography, its unusual topography, local houses of worship, area hotels, town statutes and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year. Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that yearCor said he had gotten good information from people who had been there, would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That's the type of testimony we have throughout much of the New Testament.

Luke includes the most eyewitness details. (While Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events.) In the second half of Acts, for example, Luke displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.

Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke's accuracy in the book of Acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.1

As you read the following list, keep in mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts.

Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)

2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)

3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)

4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)

5. the correct language spoken in LystraCLycaonian (14:11)

6. two gods known to be so associatedCZeus and Hermes (14:12)

7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)

8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)

9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)

10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)

11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)

12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)

13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)

14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)

15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1)

16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)

17. the proper term (Apolitarchs') used of the magistrates there (17:6)

18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)

19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)

20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)

21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)

22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos, 17:18) as well as for the court (Areios pagos, 17:19)

23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)

24. an altar to an "unknown god" (17:23)

25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)

26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)

27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)

28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)

29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth's forum (18:16ff.)

30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)

31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis (19:24)

32. the well-attested "great goddess Artemis" (19:27)

33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)

34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in
Ephesus (19:35)

35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)

36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)

37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)

38. use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time (19:38)

39. the "regular" assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)

40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)

41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)

42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas (20:7ff.)

43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13)

44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-15)

45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara) (21:1)

46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds (21:3)

47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)

48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)

49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One inscription reads: "Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death."2)

50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times (21:31)

51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)

52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)

53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)

54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)

55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)

56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)

57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)

58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)

59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)

60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)

61. the correct legal formula (25:18)

62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)

63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)

64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)

65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)

66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)

67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)

68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)

69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)

70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale (27:13)

71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)

72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)

73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)

74. the fourteenth nightCa remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)

75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)

76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta (27:28)

77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to
run before an easterly wind (27:39)

78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)

79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)

80. the proper title protos t's nsou (28:7)

81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait (28:13)

82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)

83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)

84. the conditions of imprisonment, living Aat his own expense@ (28:30-31)
Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable eyewitness testimony? What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?

Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."3 Classical scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsay began his investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped change his mind.

He wrote:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]. . . . It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.4

Indeed, Luke's accuracy in Acts is truly amazing.

Now, here's where skeptics get very uncomfortable. Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the same book in which he records all 84 of these historically confirmed details.5 Several miracles of Paul are recorded in the second half of Acts. For example, Luke records that Paul: temporarily blinded a sorcerer (13:11); cured a man who was crippled from birth (14:8); exorcized an evil spirit from a possessed girl (16:18); "performed many miracles" that convinced many in the city of Ephesus to turn from sorcery to Jesus (19:11-20); raised a man from the dead who had died after falling out of a window during Paul's long-winded lecture (20:9-10); healed Publius's father of dysentery, and healed numerous others who were sick on Malta (28:8-9). All of these miracles are included in the same historical narrative that has been confirmed as authentic on 84 points. And the miracle accounts show no signs of embellishment or extravagance; they are told with the same level-headed efficiency as the rest of the historical narrative.

Now, why would Luke be so accurate with trivial details like wind directions, water depths, and peculiar town names, but not be accurate when it comes to important events like miracles? In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records. As we have seen, such a bias is illegitimate. This is a theistic world where miracles are possible. So it makes much more sense to believe Luke's miracle accounts than to discount them. In other words, Luke's credentials as a historian have been proven on so many points that it takes more faith not to believe his miracle accounts than to believe them.

Is Luke's Gospel "Gospel?"

What about the Gospel of Luke? First, we need to recognize that Acts and the Gospel of Luke are closely related books. How do we know? First, both documents contain the same Greek vocabulary and literary style. But more important, Luke addresses both documents to "most excellent Theophilus." He was probably some kind of Roman official because "most excellent" is the same title Paul used to address the Roman governors Felix and Festus.6

Regardless of the true identity of Theophilus, the main point is that Luke reveals that Acts is a continuation of his Gospel. His opening says, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven . . ." (Acts 1:1). Luke uses the remainder of Acts to tell Theophilus what happened after Christ's ascension. And as we have seen, he did so with amazing precision.
Should we expect the same degree of accuracy from Luke's Gospel? Why not? In fact, Luke says as much when he writes, "Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3). Judging from his meticulous work in Acts, Luke certainly is a careful historian who should be trusted. As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg observes, "A historian who has been found trustworthy where he or she can be tested should be given the benefit of the doubt in cases where no tests are available."7 Since Luke has been tested on 84 points and has earned a perfect score, there's every reason to believe his Gospel is "gospel" as well.
But we don't need to rely solely on his work in Acts to confirm Luke's Gospel. There are several details in Luke's Gospel that have been verified independently. For example, Luke names eleven historically confirmed leaders in the first three chapters of his Gospel alone (twelve if you include Jesus). These include Herod the Great, (1:5), Caesar Augustus (2:1), and Quirinius (2:2). He then writes this at the beginning of chapter 3:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of AbileneCduring the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Does this sound like Luke is making up a story? Of course not. If he were, there would be no way he would put historical crosshairs on the events he's describing by naming these prominent leaders and their dates. As Bible scholar F. F. Bruce observes, "A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably."8 Indeed, all eleven of the historical figures Luke names in the first three chapters of his GospelCincluding John the Baptist (son of Zechariah)Chave been confirmed by non-Christian writers and/or archaeology. For example, John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 18:5.2), and an inscription dating from A.D. 14 to 29 bears the name of Lysanias.

Another historically accurate detail can be found in Luke 22:44. That's where Luke records that Jesus was in agony and sweat drops of blood the night before his crucifixion. Apparently, Jesus was experiencing a rare stress-induced condition we know today as hematohidrosis. That's when tiny blood vessels rupture due to extreme stress, thus allowing blood to mix with sweat. Since Luke probably didn't know of this medical condition 2,000 years ago, he could not have recorded it unless he had access to someone who saw it.

Details like this led William Ramsay (mentioned above) to say, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness," and "Luke is an historian of the first rank. . . . [He] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."9 The bottom line is that Luke can be trusted. Since he has been confirmed independently on so many testable points, there's every reason to believe he's telling the truth elsewhere.

Now here's the crucial point: Since Luke is telling the truth, then so are Mark and Matthew because their Gospels tell the same basic story. This is devastating to skeptics, but the logic is inescapable. You need a lot of faith to ignore it.

Eyewitness Evidence: John

Luke has proven reliable; and by implication Matthew and Mark; but what about John? The critics claim that John is a much later work that expresses an invented deity-of-Christ theology, so it cannot be trusted for accurate historical information. But if the critics are wrong and John is accurate, then we have another independent witness to conclude that the basic New Testament story is true. So how accurate is John? What does the evidence say?

On the face of it, John appears to be an eyewitness because he includes intimate details about numerous private conversations of Jesus (see John 3, 4, 8B10, and 13B17). But there's actually much more powerful evidence for John being an eyewitnessCevidence of nearly the same character as what we have seen for Acts.

Like the work Colin Hemer did on Acts, Craig Blomberg has done a detailed study of the Gospel of John. Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel10 examines John's Gospel verse by verse and identifies numerous historical details.

Since John describes events confined to the Holy Land, his Gospel doesn't contain quite as many geographical, topographical, and political items as does Acts. Nevertheless, as we're about to see, quite an impressive number of historically confirmed or historically probable details are contained in John's Gospel. Many of these details have been confirmed to be historical by archaeology and/or non-Christian writings, and some of them are historically probable because they would be unlikely inventions of a Christian writer. These details begin in John's second chapter and comprise the following list:

1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times (John 2:6).

2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention (2:8).

3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well (4:6).

4. Josephus (Wars of the Jews 2.232) confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time (4:9).

5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. (There=s a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.) (4:46, 49, 51).11

6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem (5:1).

7. Archaeology confirms the proper location and description of the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda (5:2). (Excavations between 1914 and
1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it=s unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure Ais in Jerusalem,@ implying that he=s writing before 70.)

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel (6:15).

10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee (6:18).

11._?Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up (6:53).

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention (6:66).

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention (7:20).

15. The use of ASamaritan@ to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (8:48).

16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention (8:31, 59).

17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam (9:7).

18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees (9:13-39), at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.

19. The healed man calling Jesus a Aprophet@ rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history (9:17).

20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon=s Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind (10:22-23); this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.

21. Fifteen stadia (less than two miles) is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem (11:18).

22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention (11:19).

23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-_century Jewish burials (11:44); it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.

24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin (11:47): it was composed primarily of chief priests (largely Sadducees) and Pharisees during Jesus= ministry.

25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year (11:49); we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18B37.

26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim (11:54) near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.

27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover (11:55).

28. Anointing of a guest=s feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed for special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary=s wiping of Jesus= feet with her hair is an unlikely invention (it easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance).

29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers (12:13).

30. Foot washing in first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention (it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do) (13:4); Peter=s insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality (there=s certainly no purpose for inventing this request).

31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question (13:24); there=s no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.

32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention (14:28), especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ (as the critics claim he did).

33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem (15:1); vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.

34. Use of the childbirth metaphor (16:21) is thoroughly Jewish; it has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QH 11:9-10).

35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking Atoward heaven@ (17:1).

36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father (17:7-8) would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.

37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring (17:12).

38. The name of the high priest=s servant (Malchus), who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention (18:10).

39. Proper identification of Caiaphas=s father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6B15 (18:13)Cthe appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact that former high priests maintained great influence.

40. John's claim that the high priest knew him (18:15) seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.

41. Annas's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority (18:19).

42. Identification of a relative of Malchus (the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off) is a detail that John would not have made up (18:26); it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.

43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate=s reluctance to deal with Jesus (18:28ff.): Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job (the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him with, AIf you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar,@ 19:12); the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met (To Gaius 38.301-302).

44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress (19:13) with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there (as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24).

45. The Jews exclaiming AWe have no king but Caesar!@ (19:15) would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. (This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have no king but Osama Bin Laden!")

46. The crucifixion of Jesus (19:17-30) is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams (19:17).

48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans (Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203); moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968 (more on this in chapter 12).

49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says (19:17); this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body (Deut. 21:23).

50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus= side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13

51. Joseph of Arimathea (19:38), a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention (more on this in the next chapter).

52. Josephus (Antiquities 17.199) confirms that spices (19:39) were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.

53. Mary Magdalene (20:1), a formerly demon-possessed woman (Luke 8:2), would not be invented as the empty tomb=s first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story (more on this later as well).

54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener (20:15) is not a detail that a later writer would have made up (especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus).

55. "Rabboni" (20:16), the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.

56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" (20:17) does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.

57. One hundred fifty-three fish (21:11) is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.

58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was (21:12) is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.

59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions (21:18); so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention.

When we couple John's knowledge of Jesus' personal conversations with these nearly sixty historically confirmed/historically probable details, is there any doubt that John was an eyewitness or at least had access to eyewitness testimony? It certainly seems to us that it takes a lot more faith not to believe John's Gospel than to believe it.

HISTORICAL CROSSHAIRS

Let's review what we've found so far. By looking at just a few New Testament documents (John, Luke, and half of Acts), we have found more than 140 details that appear to be authentic, most of which have been historically confirmed and some of which are historically probable. If we investigated the other New Testament documents, we would probably find many more historical facts. Time and space does not permit us to embark on such an investigation. But what we have found just from John, Luke, and Acts is certainly enough to establish the historicity of the basic New Testament story (the life of Jesus and the early history of the church).

But there's even more evidence of historicity. The New Testament writers put historical crosshairs into their accounts by referencing real historical figures and their doings. All in all, there are at least thirty characters in the New Testament who have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources14 (see table 10.1 on the next page).


Figure NT Citation[break]Non-Christian Source(s)*
1. Jesus[break]several citations[break]Josephus; Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Jewish Talmud
2. James[break]several citations[break]Josephus
3. John the Baptist[break]several citations[break]Josephus
4.Pilate[break]several citations[break]Inscription, Coins, Josephus, Philo, Tacitus
5. High Priest Caiaphas[break]several citations[break]Ossuary, Josephus
6.High Priest Annas[break]Lk. 3:2, Jn. 18:13, Jn. 18:24, Acts 4:6[break] Josephus
7. Caesar Augustus[break]Lk. 2:1[break]Josephus and others
8. Quirinius[break]Lk. 2:2 [break]Josephus
9. Herod the Great[break] Mt. 2:1-19, Lk. 1:5[break]Tacitus, Josephus,
10.Herod Archelaus[break] Mt. 2:22[break]Josephus
11.Herod Philip I[break]Mt. 14:3, Mk. 6:17 [break]Josephus
12.Herod Philip II[break]Lk. 3:1[break]Josephus
13.Herod Antipas[break]Lk. 3:1, Lk. 23:7-12, Mt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29 [break]Josephus
14.King Agrippa I[break]Acts 12:1-24[break]Philo, Josephus
15.King Agrippa II[break]Acts 25:13-26:32[break]Coins, Josephus
16.Bernice (wife of Agrippa II)[break]Acts 23:13[break]Josephus
17.Herodias [break]Mt. 14:3, Mk. 6:17[break]Josephus
18.Herodias' daughter (Salome)[break]Mt. 14:1-12, Mk. 6:14-29 [break]Josephus
19.Erastus[break]Acts 19:22[break]Inscription
20.Judas the Galilean[break]Acts 5:37[break]Josephus
21.High Priest Ananias[break]Acts 23:2, 24:1[break]Josephus
22.Porcius Festus[break]Acts 24:27-26:32[break]Josephus
23.Felix[break]Acts 23:24-25:14[break]Tacitus, Josephus
24.Drusilla (wife of Felix)[break]Acts 24:24[break]Josephus
25.Sergius Paulus[break]Acts 13:6-12[break]Inscription
26.Gallio[break]Acts 18:12-17[break]Insciption
27.Tiberius Caesar[break]Lk. 3:1[break]Tacitus, Suetonius, Paterculus, Dio Cassius, Josephus
28.Claudius[break]Acts 11:28, 18:2[break]Josephus
29.Egyptian False Prophet[break]Acts 21:38[break]Josephus
30.Lysanias[break]Lk. 3:1[break]Inscription, Josephus
31.King Aretas[break]2 Cor. 11:32[break]Josephus
32.Gamaliel[break]Acts 5:34, Acts 22:3[break]Josephus
[b]*Note: This is not an exhaustive compilation of non-Christian references. There may be additional citations of these NT figures in non-Christian sources.

For example, Matthew mentions independently confirmed historical figures including Herod the Great (2:3) and his three sons: Herod Archelaus (2:22), Herod Philip (14:3), and Herod Antipas (14:1-11). Matthew also describes the man Herod Antipas killed, John the Baptist (chapter 14, introduced in chapter 3) along with the two women who instigated the killing, Herodias and her daughter. Mark tells the same story about Herod Antipas and John the Baptist (6:14ff.). And Luke extends the biblical citations of the Herodian bloodline by mentioning Herod the Great's grandson, Agrippa I, the king who killed James, John's brother (Acts 12); and his great-grandson, Agrippa II, the king before whom Paul testified (Acts 25:13B26:32).

Pilate is a prominent figure in all four Gospels and is cited by Paul.15 This same Pilate appears on several occasions in two of Josephus=s works (Antiquities and The Wars of the Jews), and is identified in an ancient inscription as the prefect (governor) of Judea. This archaeological discovery was made in the Israeli costal town of Caesarea in 1961.

In addition to Pilate, Matthew, Luke, and John specifically name another leader who figured prominently in Jesus' deathCthe high priest Caiaphas, who sentenced Jesus to die.16 Caiaphas is not only mentioned by Josephus, but his actual bones were discovered in a fantastic archaeological discovery in 1990. This discovery was made possible by an ancient burial practice of the Jews.

From about 20 B.C. to A.D. 70 the Jews had a custom of exhuming the body of an important person about a year after his death and placing the remains in a small limestone box called an ossuary. In a tomb located to the south of Jerusalem, several of these ossuaries were discovered, one of which bore the Aramaic inscription "Yehosef bar Kayafa" (Joseph son of Caiaphas). Inside were bones of an entire family: four young people, an adult woman, and a sixty-year-old man. The man is very likely the former high priest Joseph Caiaphas; the same man whom Josephus identified as the high priest17 and the same man the New Testament says sentenced Jesus to die.18 So now we not only have non-Christian written references to the high priest at Jesus' trial; we also have his bones!19

As table 10.1 illustrates, there are several other New Testament figures confirmed outside the New Testament. These include Quirinius, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, and Claudius.20 What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

THE NEW TESTAMENT: A HISTORICAL NOVEL OR _NOVEL HISTORY?

In spite of these 140-plus eyewitness details and 30-plus references to real people, a hardened skeptic might say, "But that doesn't necessarily mean that the New Testament is true. Suppose it's a historical novel; fiction set in a real historical context; something similar to a Tom Clancy novel?"

There are many problems with this theory. First, it can't explain why independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament. If the New Testament events are fictional, then why do the non-Christian writers record some of them as though they actually occurred?
Second, it can't explain why the New Testament writers endured persecution, torture, and death. Why would they have done so for a fictional story? (More on this in the next chapter.)

Third, historical novelists usually do not use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories. If they did, those real people: especially powerful government and religious officials: would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them for doing so. As we have seen, the New Testament includes at least thirty actual historical figures who have been confirmed by non-Christian sources, and many of these are prominent and powerful leaders.

Finally, since the New Testament contains multiple independent accounts of these events by nine different authors, the historical novel theory would require a grand conspiracy over a 20- to 50-year period between those nine authors, who were spread all over the ancient world. This is not plausible either. In fact, the assertion that the New Testament events are part of a grand conspiracy exists only in novels. In the real world, such assertions are crushed by the weight of the evidence.

THE NEW TESTAMENT: ONE SOURCE OR MANY?

"Wait!" the skeptic might protest. "You might have eyewitness testimony, but you can't believe the New Testament because it's just from one source. They are not multiple independent accounts as you say!" This is a common error skeptics make because they fail to distinguish between the Bible as a "religious book" and the historical documents that comprise the Bible.
When considering the historicity of the New Testament, we constantly must remind ourselves that the New Testament we see in the Bible is a collection of largely independent writings from the pens of nine different authors. It was not written or edited by one person or by the church. While the New Testament writers describe many of the same events and may even draw material from the same earlier sources, the evidence indicates that the New Testament documents contain several lines of independent eyewitness testimony.

How do we know we have independent eyewitness testimony? Because 1) each major author includes early and unique material that only eyewitnesses would know, and 2) their accounts describe the same basic events but include divergent details. Why are divergent details important? Because if the accounts were all from one source or a single editor, there would be harmonization, not divergence of details. When early accounts tell the same basic story but include divergent details, historians rightly conclude they have independent eyewitness accounts of actual historical events (historical test #3 from page 231. The story certainly cannot be made up, because independent sources could never invent the same fictional story.

By these criteria, we know that John and Mark are independent, and we know that Luke and Matthew differ enough from Mark and from one another to be the products of independent attestation as well. So there are at least four independent sources for the basic New Testament story, and, adding Paul (1 Cor. 15:8) and Peter (1 Pet. 1:21) to the mix, there are at least six independent sources for the Resurrection.

Six sane, sober eyewitnesses, who refuse to recant their testimony even under the threat of death, would convict anyone of anything in a court of law (even without the additional lines of corroborating evidence that support the New Testament story). Such eyewitness testimony yields a verdict that is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you saw the event yourself, you can=t be any more certain that those historical events actually occurred.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

1._?We saw from chapter 9 that:
a._?The New Testament documents are early and contain even earlier source material.
b._?At least 10 ancient non-Christian writers within 150 years of his life give information about Jesus, and their collective references provide a storyline consistent with the New Testament.

2. From this chapter we conclude:
a._?The New Testament contains at least four to six lines of early, independent eyewitness written testimony. We conclude this because:
i._?The major New Testament writers record the same basic events with diverging details and some unique material.
ii._?They cite at least thirty real historical figures who have been confirmed by ancient non-Christian writers and various archaeological discoveries.
iii._?Luke peppers the second half of Acts with at least 84 historically confirmed eyewitness details and includes several others in his Gospel.
iv._?Luke=s proven trustworthiness affirms that of Matthew and Mark because they record the same basic story.
v._?John includes at least 59 historically confirmed or historically probable eyewitness details in his Gospel.
vi._?Paul and Peter provide the fifth and sixth written testimonies to the Resurrection.
b._?Since this early, independent eyewitness testimony is within one generation of the events, the New Testament events cannot be considered legendary.

So there's no question that real historical events are at the core of the New Testament. The bottom line is that a skeptic has to have a lot of faith to believe that the New Testament is fictional.

However, there are more issues to investigate before concluding that the New Testament is definitely historically reliable. For example, how do we know that the eyewitness testimony is not exaggerated or embellished? That's the question we'll address in the next chapter.

500

Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Trout]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[grmarsh]

i recommend the scholarly and very complete book "lord jesus christ" by larry hurtado for a very thorough and careful treating of the evidence of the immediate christian practice of devotion to jesus in both the jerusalem church and the gentile pauline churches in the very first decades of the christian movement...

gil

[Vorkosigan]

It's a pretty bad article, and it has been dissected at length here and elsewhere. Why did you guys repost it?

Third, historical novelists usually do not use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories. If they did, those real people: especially powerful government and religious officials: would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them for doing so. As we have seen, the New Testament includes at least thirty actual historical figures who have been confirmed by non-Christian sources, and many of these are prominent and powerful leaders.

Actually, ancient Hellenistic fiction frequently involved real people in exactly the same way that the gospels do. The following are common events in ancient Hellenistic fiction:

trial before authorities
miraculous reprieves granted by authorities
crucifixion
death
resurrection
empty tombs
sea voyages
travel narratives
explanations of the exotic customs
historical characters
historical settings
attention to historical detail
protagonists taken for gods/sons of gods
grand entrances into cities
religious teachings
religious experiences
dreams from the gods
recognitions after meeting in which at first do not recognize each other
periods of time spent working on the journey
epistulary novels (novels composed of letters) and letter scenes
citations of the collective literature of the culture
composition by copying famous ancient texts (myths, Homer)
chiastic structures
doublets and doubled characters
use as cultic religious texts

and many others. Whoever wrote the above has obviously not done his homework on the ancient fiction. Most of the major gospel incidents are found in the Hellenistic fictional literature.

By these criteria, we know that John and Mark are independent, and we know that Luke and Matthew differ enough from Mark and from one another to be the products of independent attestation as well.

Actually, as we know, only the special material in Luke and Matthew is independent of Mark, and many of us think Luke knew Matthew, as well as Mark and John. John also appears to have known Mark, and Mark may well to know Paul. Evidently the writer has not done his homework on basic NT gospel relationships. But what do you expect?

Vorkosigan

[EvoUK]

Vork- where did you come from? lol

[Vorkosigan]

Stopped by to see how things were. It's deja vu all over again.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Then of course there is the Roman practice of flying that early men took to be angels and a very good scholarly work that shows Alexander the Great was actually an elephant so that is why the Hindus confuse an elephant with god.

It is all documented somewhere. Trust me.

I always notice how strong Vork is on assertion and how weak he is on attribution.

[Vorkosigan]

I always notice how strong Vork is on assertion and how weak he is on attribution.

LOL. You can check out many different works, but I recommend Bowersock's Fiction as History for starters. A wonderful book. Then I suggest you read one of the collection of Hellenistic fiction, such as B Reardon's or Winkler's. Winkler's is particularly good, I think, at exposing the underlying structural and compositional features.

Vorkosigan

[Pantheist_Oracl]

Then of course there is the Roman practice of flying that early men took to be angels and a very good scholarly work that shows Alexander the Great was actually an elephant so that is why the Hindus confuse an elephant with god.

It is all documented somewhere. Trust me.

I always notice how strong Vork is on assertion and how weak he is on attribution.

I'd recommend The Oxford History of the Biblical World as a primary text. I'm sure some new interpretations have come to the fore since my copy, but it's a good, basic primer documenting the origins of biblical themes and the history of surrounding matrices.

For a more in-depth analysis of some particulars, I'd recommend Karen Armstrong's A History of God (in fact, I'd recommend anything by Karen Armstrong). Elaine Paigels is another one: Adam, Eve and the Serpent and The Origins of Satan I have both read and can attest to their quality.

The Hindus' worship of Ganesha has nothing to do with Alexander. It actually has quite an interesting myth behind it; look it up if you're interested.

Alexander's major influence, by the way, on India was that of Greek sculpture. It resulted in the first statues of the Buddha.

Angels I have not extensively studied. Certainly Greek mythology contains angelic beings: the putti I think. But as for the Bible's angels, I suspect a much more ancient, Near Eastern origin. Angel, by the way, comes from the Greek aggelos, from the Hebrew malak, messenger. Certainly if you're really interested, I'll be happy to see what I can dig up; no need for recourse to flying Romans.

Do check out those sources.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Guys if you want to discuss this out of this forum I would be happy to, but this isn't the place for debate or for sarcasm alerts. Repost in the World History section and lets talk.

[Intelligitimate]

Here is my partial review of the book, from an atheist perspective:

----------------

CHAPTER 3: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE

In this chapter, Geisler and Turek attempt to show that Big Bang cosmology supports theism and is incompatible with atheism. Most of this chapter is devoted to the scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang, and I will not dispute any of this. What I will dispute is that Big Bang cosmology supports theism and is incompatible with atheism.

The state their argument as such:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore the Universe had a cause.

Probably the weakest part of this argument is premise one. There are serious arguments made in respectable academic journals by physicists and philosophers of science that the universe itself could be an uncaused event. There are also other things quantum physicists think are uncaused, such as virtual particles. Virtual particles are said to blink in and out of existence, without any cause.

Premise two can also be attacked. While Geisler and Turek are correct in stating that Big Bang cosmology is the dominate view among cosmologists, it is not the only one. There are still other competing theories supported by some physicists, such as Plasma Cosmology and Quantum Steady State theory. But for now, I will accept the validity of their argument.

Assuming this argument is valid, the authors never make it clear why this argument is supposed to support theism. Indeed, an atheist could accept this argument and just deny that the cause of the universe was a supernatural, personal being. Atheists would probably even argue, like Geisler and Turek do about Atkin’s “mathematical points,” that the explanation of God is “not a scientific theory but is actually self-contradictory pop-metaphysics. It is pop-metaphysics because it is a made-up explanation—there’s absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it.”

Geisler and Turek wait till the end of the chapter to argue that this cause must be a personal being. They argue that this cause must be self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, supremely intelligent and personal. Only the last two need pose a problem for atheists, so what are their arguments to support these attributes for the cause of the universe? They argue that the cause is supremely intelligent based on the design of the universe, a premise they will argue for in the next chapter. For the personal attribute, they argue that “in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe” it must be personal, as “an impersonal force has no ability to make choices.” This argument is extremely dubious, as one can simply suppose that the first cause must necessarily cause the universe to exist. Geisler and Turek don’t argue any further on why the first cause must necessarily be personal.

The authors spent very little time in this chapter arguing exactly how Big Bang cosmology supports theism and is incompatible with atheism. Being compatible with theism is not the same thing as being evidence for theism. Big Bang cosmology is also compatible with an evil creator, or with millions of creator gods, but it does not lend evidence to these ideas. The authors’ failure to support the idea that the first cause must be a personal being undercuts their position. If the first cause need not be a personal being, then their argument is compatible with atheism.

CHAPTER 4: Divine Design

In this chapter, Geisler and Turek attempt to show that the universe is designed to support life. They assert that many things are “fine-tuned” to allow life to exist on Earth, or even in the universe itself. However, I argue that this conclusion is not justified.

First, two things must be distinguished here that the authors are not careful to do: arguments that the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life in the universe, and arguments that other things like the distance of the moon to Earth are fine-tuned for life on Earth. These two categories are very different and have to be approached in different ways.

In the case of arguments that the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe, one could argue that there is only one possible set of physical laws. If only one set of physical laws are actually possible, then there can be no discussion of whether or not the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life, because it wouldn’t make sense to say they could be different. Geisler and Turek do not argue against this possibility. They also do not address the work of theoretical physicist Victor Stenger, who wrote a program called ‘Monkey God’ that demonstrated many physical constants could be changed dramatically and still allow for the formation of atoms and stars, which supports that life could be possible with very different physical laws.

In the second case of whether or not Earth is designed for life, one could argue that if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to talk about how life on Earth appears designed for us. Why should we be surprised that we observe features of Earth that are compatible with our own existence? It seems to me, it is a bit like thinking the lottery is rigged because of the chances any one person winning it are very small. In any case, there is nothing for atheists to explain about the coincidences that allow life on Earth to exist: if the coincidences didn’t happen, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

In conclusion, Geisler and Turek do not give address substantial objections to the idea that the universe is designed for life, nor do they offer convincing reasons why the coincidences that allow life on Earth to exist indicate that it was designed that way.

CHAPTER 5: The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?

In this chapter, Geisler and Turek claim that the start of life is impossible to explain by chance. They also claim materialism is incompatible with human reason and cannot account for the existence of things like love. I will show that they are wrong on both accounts.

Regarding the origin of life on Earth, which scientists refer to as abiogenesis (not “spontaneous generation” as Geisler and Turek prefer to call it), the authors think it is impossible to explain how a single celled organism arose by chance. However, no theory of abiogenesis posits that a single celled organism arose by chance, so it is completely irrelevant. One of the modern theories of abiogenesis is the RNA-World Hypothesis. The RNA-World Hypothesis proposes that RNA was the dominate form of life before DNA. RNA is much simpler than DNA, and it is also capable of self-replication. Another theory of abiogenesis involves proteinoids. According this idea, the first self-replicators were inorganic protein-like molecules formed from amino acids (which we know can form spontaneously from the Urey-Miller experiment, which the authors falsely state has been discredited). Nowhere do the authors deal with these ideas, instead they erect a strawman version of abiogenesis that posits a single celled organism formed fully formed by chance, something no scientist believes.

Another claim in the chapter is that materialism can not account for reason, among other things. They assert that “human thoughts and feelings are not comprised only of materials.” They also state that “the theory of materialism is not made of molecules.” How this is supposed to be a refutation of materialism, they do not say. What it is, is a bald-faced assertion. I could turn right around and say that human thoughts and feeling (and their belief in things like Christianity and materialism) are only made of materials, therefore, materialism is true. This would not be a convincing argument to Geisler and Turek, nor is their ‘argument; (if it could be called an argument) a convincing one to me.

Another curious attack on materialism is their claim that “if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible.” This is supposed to be so because “if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. . . . Chemicals can’t evaluate whether or not a theory is true.” It should be immediately obvious to anyone that has used a calculator that purely material processes can arrive at true conclusions. It should also be obvious that a calculator can do more than the sum of its parts can. They have committed here the fallacy of division. Clearly even though the material parts of a calculator can’t do math, the whole of the parts can. If the human brain is seen as a sophisticated computer, then clearly this argument is logically false.

Lastly, the authors make another absurd statement. They assert that atheists borrow from the theistic worldview concepts such as “intellect, free will, objective morality, and human rights as well as reason, logic, design and truth.” Nowhere do the authors substantiate this statement. Instead, they convey an anecdote that doesn’t seem to have any relevance to this assertion. How does logic, for instance, presuppose the theistic worldview? The anecdote doesn’t attempt to explain it, and nor do the authors.

In conclusion, the authors have erected a strawman to knock down instead of dealing with what scientists have to say about the origin of life. Their failure here is most apparent to anyone that has any familiarity with the subject at all. Indeed, in one of the books they attack, Dawkin’s Blind Watchmaker, Dawkin’s specifically goes into detail on one abiogenesis hypothesis, yet the authors still continued to attack a strawman. In dealing with materialism, their logically fallacious arguments fail to explain why materialism can’t account for the world.

CHAPTER 6: New Life Forms: From Goo to You via the Zoo?

It is hard for me to review this chapter adequately because it is so full of misconceptions about evolution that it would probably take a book to adequately address all the claims of Geisler and Turek. It seems to me that the authors have packed as many objections to evolution as possible in 30 pages in the hopes that something would stick. However, there are books and websites out there specifically devoted to addressing the claims of creationists and intelligent design proponents, so I will not waste too much of my time on this chapter. I will address a few major topics in this chapter briefly, but that is all.

The authors quote Behe as saying:

“The idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in journals or in books—that describes how molecular evolution did occur or even might have occurred.”

This claim of Behe’s is simply false. There many books and articles in scientific journals describing molecular evolution, and irreducible complexity is not a problem. A short list of these books and articles be found at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Another thing the authors do is misquote the late Stephen Jay Gould on the nature of the fossil record. They try to make it appear as if Gould is denying the existence of transition forms, which is not at all what he is doing. To quote Gould on the creationist use of him:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

There claims about the nature of the fossil record are completely false. In some instances, the fossil record is quite complete, such as for horse evolution. A list of transitional fossils can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I have purposely avoided going into great detail in this part of my review, because it would take a great deal of time and writing to refute all of the claims in this chapter. If you are interested in pursuing this issue further, there are many books and websites out there devoted to refuting the claims of creationists and intelligent design proponents, who do a much better job than I personally could.

CHAPTER 7: Mother Teresa vs. Hitler

In this chapter, the authors attempt to show that the existence of a “Moral Law” implies a law giver. This chapter is mostly devoted to arguing against moral relativism, which the authors understand to be the position that there are no absolute moral laws. Part of the failure of this chapter, as in C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, is the fact that there author never deals with the strongest argument against their position, namely the Euthyphro Dilemma. Also, their justification for the existence of a so-called Moral Law is not tenable.

Early in the chapter, the authors make this argument:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law giver.

The Euthyphro Dilemma, in brief, can be illustrated in a question: Does God disapprove of murder because it is bad or is murder bad because God disapproves of it? If murder is bad simply because God disapproves of it, then God has no reason for disapproving murder. The Christian would have to conclude that if murder was not condemned by God, then murder would not be immoral. If God disapproves of murder because it is wrong, then whatever reasons God condemns murder could be used by atheists as well. It should be noted Plato discovered this problem 2,500 years ago, and he was a theist.

The authors also fail to give any sort of rigorous defense of the existence of a Moral Law. Just because everyone believes and behaves a certain way doesn’t make something true. Just because we all may believe we should help people doesn’t mean that any transcendent moral law actually exists.

Lastly, I have to bring up the incredible assertions of the authors that “racism and then genocide is the logical outworking of Darwinism.” They cite a passage in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in order to bolster support for this assertion. One could also cite Mein Kampf to justify that Nazism is the logical outcome of Christianity, with many of Hitler’s quotes, like this one:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

One could also note that European anti-Semitism is rooted completely in Christianity. One could also point out that racists used the bible to justify their beliefs before the theory of evolution came along, using such ideas that Noah’s cursed son Ham is the ancestor of black people to justify slavery. Does this mean Christianity is racist? No. Nor does the beliefs of men like Hitler prove Darwinism is racist. In reality, evolution has nothing to say about how we should act, and neither does Einstein’s theory of relativity, or any other scientific theory for that matter.

(It should also be noted, the work the authors cite by people like E. O. Wilson are highly controversial. Indeed, one of their biggest critics was the famous ‘evolutionist’ Stephen Jay Gould!)

CHAPTER 8: Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?

When the authors discuss Hume’s argument against miracles, they misrepresent Hume’s argument drastically. Indeed, that the authors didn’t actually quote Hume’s argument, and instead constructed such a terrible strawman of it, leads me to believe the authors were being dishonest. The authors’ strawman version of Hume’s argument goes like this:

1. Natural laws is by definition a description of a regular occurrence.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that of the rare.
4. A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence.
5. Therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles.

This is the authors’ weaker version of Hume’s argument. Here, I will quote Hume’s argument in full, so you can see the drastic difference for yourself.

-------------
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
--------------

This argument is not subject to some of the criticisms brought against it by the authors, such as that Hume’s own birth is a “rare” occurrence that happened only once, but that he has no trouble believing it occurred The authors are attacking a strawman version of Hume’s argument. Miracles to Hume aren’t “rare occurrences”, they are a violations of natural law. Hume’s birth did presumably not violate any natural laws. Hume even gives an example of a rare occurrence in his argument that does not violate natural laws!

Many other criticisms of Hume’s argument are based on the strawman version they have constructed, such as that even if you yourself saw Jesus Christ, that you shouldn’t believe it. As the actual conclusion of Hume’s argument reveals, it is about testimonies of others. Hume’s argument against miracles says nothing about whether you should believe in miracles if you’ve actually witnessed them. Nor does the argument actually talk about whether or not miracles have actually happened, something which the authors say Hume has confused, but it is actually the authors who are confused here (or alternatively, they could be purposefully lying, but I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt).

Just to drive the point home further, Hume actually gives an example of what he would consider a believable miracle.


--------
I beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January, 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived.
--------

CHAPTER 9: Do We Have Early Testimony About Jesus?

The alleged early testimonies start with Flavius Josephus. The authors fail to mention that the two quotes about Jesus in Josephus are controversial. All scholars think the passage has been tampered with in some way, as it is extremely unlikely Josephus, a Jew, would write that Jesus is the Messiah. The scholarly consensus used to be that the passages were entirely forged, possibly by Eusebius, though that has changed over the years. However, it is still highly controversial.

Another alleged early testimony is that of Thallus. The problem here is that no surviving copies of Thallus’ work. We also do not know when he wrote. What we have is a third century Christian, Julius Africanus, saying that Thallus cited a solar eclipse at the time Jesus is believed to have lived. We also have no surviving copies of Julius Africanus’ work. What we have here is Eusebius quoting Julius Africanus mentioning that Thallus recorded a solar eclipse. This is not an early testimony to Jesus.

None of the other sources they mention got their information independently. Tacitus, for instance, is clearly just relaying information he got from Christians to his audience. This much is even admitted by Christian apologist R. T. France in his book The Evidence for Jesus. The same is probably true of the Jewish Talmud.

The authors also bring out the misleading claim that there are 15,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, as if this had anything to do with how reliable the texts have been transmitted. First of all, this number of manuscripts and papyrus fragments includes everything written up to the 15th century. If you limited it to manuscripts and fragments from the 1st century, there would be zero. The 2nd century isn’t much better. A complete New Testament doesn’t appear until the 4th century.

Secondly, all these manuscripts show that the Gospels have been changed quite a bit, contrary to showing that the text is reliable. Probably the most famous is the ending of Mark. The earliest manuscripts end at 16:8. The Codex Bobiensis ends with another verse that is usually regulated to a footnote. Another forgery occurs here known as the Freer Logion, where the disciples have a discussion with Jesus about Satan. Even the traditional longer ending differs substantially in many manuscripts.

The authors also bring up the alleged fragments of the NT in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting that perhaps that most scholars don’t believe they are fragments of the NT because it would undermine their “liberal leanings.” The possibly isn’t brought up that they reject it because it is crank scholarship. Callaghan, and then Carsten Thiede years later, took the position that 7Q5 was a fragment of Mark 6:52-53. However, the only legible word on the manuscript is the Greek word kai, which means and.

The next issue they bring up is far more important; whether or not the Gospels are historically reliable.

The authors claim that the Gospels must have been written before 70 AD, because they fail to mention the destruction of the Temple. However, this is extremely misleading, because they do mention it. The authors even say Mark 13:2 as a prediction of the event. Most New Testament scholars use this very passage to date the Gospels to after 70, because it was probably put into Jesus’ mouth after the fact.

To drive the point home further, when the authors are constructing similar scenarios for believing that it couldn’t have been written after 70, they say:

“If a former tenant of the World Trade Center wrote a book related to the history of those buildings, and the book ends with the towers still standing—there’s absolutely no mention of the towers being destroyed and nearly 3,000 people being murdered by Muslim terrorists—do you have any doubt that the book must have been written prior to September 11, 2001? Of course not”

I would turn this around and ask, would you have any doubt that a book that did mention it was probably written after the fact? Maybe this former tenant is trying to get rich quick by selling a book promoting his own psychic powers, or maybe he is crazy. In any case, our first conclusion wouldn’t be that the former tenant actually predicted the events of September 11th. And so, New Testament scholars use Mark 13 to date the Gospels after 70 CE.

The authors also try to prove that Acts was written prior to 62. Their argument hinges on Acts being written by Luke, supposedly a companion of Paul, and the silence of Acts on the deaths of Paul and James. Both of these positions can be questioned. First, there is no scholarly consensus that Acts was written by Luke, or that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Secondly, there is no reason why a failure to mention the death of Paul and James means it had to be written before they died. This argument from silence on the part of the authors is incredibly weak.

The authors also use 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to support that Paul got what he “received” from Peter and James, but this is a curious idea, since Paul seems to indicate that he got what he received “according to the scriptures.” In this account, Jesus “appeared” to Cephas (who may or may not be Peter), then the 12. In what sense Paul means by appeared, it is not clear. Perhaps Jesus appeared to Peter and then the 12 (isn’t Peter part of the 12?) the same way he appeared to Paul, in a vision. Nothing about these passages necessarily indicate anything about how early the Gospel tradition is.

Many have argued that Paul shows no knowledge of the portrait painted by the Gospels. Paul hardly ever mentions anything about what Jesus said or did in his earthly ministry. In fact, Paul is used by as evidence against a historical Jesus by those who argue Jesus is a myth, like G. A. Wells.

The authors, in my opinion, have failed to give any convincing reason to think the Gospels were written very early.

CHAPTER 10: Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony of Jesus?

In this chapter, the authors try to show that we have eyewitness testimony about Jesus. It is my opinion that they have failed miserably in their task. A few examples will suffice.

The authors quote the speech of Paul to king Agrippa in Acts as eyewitness testimony to Jesus. For this to be eyewitness testimony, Acts would have to be reliable history written by an eyewitness to this event in the first place. In any case, even according to Acts, Paul only had a vision of Jesus, he never actually met Jesus.

The authors also argue that many details in Luke provide evidence that Acts is true. With this sort of argument, you could prove that Gone With the Wind is history, since it also provides many accurate geological details and includes real historical events.

In the last part of this chapter, the authors argue against the idea that it is fiction. They have four arguments to support this idea: it can’t explain the Non-Christian sources, it can’t explain why the NT writers endured persecution, historical novelists don’t use the names of real people, and this would involve a conspiracy of “multiple independent accounts”.

All these arguments fail. The Non-Christian sources seem to get their information entirely from Christians; Tacitus didn’t get his information independently. And whether or not the NT authors endured persecution is questionable. If the author of Matthew was indeed the apostle Matthew (which I see no reason to believe), there are several completely contradictory legends about how he is supposed to have died, one of which has him dying of old age. And who says you can’t use the names of real people when writing historical fiction? And lastly, there is no need to resort to a conspiracy hypothesis, because there is no reason to think the accounts are independent of one another. Modern scholarship almost universally recognizes that the authors of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark in front of them when they wrote their Gospels, as did probably John.

CHAPTER 11: Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth.

A few of the first top ten reasons revolve around the criterion of embarrassment. This is not a valid historical criterion, as New Testament scholars like Crossan have argued, because it is not really possible to determine what is embarrassing to the authors. For instance, is Mark embarrassed by the ‘fact’ that the apostles were bumbling idiots? Several scholars have argued it is part of Mark’s purpose, perhaps to negate the authority of others who claim that they get their information from the apostles. In any case, it is not possible to determine what was embarrassing to the authors and what was not, not without assuming other things about them that aren’t necessarily true.

[Kyle Williams]

I have written a response to Geisler & Turek's book. Chapter 10 is quoted below. You may see the rest of it at: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be a Christian (http://www.hotcom.net/users/shagbark/faithatheist.html).

By way of explanation, G&T (short for Geisler & Turek) is a talking book that shows up my doorstep. I have a conversation with the book about each of its chapters. Sometimes other books on my shelves join the conversation.

My material is copyrighted. Please ask permission before copying it.

Kyle Williams


CHAPTER 10
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?

G&T (p 251-253): Now let’s see if we can determine that the New Testament documents contain eyewitness testimony. First, I would like to point out that Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It’s one thing to claim that you’re an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it’s another thing to prove it.

G&T (p 255): You’re taking the words right out of my pages.

Kyle: Okay, but you ask a valid question: What evidence do we have that the New Testament writers were really eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitness testimony?

G&T (p 255-256): Much more than you might think. Let’s look at Luke. He wrote one of the gospels and the book of Acts. Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, but he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events. Luke includes more eyewitness details than the other New Testament writers. He displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events. Would you like me to list 84 details in Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research?

Kyle: No thank you. I’ll take your word for it. For the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

G&T (p 260): Good. Now, Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the book of Acts. All of these miracles are included in the same historical narrative that has been confirmed as authentic on 84 points. In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the miracles he records.

Kyle: What’s wrong with an anti-supernatural bias?

G&T (p 260): If God exists, we should expect him to perform miracles.

Kyle: But you have failed to prove that God exists. Therefore, I think a reasonable person should be skeptical about miracle claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Besides, I think I can get you to admit that your argument is weak. G&T, I’d like you to meet The Pearl of Great Price.

Pearl: Hi. I’m a miscellaneous selection from the revelations, translations and narrations of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church.

G&T: Oh my stars, Kyle, you can’t be serious.

Kyle: Just listen a minute. We’ll make a brief point, and then I’ll put Pearl back on the shelf. Go ahead, Pearl.

Pearl: I contain a section called “Joseph Smith – History,” in which Joseph Smith tells his own story. In this short section you’ll find 38 details – the same kind of details you find in Acts. These details can be verified as accurate:

1. People have militated against the Mormon church (verse 1).
2. The Mormon church was organized in 1830 (verse 2).
3. Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805 (verse 3).
4. There is a place called Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont (verse 3).
5. Joseph Smith was a son of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Lucy Mack Smith (verses 3-4).
6. Palmyra, was in Ontario County, New York, and later in Wayne County (verse 3).
7. There was a place called Manchester in the same county as Palmyra (verse 3).
8. The eleven members of the Smith family are correctly named (verse 4).
9. An unusual excitement on the subject of religion swept through Manchester (verse 5).
10. There were Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists in that district (verse 5).
11. Four members of the Smith family joined the Presbyterian faith in about 1820 (verse 7).
12. The three predominate sects argued against one another (verse 9).
13. Smith quoted the King James Version of the Bible, which was popular at the time (verse 11).
14. The different sects understood the same passages of scripture differently (verse 12).
15. There were woods near Manchester (verse 14).
16. Smith used the term “preacher” in connection with the Methodists (verse 21).
17. Smith frankly confesses to foolish errors and foibles of human nature (verse 28).
18. The crowing of a cock was common in Smith’s setting (verse 47).
19. There is a hill of considerable size convenient to Manchester (verse 51).
20. The Smith family’s worldly circumstances were very limited (verse 55).
21. Smith’s oldest brother, Alvin, died in 1823 (verse 56).
22. There was a Josiah Stoal in Chenango County, New York (verse 56).
23. Spaniards had opened a silver mine in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
24. Joseph Smith had dug for silver in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
25. Joseph Smith was known as a money-digger (verse 56).
26. Isaac Hale lived in Harmony, Pennsylvania (verse 57).
27. Joseph Smith married Emma Hale on January 18, 1827 (verse 57).
28. Squire Tarbill lived in South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York (verse 58).
29. Joseph Smith was unpopular (verse 61).
30. Smith moved to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 61).
31. Martin Harris lived in Palmyra Township, Wayne County New York (verse 61).
32. Professor Charles Anthon lived in New York City (verse 64).
33. Dr. Mitchell lived in New York City (verse 65).
34. Oliver Cowdery went to Joseph Smith’s house on April 5, 1829 (verse 66).
35. Oliver Cowdery had been teaching school in Manchester (verse 66).
36. There were woods in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 68).
37. There was a publication called Messenger and Advocate in 1834 (footnote).
38. The phrase “professors of religion” was common in Smith’s day (verse 75).
G&T: For the sake of the argument, I’ll take your word for it that those particular details are historically correct.

Pearl: Good. Now, this history of Joseph Smith also contains visitations from God the Father, Jesus Christ, an angel named Moroni, and John the Baptist. Joseph Smith also claimed to translate golden plates by the miraculous working of peep stones called the Urim and Thummim. These visitations and miracles are included in the same writing that is confirmed as authentic on 38 points. In light of the fact that Joseph Smith has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-Mormon bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the visitations and miracles.

G&T (p 254): Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Mormon?

Kyle: No, but I do expect to persuade you that your argument is invalid.

G&T: Yes, I get the comparison. My argument is pretty weak, isn’t it. Or maybe it means that Mormonism is as true as Christianity.

Kyle: Oh, my. How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail. King Louis XI also figures in the novel, and he was a real person. So does that make you believe Quasimodo was a real person who did everything Hugo wrote about him?

G&T: Quasi- who?

Kyle: Quasimodo. You know. The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

G&T: Sounds like a football player to me.

Kyle: Very funny.

G&T: Seriously, I get your point.

Kyle: My point is that the setting of a narrative can be accurate while the story line is fictitious. Your 84 points fail to establish that Luke’s stories were true.

G&T (p 261): But what about Luke’s gospel? Luke writes, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). Isn’t that statement worthy of belief?

Kyle: Not necessarily. Look at the Author’s Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe:

The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it....
G&T: But Robinson Crusoe is fictitious, isn’t it?

Kyle: Exactly. And the Preface to The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas says, “... the heroes of this history which we are about to have the honor of relating to our readers have nothing mythological about them.” The Preface goes on to describe the search for evidence and the discovery of a manuscript described as historical. The manuscript turns out to be the novel itself. Do you believe The Three Musketeers is historically true?

G&T: No.

Kyle: You're right. My copy has an introduction in which J. Walker McSpadden writes:

But the reader will become interested in each period as he reaches it through the medium of the particular story; and having finished the story, he will be sorely tempted to study history and find out for himself how much is fact and how much fiction. He will be astonished to find how closely Dumas hedges upon real characters and real occurrences; how ingeniously the imaginary occurrences are made to explain the genuine ones; and how vitally the novelist has interested him in names which before greeted his eye meaninglessly upon musty records.
G&T: Are you comparing the New Testament to The Three Musketeers? Is the New Testament a mixture of fact and fiction?

Kyle: I think it is. At least I have demonstrated that a veneer of historicity is possible, and a veneer does not make a narrative historical. Writers often use real settings – real places, real people and historical events – as a backdrop to their fictitious stories.

G&T (p 262): I thought my logic was inescapable.

Kyle: Well, let’s check your logic by reducing your argument to a syllogism:

1. Luke told the truth about his journeys.
2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.
3. Therefore, Luke told the truth about miracles.
G&T ( 255-262): Yes, that’s what this part of my tenth chapter boils down to.

Kyle: I accept the first premise. Luke gave an accurate travelogue. The background to his narrative is historical.

G&T: But you don’t agree with the second premise.

Kyle: Right, I don’t. Joseph Smith is an example of a person who told the truth about his journeys through Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. Yet his visions, revelations and other miracles are unbelievable.

G&T (p 262): So, since I failed to establish the historicity of Luke’s story, I can’t establish the historicity of Mark and Matthew by pointing out that they tell the same story?

Kyle: Right. That would be an invalid argument.

G&T (p 263-268): And it wouldn’t do any good to argue the historicity of John with similar evidence?

Kyle: Right.

G&T (p 269-271): Doesn’t it impress you at all that there are at least thirty characters in the New Testament who have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources?

Kyle: No more than it impresses me that The Three Musketeers has so many historical characters in it, including King Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, Cardinal Richelieu and Monsieur de Treville.

G&T (p 271): But the New Testament can’t be just a historical novel.

Kyle: Why not?

G&T (p 271): For one thing, independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament.

Kyle: We debunked that assertion in the ninth chapter. The fact is that we have absolutely no non-Christian commentary about Jesus until 80 years after his death. We have absolutely no eyewitness testimony corroborating the New Testament.

G&T (p 271): Well, why would the New Testament writers endure persecution, torture and death for a fictitious story?

Kyle: Because the gospel stories were more than your average fiction. They were the legends that united congregations of Christians in fellowship. But this is the topic for the next chapter, isn’t it?

G&T (p 271): Yes. Let’s discuss this point later.

Kyle: Okay.

G&T (p 271): My third objection is that novelists usually don’t use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

Kyle: Neither does the New Testament. Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

G&T (p 270): The most prominent character is Jesus.

Kyle: But he isn't corroborated by non-Christian sources. How about the apostles?

G&T (p 270): None.

Kyle: Not even Peter or John?

G&T (p 270): No.

Kyle: What about Paul? Or Mary Magdalene?

G&T (p 270): No to both. But there was John the Baptist, Herod and Pilate.

Kyle: Are they main characters?

G&T: Maybe.

Kyle: It seems to me that your list is made up of peripheral characters. But it would be pointless to argue about what makes a main character. Let’s get back to your objection.

G&T (p 271-272): Yes. If the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

Kyle: Now, wait a minute. By the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead.

G&T: Can you prove that all of them were dead?

Kyle: No, but even if some were alive, what would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

G&T: How do you know that?

Kyle: EB, what do you say?

EB: [In] the early empire, the mystery cults, ranging from the Eleusinian mysteries of Greece to those of the Anatolian Cybele and the Persian Mithra,together with philosophically based religions such as Neoplatonism and Stoicism, had the greatest vitality. The patterns of religious belief were complex and of different levels, with various types of religion existing side by side. Into this situation Christianity was injected.... (“religion, study of: History of the study of religion”)
Kyle: Besides, did the New Testament writers mention the real people in a defamatory way?

G&T: Not particularly.

Kyle: Then why would they waste their precious time trying to correct rumors about them in a few little cults? Your objection doesn’t carry much weight, in my opinion. Do you have any other objections to the theory that the New Testament is an historical novel?

G&T (p 272): One more. The New Testament was written by nine authors spread all over the ancient world, over a 20- to 50-year period. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

Kyle: I agree.

G&T: You do? Chalk one up for Jesus!

Kyle: Not so fast, G&T. You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that the New Testament was either an historical novel or a true history.

G&T: Is there another alternative?

Kyle: Well, you do consider another by implication – that the New Testament is entirely fictitious – but you do an admirable job of debunking that suggestion.

G&T: Thank you.

Kyle: A novel is usually concocted from the imagination of one author. The gospels are different.

G&T: How?

Kyle: When Jesus died, his disciples did not simply give up their new religion. They continued to meet, and the teachings of Jesus developed into teachings about Jesus. The Christian doctrines developed according to the necessity of the times. Their stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That’s why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

G&T: That’s an interesting theory, but isn’t it just your opinion?

Kyle: Not at all. Let me play some more from the CD of Bart D. Ehrman’s lecture. Here he’s speaking about the four gospels:

Ehrman: These books, in fact, did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses. They are written about Jesus and his followers. They are anonymous. They’re written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. They’re written decades after the facts that they narrate.
Kyle: Let’s skip ahead a little:

Ehrman: These are books that are written not by eyewitnesses, and in a different language from Jesus. They’re written decades later, and are based largely on oral traditions of Jesus. Where did these authors get their stories from if they were not there to see these things happen? Well, after Jesus died, his followers told stories about him, in order to convert people, in order to educate those who were converted. In order to provide edification for people, stories of Jesus were told day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until these Gospel writers, who apparently were living in some other place – they’re writing in Greek, not Aramaic (the language of Palestine) – hear these stories and write them down.
Kyle: You may not accept this explanation, but at least it gives a viable alternative to the two theories you mention.

G&T: So where does that leave us? Were the New Testament writers eyewitnesses or not?

Kyle: I don’t deny that the authors of Luke and John knew something about the culture of first century Jerusalem. It seems likely that the author of Luke or one of his sources really did travel to the places described in Acts. So I guess you could say they were eyewitnesses to the historical setting of the New Testament stories. However, I have shown you examples of writers who used historical settings as the background for their non-historical stories. It seems reasonable to me that the New Testament is the same. You have failed to prove that the New Testament writers were eyewitnesses to the stories they tell.

G&T (p 271): What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead. They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories. They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen. They could have proven their case to the courts, the media of their time, or the non-Christian world in general. Instead, the first century world is silent, as if Jesus never existed at all. From all appearances, the New Testament writers were not the least bit worried about convincing future skeptics that their stories were true. The reasonable conclusion is that the stories were legendary. There were no eyewitnesses, because the miraculous stories about Jesus never happened in reality.

G&T (p 274): Well, maybe my next chapter will convince you.

Kyle: Give it your best shot.

[Carpedm9587]

I have written a response to Geisler & Turek's book. Chapter 10 is quoted below. You may see the rest of it at: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be a Christian (http://www.hotcom.net/users/shagbark/faithatheist.html).

By way of explanation, G&T (short for Geisler & Turek) is a talking book that shows up my doorstep. I have a conversation with the book about each of its chapters. Sometimes other books on my shelves join the conversation.

My material is copyrighted. Please ask permission before copying it.

Kyle Williams


CHAPTER 10
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?

G&T (p 251-253): Now let’s see if we can determine that the New Testament documents contain eyewitness testimony. First, I would like to point out that Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It’s one thing to claim that you’re an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it’s another thing to prove it.

G&T (p 255): You’re taking the words right out of my pages.

Kyle: Okay, but you ask a valid question: What evidence do we have that the New Testament writers were really eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitness testimony?

G&T (p 255-256): Much more than you might think. Let’s look at Luke. He wrote one of the gospels and the book of Acts. Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, but he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events. Luke includes more eyewitness details than the other New Testament writers. He displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events. Would you like me to list 84 details in Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research?

Kyle: No thank you. I’ll take your word for it. For the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

G&T (p 260): Good. Now, Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the book of Acts. All of these miracles are included in the same historical narrative that has been confirmed as authentic on 84 points. In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the miracles he records.

Kyle: What’s wrong with an anti-supernatural bias?

G&T (p 260): If God exists, we should expect him to perform miracles.

Kyle: But you have failed to prove that God exists. Therefore, I think a reasonable person should be skeptical about miracle claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Besides, I think I can get you to admit that your argument is weak. G&T, I’d like you to meet The Pearl of Great Price.

Pearl: Hi. I’m a miscellaneous selection from the revelations, translations and narrations of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church.

G&T: Oh my stars, Kyle, you can’t be serious.

Kyle: Just listen a minute. We’ll make a brief point, and then I’ll put Pearl back on the shelf. Go ahead, Pearl.

Pearl: I contain a section called “Joseph Smith – History,” in which Joseph Smith tells his own story. In this short section you’ll find 38 details – the same kind of details you find in Acts. These details can be verified as accurate:

1. People have militated against the Mormon church (verse 1).
2. The Mormon church was organized in 1830 (verse 2).
3. Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805 (verse 3).
4. There is a place called Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont (verse 3).
5. Joseph Smith was a son of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Lucy Mack Smith (verses 3-4).
6. Palmyra, was in Ontario County, New York, and later in Wayne County (verse 3).
7. There was a place called Manchester in the same county as Palmyra (verse 3).
8. The eleven members of the Smith family are correctly named (verse 4).
9. An unusual excitement on the subject of religion swept through Manchester (verse 5).
10. There were Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists in that district (verse 5).
11. Four members of the Smith family joined the Presbyterian faith in about 1820 (verse 7).
12. The three predominate sects argued against one another (verse 9).
13. Smith quoted the King James Version of the Bible, which was popular at the time (verse 11).
14. The different sects understood the same passages of scripture differently (verse 12).
15. There were woods near Manchester (verse 14).
16. Smith used the term “preacher” in connection with the Methodists (verse 21).
17. Smith frankly confesses to foolish errors and foibles of human nature (verse 28).
18. The crowing of a cock was common in Smith’s setting (verse 47).
19. There is a hill of considerable size convenient to Manchester (verse 51).
20. The Smith family’s worldly circumstances were very limited (verse 55).
21. Smith’s oldest brother, Alvin, died in 1823 (verse 56).
22. There was a Josiah Stoal in Chenango County, New York (verse 56).
23. Spaniards had opened a silver mine in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
24. Joseph Smith had dug for silver in Harmony, Susquehanna Co, Pennsylvania (verse 56).
25. Joseph Smith was known as a money-digger (verse 56).
26. Isaac Hale lived in Harmony, Pennsylvania (verse 57).
27. Joseph Smith married Emma Hale on January 18, 1827 (verse 57).
28. Squire Tarbill lived in South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York (verse 58).
29. Joseph Smith was unpopular (verse 61).
30. Smith moved to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 61).
31. Martin Harris lived in Palmyra Township, Wayne County New York (verse 61).
32. Professor Charles Anthon lived in New York City (verse 64).
33. Dr. Mitchell lived in New York City (verse 65).
34. Oliver Cowdery went to Joseph Smith’s house on April 5, 1829 (verse 66).
35. Oliver Cowdery had been teaching school in Manchester (verse 66).
36. There were woods in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (verse 68).
37. There was a publication called Messenger and Advocate in 1834 (footnote).
38. The phrase “professors of religion” was common in Smith’s day (verse 75).
G&T: For the sake of the argument, I’ll take your word for it that those particular details are historically correct.

Pearl: Good. Now, this history of Joseph Smith also contains visitations from God the Father, Jesus Christ, an angel named Moroni, and John the Baptist. Joseph Smith also claimed to translate golden plates by the miraculous working of peep stones called the Urim and Thummim. These visitations and miracles are included in the same writing that is confirmed as authentic on 38 points. In light of the fact that Joseph Smith has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-Mormon bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the visitations and miracles.

G&T (p 254): Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Mormon?

Kyle: No, but I do expect to persuade you that your argument is invalid.

G&T: Yes, I get the comparison. My argument is pretty weak, isn’t it. Or maybe it means that Mormonism is as true as Christianity.

Kyle: Oh, my. How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail. King Louis XI also figures in the novel, and he was a real person. So does that make you believe Quasimodo was a real person who did everything Hugo wrote about him?

G&T: Quasi- who?

Kyle: Quasimodo. You know. The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

G&T: Sounds like a football player to me.

Kyle: Very funny.

G&T: Seriously, I get your point.

Kyle: My point is that the setting of a narrative can be accurate while the story line is fictitious. Your 84 points fail to establish that Luke’s stories were true.

G&T (p 261): But what about Luke’s gospel? Luke writes, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). Isn’t that statement worthy of belief?

Kyle: Not necessarily. Look at the Author’s Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe:

The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it....
G&T: But Robinson Crusoe is fictitious, isn’t it?

Kyle: Exactly. And the Preface to The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas says, “... the heroes of this history which we are about to have the honor of relating to our readers have nothing mythological about them.” The Preface goes on to describe the search for evidence and the discovery of a manuscript described as historical. The manuscript turns out to be the novel itself. Do you believe The Three Musketeers is historically true?

G&T: No.

Kyle: You're right. My copy has an introduction in which J. Walker McSpadden writes:

But the reader will become interested in each period as he reaches it through the medium of the particular story; and having finished the story, he will be sorely tempted to study history and find out for himself how much is fact and how much fiction. He will be astonished to find how closely Dumas hedges upon real characters and real occurrences; how ingeniously the imaginary occurrences are made to explain the genuine ones; and how vitally the novelist has interested him in names which before greeted his eye meaninglessly upon musty records.
G&T: Are you comparing the New Testament to The Three Musketeers? Is the New Testament a mixture of fact and fiction?

Kyle: I think it is. At least I have demonstrated that a veneer of historicity is possible, and a veneer does not make a narrative historical. Writers often use real settings – real places, real people and historical events – as a backdrop to their fictitious stories.

G&T (p 262): I thought my logic was inescapable.

Kyle: Well, let’s check your logic by reducing your argument to a syllogism:

1. Luke told the truth about his journeys.
2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.
3. Therefore, Luke told the truth about miracles.
G&T ( 255-262): Yes, that’s what this part of my tenth chapter boils down to.

Kyle: I accept the first premise. Luke gave an accurate travelogue. The background to his narrative is historical.

G&T: But you don’t agree with the second premise.

Kyle: Right, I don’t. Joseph Smith is an example of a person who told the truth about his journeys through Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. Yet his visions, revelations and other miracles are unbelievable.

G&T (p 262): So, since I failed to establish the historicity of Luke’s story, I can’t establish the historicity of Mark and Matthew by pointing out that they tell the same story?

Kyle: Right. That would be an invalid argument.

G&T (p 263-268): And it wouldn’t do any good to argue the historicity of John with similar evidence?

Kyle: Right.

G&T (p 269-271): Doesn’t it impress you at all that there are at least thirty characters in the New Testament who have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources?

Kyle: No more than it impresses me that The Three Musketeers has so many historical characters in it, including King Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, Cardinal Richelieu and Monsieur de Treville.

G&T (p 271): But the New Testament can’t be just a historical novel.

Kyle: Why not?

G&T (p 271): For one thing, independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament.

Kyle: We debunked that assertion in the ninth chapter. The fact is that we have absolutely no non-Christian commentary about Jesus until 80 years after his death. We have absolutely no eyewitness testimony corroborating the New Testament.

G&T (p 271): Well, why would the New Testament writers endure persecution, torture and death for a fictitious story?

Kyle: Because the gospel stories were more than your average fiction. They were the legends that united congregations of Christians in fellowship. But this is the topic for the next chapter, isn’t it?

G&T (p 271): Yes. Let’s discuss this point later.

Kyle: Okay.

G&T (p 271): My third objection is that novelists usually don’t use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

Kyle: Neither does the New Testament. Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

G&T (p 270): The most prominent character is Jesus.

Kyle: But he isn't corroborated by non-Christian sources. How about the apostles?

G&T (p 270): None.

Kyle: Not even Peter or John?

G&T (p 270): No.

Kyle: What about Paul? Or Mary Magdalene?

G&T (p 270): No to both. But there was John the Baptist, Herod and Pilate.

Kyle: Are they main characters?

G&T: Maybe.

Kyle: It seems to me that your list is made up of peripheral characters. But it would be pointless to argue about what makes a main character. Let’s get back to your objection.

G&T (p 271-272): Yes. If the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

Kyle: Now, wait a minute. By the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead.

G&T: Can you prove that all of them were dead?

Kyle: No, but even if some were alive, what would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

G&T: How do you know that?

Kyle: EB, what do you say?

EB: [In] the early empire, the mystery cults, ranging from the Eleusinian mysteries of Greece to those of the Anatolian Cybele and the Persian Mithra,together with philosophically based religions such as Neoplatonism and Stoicism, had the greatest vitality. The patterns of religious belief were complex and of different levels, with various types of religion existing side by side. Into this situation Christianity was injected.... (“religion, study of: History of the study of religion”)
Kyle: Besides, did the New Testament writers mention the real people in a defamatory way?

G&T: Not particularly.

Kyle: Then why would they waste their precious time trying to correct rumors about them in a few little cults? Your objection doesn’t carry much weight, in my opinion. Do you have any other objections to the theory that the New Testament is an historical novel?

G&T (p 272): One more. The New Testament was written by nine authors spread all over the ancient world, over a 20- to 50-year period. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

Kyle: I agree.

G&T: You do? Chalk one up for Jesus!

Kyle: Not so fast, G&T. You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that the New Testament was either an historical novel or a true history.

G&T: Is there another alternative?

Kyle: Well, you do consider another by implication – that the New Testament is entirely fictitious – but you do an admirable job of debunking that suggestion.

G&T: Thank you.

Kyle: A novel is usually concocted from the imagination of one author. The gospels are different.

G&T: How?

Kyle: When Jesus died, his disciples did not simply give up their new religion. They continued to meet, and the teachings of Jesus developed into teachings about Jesus. The Christian doctrines developed according to the necessity of the times. Their stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That’s why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

G&T: That’s an interesting theory, but isn’t it just your opinion?

Kyle: Not at all. Let me play some more from the CD of Bart D. Ehrman’s lecture. Here he’s speaking about the four gospels:

Ehrman: These books, in fact, did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses. They are written about Jesus and his followers. They are anonymous. They’re written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. They’re written decades after the facts that they narrate.
Kyle: Let’s skip ahead a little:

Ehrman: These are books that are written not by eyewitnesses, and in a different language from Jesus. They’re written decades later, and are based largely on oral traditions of Jesus. Where did these authors get their stories from if they were not there to see these things happen? Well, after Jesus died, his followers told stories about him, in order to convert people, in order to educate those who were converted. In order to provide edification for people, stories of Jesus were told day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until these Gospel writers, who apparently were living in some other place – they’re writing in Greek, not Aramaic (the language of Palestine) – hear these stories and write them down.
Kyle: You may not accept this explanation, but at least it gives a viable alternative to the two theories you mention.

G&T: So where does that leave us? Were the New Testament writers eyewitnesses or not?

Kyle: I don’t deny that the authors of Luke and John knew something about the culture of first century Jerusalem. It seems likely that the author of Luke or one of his sources really did travel to the places described in Acts. So I guess you could say they were eyewitnesses to the historical setting of the New Testament stories. However, I have shown you examples of writers who used historical settings as the background for their non-historical stories. It seems reasonable to me that the New Testament is the same. You have failed to prove that the New Testament writers were eyewitnesses to the stories they tell.

G&T (p 271): What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead. They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories. They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen. They could have proven their case to the courts, the media of their time, or the non-Christian world in general. Instead, the first century world is silent, as if Jesus never existed at all. From all appearances, the New Testament writers were not the least bit worried about convincing future skeptics that their stories were true. The reasonable conclusion is that the stories were legendary. There were no eyewitnesses, because the miraculous stories about Jesus never happened in reality.

G&T (p 274): Well, maybe my next chapter will convince you.

Kyle: Give it your best shot.
This is an AWESOME post. I loved the back and forth discussion it demonstrates, and it raises many of the same objections I have. There are so many LEAPs made to substantiate the scriptural claims, I think sometimes folks forget why it is called "faith."

[skepticbud]

April 10th 2005 , 08:10 PM #1
FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek

Chapter 10
Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. SIMON PETER

If you accept the plain reading of the text, the New Testament certainly contains eyewitness testimony. Notice how many times various apostles claim to be eyewitnesses:
=============

As far as I can tell, the only reason a person has for making a public DENIAL of something, is if what they are denying has gained sufficient momentum, that the denier feels his audience would benefit from such denial.

For example, Peter doesn't say "we didn't recieve our message from Caesar", because nobody ever said Caesar was the inspiration behind the Christian preaching.

So it only makes sense to conclude that Peter felt compelled to tell his originally intended readers (assuming for argument's sake that he, Peter, really wrote this) that the Christian message was not a cleverly invented tale precisely because there WAS a belief at the time among non-Christians that those who follow Jesus were just following fables.

What that means is that Peter's denial statement here establishes that there existed non-Christian belief, just as early as Christians wish to date these epistles, that Christians were merely following cleverly invented stories instead of real historical persons and events.

Do the Christians here agree with me so far that the belief among non-Christians that Christians were following mere fables was so prominent by the time Peter wrote, that he felt compelled to assure his originally intended readers that it was in fact not the case?

Let's think about that for a second...

Peter was writing to a specifically Christian audience. If it was as perfectly obvious back in that day that Jesus rose from the dead, as some modern-day apologists insist it was, HOW could he have then felt compelled to address a problem which, by the apologist's reasoning, was NOT a problem that deserved to be addressed?

Therefore it seems very reasonable to assume that Peter's denial statement was made for the same reason that most anybody chooses to make a denial statement: because in both cases....the opposing view was gaining foothold sufficiently fast that it needed to at least be addressed. Or, to put in another way....Peter felt compelled to take issue with a belief among non-Christians, that Christianity is just fables.

Peter wished to take issue with something that didn't exist?

Peter wished to take issue with something that today's apologists say amounted to no sort of appreciable threat whatsoever?

Hmm....if that be the case, then you agree that Peter must have thought his originally intended readers were excessively gullible, that he needed to address something that any half-brain "should have known" was a false accusation against Christians?

Nah, you don't think those Christians were stupid, right? So Peter must have had a really good reason to say that, eh?

And what can be extracted from that deduction is that the belief that Christians merely followed cleverly invented stories goes all the way back to the first eyewitness and is NOT a later development. (so here's your chance to late-date Peter's epistles and slip out of this one!)

I'd like to see how the Christians here explain why Peter felt motivated to address and refute an accusation leveled at them by their contemporaries, if the modern apologist claim be true, that thisnon-Christian position was so intellectually and evidentially bankrupt that it never deserved to be dignified with a response?

Did Peter really think his originally intended readers were that slow or stupid? Or, perhaps could it be that the belief that Christians merely followed fables not quite as utterly without merit as modern apologists proclaim?

[jpholding]

I have written a response to Geisler & Turek's book. Chapter 10 is quoted below.

I found your work so poor that when someone asked me to respond to it, I turned it over to someone else. You can read the whole thing at http://www.tektonics.org/af/faithatheist.html

CHAPTER 10
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?

Sheila: Now we'll see if we can determine that the NT documents contain eyewitness testimony. Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It’s one thing to claim that you’re an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it’s another thing to prove it.

Sheila: So, what's your epistemic test to determine this for a writer?

Kyle: Huh?

Sheila: In other words, you don't have one. Usually confirmation of details is a sign used by historians, and you were told how accurate Acts was...

Kyle: I guess I don't have a test. So I guess for the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

Sheila: Good. Now since Luke has proven accurate with so many details, why is is not anything but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the miracles he records?

Kyle: Well, you have failed to prove that God exists.

Sheila: No, you postulated some rather lame arguments against the arguments that God exists.

Kyle:Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Sheila: Come on, Kyle. Hume tried that silly argument years ago and he was made a fool of with the "ice analogy". That kind of logic means that a tropical prince could never believe in ice. Besides, who are you decide what is "extraordinary" and in what way? If God exists, then a miracle is not "extraordinary" to do. If you mean "extraordinary" in terms of how often it is done, then you create a contrived means of judgment that doesn't jibe with real life. How often do you see a total eclipse? Or have you seen the Earth's core? Obviously mere experience doesn't mean dip.

Kyle: Uhhhhh....Sheila, I’d like you to meet The Pearl of Great Price.

Sheila: We've met, thanks.

Kyle: Huh?

Sheila: I know what kind of silliness you're trying to pull, Kyle. I know the Pearl has many accurate points of history. But I don't reject what it says about Joseph Smith having visions and such because of a supernatural bias. I reject it because, for example, New World archaeology doesn't help one bit to verify Smith's claims. Also because, Mormon claims about the meaning of the Old and New Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence. So, sorry, Geisler and Turek didn't make a weak argument; you just didn't do your homework.

Kyle: Uhhhh....How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail...

Sheila: Kyle, that's another silly argument. Have you forgotten what you said about genre? Did Hugo market his book as non-fiction?

Kyle: Uhhhhhhhhh....I guess not.

Sheila: Whereas, Luke "marketed" his work as a biography of Jesus. Therefore your comparison is false.

Kyle: Uhhhhh, ummm, well, look at the Author’s Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe...

Sheila: Which was marketed as what, now?

Kyle: Uhhhhhhhh....

Sheila: Kyle, I don't care how many examples like this you bring up. For one thing, you're ignoring your own objection about genre and intent. For another, historians always have and always will use confirmation of details as a reason to trust a work. You're trying to pretend to know better than historians how these things work. It puts the burden on you to explain why a work should not be trusted. Now can you do that or not where the New Testament is concerned?

Kyle: Uhhhhhhhh....I need some more water.

Sheila: I'll have more of that odd, orange juice, too. Was there anything else?

Kyle: Yeah! Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

Sheila: Like who do you mean?

Kyle:Peter or John, maybe. Or Paul, or Mary Magdalene.

Sheila: What's your point here again, Kyle? You're demanding confirmation by archaeology for average, everyday people. Are you going to tell me that you need "archaeological confirmation" for someone before they could have existed?

Kyle: Uh, well....I dunno. My point is more that you can't argue that these people were real when you want to argue that people don't make up main characters.

Sheila: Do you apply this demand to all historical documents?

Kyle: Uh, let's skip to the next point. Geisler and Turke said that if the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them. I said that by the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead. So what do you say to that?

Sheila: I'd say that's not likely the case for all of them, but you also don't seem to know that the families of those named would also be interested in such things. Very much so -- it would be a matter of family honor and reputation. For example, the family of Nicodemus would have had something to say if the story about him in John were made up.

Kyle: Aw, come on now! What would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

Sheila: I can see you know little about what would motivate ancient people. There are a large number of factors that would motivate them to disprove Christian claims -- and they wouldn't apply to cults like Mithraism and Neoplatonism, which were socially acceptable whereas Christianity was not. Do you even understand what the difference is between our world and an honor and shame society?

Kyle:Uhhhhhh....ummm. Do you have any other objections to the theory that the New Testament is an historical novel?

Sheila: Well, you did agree that, "The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers."

Kyle: Yeah, but I also said, "When Jesus died, his disciples did not simply give up their new religion. They continued to meet, and the teachings of Jesus developed into teachings about Jesus. The Christian doctrines developed according to the necessity of the times."

Sheila: That's very easy to say, but do you mind proving it for one of these doctrines? It doesn't make a lot of sense, you see. For example, crucifixion was a shameful death that would never have been "developed" for the "necessity of the times." If anything it would the the first thing dropped.

Kyle: Huh?

Sheila: You can read about it from the link just above. What else do you have to say?

Kyle: Uhhhh...that "their stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That’s why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

Sheila: That’s an interesting theory, but you're just following Ehrman uncritically. He doesn't give any reason to say that the Gospels "did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses," he just says so. He does not explain why we should think they were anonymous; that was an issue you refused to discuss, and he doesn't even compare their attestion to other ancient documents. I don't know why he thinks their being written in Greek was an issue; many ancient people were bilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire. He also doesn't explain why he dates them late, and you even granted for the sake of argument that they were written early. So do you want to defend those points now?

Kyle (shaking): Uh UHHHHHHH!!!

Sheila: I didn't think so. Ehrman's tales of stories just being made up is so lacking in evidence that there's really not much to say. I could contrive the same sort of pretty story for anything -- even a history of Abraham Lincoln. For someone who claims to value reason and evidence, you sure didn't demand much from Ehrman.

Kyle: Yeah, but -- ! I said, "Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead."

Sheila: Why? You're just begging the question of what is "reasonable". They would find it unreasonable of you to act so spoiled and demand so much special service.

Kyle: Yeah, well -- "They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories."

Sheila: Kyle, don't be so spoiled and provincial. The way they told their stories was normal for their period. Just look at the series of items in the link above.

Kyle (hollering, stamping feet): " They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen."

Sheila: Well, there you go again, demanding extra evidence above what is needed, and for what? To suit yourself. Not because of any objective standards of epistemology. And you still need to learn what "hearsay" is and explain why it is a problem. As it is, sicne you accept junk like Remsberg's list without question, I'm not so sure you really care about reason and evidence.

Kyle : (gets up, walks down hall, slams door to bedroom)




EPILOGUE

Kyle looked pensive. After a long silence, he spoke: “I have given lip service to reason.”

“But you have betrayed it,” I said.

After another long silence, Kyle looked at the carrot juice on the coffee table, and said, “I can't start over from scratch. It's too much work.”

I responded, “You’re right. It is work. Jesus didn't say, 'Blessed are the couch potatoes.'”

After another long pause, Kyle picked up the carrot juice. He swirled it around in the glass, then turned it belly up and drank it all.

Finally, Kyle broke the silence. “You're a cartoon character. Bring me a giant mallet,” he whispered.

I produced a giant mallet as I had seen thousands of characters like Wile E. Coyote do countless times. He held it solemnly, touched it to his own head, and reared back to bonk himself. I diverted my eyes. I heard a BONK and the sound of little birds tweeting. A few minutes passed. I looked again. Kyle was flat on the floor.

I opened the door and prepared to leave. “Goodbye, Kyle,” I said. “You'll have to do a heck of a lot better than that if you want to defeat Christianity. Too bad you can't burn your own website.”

[jpholding]

As far as I can tell, the only reason a person has for making a public DENIAL of something, is if what they are denying has gained sufficient momentum, that the denier feels his audience would benefit from such denial.

That's because you, Bud, are too ignorant to understand how ancient people communicated.

An oath like Peter's was what would be expected of an HONORABLE person of his day if they were telling the TRUTH.

So your silly experiment in mirror-reading is nothing but a product of your own delusional miseducation....even if it did make logical sense as it is...which it does not.

If you want your can kicked a little more by me, just keep showing up as usual. Two debates and two walkouts before completion by you so far, isn't it?

[Gojiberry]

This is an AWESOME post. I loved the back and forth discussion it demonstrates, and it raises many of the same objections I have. There are so many LEAPs made to substantiate the scriptural claims, I think sometimes folks forget why it is called "faith."

:sigh: If those are the same objections you have sir, then it's time to accept Messiah.

[skepticbud]

That's because you, Bud, are too ignorant to understand how ancient people communicated.

yeah, how stupid of me, I should have realized that there were no 1st century accusations that Christians followed clever tales instead of truth, eh? :ahem:

An oath like Peter's was what would be expected of an HONORABLE person of his day if they were telling the TRUTH.

Irrelevant, because this doesn't exclude my interpretation. If Peter was doing something honorable, that doesn't automatically require that there was nothing more to it. I made specific arguments to support my interpretation, you have not refuted that.

So your silly experiment in mirror-reading is nothing but a product of your own delusional miseducation

I actually still have hope for you, believe it or not.


....even if it did make logical sense as it is...which it does not.

Aren't you supposed to provide argument to support your view against mine? Oh I forgot, Holding has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be dumb.

If you want your can kicked a little more by me, just keep showing up as usual. Two debates and two walkouts before completion by you so far, isn't it?

Yes. I actually ran out of things to say in our debate about Hume because you keep relying on your past uniform experience while writing in the debate that you weren't doing that, and I just got tired of reminding you to stop being so hypocritical.

By the way, is your cocky confident attitude toward me merely based on this single latest post of mine? Or are you relying on your uniform past experience of me to justify your over-the-top confidence?

Let me give you a clue...."so far...."

Wow, uniform past experience is a wonderful thing, you use it quite regularly in your day-to-day thinking, right?

Make that every OTHER day :lol:

[jpholding]

yeah, how stupid of me, I should have realized that there were no 1st century accusations that Christians followed clever tales instead of truth, eh? :ahem:

Yeah, how stupid of you for not knowing what form a response to that sort of thing would take, dum dum. :duh:


Irrelevant, because this doesn't exclude my interpretation.

No, it just makes it a wild fantasy created by your own desperate presuppositions aside from any presented evidence. :thumb: IOW your usual spin job resulting in dizziness and vomiting.

I made specific arguments to support my interpretation, you have not refuted that.

Yeah, I did. The genre issue kills your argument 100%. Now it's time to provide evidence for malfeasance rather than spinning tales as you usually do.

I actually still have hope for you, believe it or not.

Plenty of delusions about me too, it seems,


Aren't you supposed to provide argument to support your view against mine?

Like what? If you mean re the use of denials like Peter's and Paul's in an agonistic setting, it comes from Witherington's commentary on Galatians primarily. Of course we know that you're much smarter than either of them. :ahem:


Yes. I actually ran out of things to say in our debate about Hume because you keep relying on your past uniform experience while writing in the debate that you weren't doing that, and I just got tired of reminding you to stop being so hypocritical.

Basically, you realized that Hume was a dead duck and that you could only defend him by making him say what he didn't.

By the way, is your cocky confident attitude toward me merely based on this single latest post of mine?

Yeah. I take posts one at a time, as it happens. If you ever show brilliance I'll gladly say so but right now you need a good soak in some vinegar for about 500 years.



Let me give you a clue...."so far...."

Your brain's distance from being connected?

Wow, uniform past experience is a wonderful thing, you use it quite regularly in your day-to-day thinking, right?

I made no such appeal. I was shaming you publicly for your performance, dum dum. :rasberry:

Y'know, Bud, stupid people like you are dull.

How do you like my new avatars? I draw 'em myself. On the other hand, you really need to do away with the one you have now. We don't need to see what you look like before your coffee and Listerine.

[Babaloo]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

by Frank Turek

Chapter 10

Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?

Hi Trout,

Ed Babinski here. I ran across your review at tweb of Not Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. I'm not an atheist (but I was a born again Christian and edited Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists).

I noticed you wrote something to the effect that the number of fish caught in a miracle only found in the last written Gospel ("Gospel of John") helped demonstrate the historical accuracy of that Gospel, since it was a specific number. However "153" was held to be a sacred number by Hellenistic mathematicians long before Jesus was even born. Just google: 153 Jesus Pythagoras, and read the articles on the web, like this one that states:


Because the author of John’s gospel has chosen to give the exact number of fish, 153, which is irrelevant to the rest of the story, scholars trace the source of the story to a section from the Life of Pythagoras. Those of you who have studied geometry and algebra may remember that Pythagoras was a Greek mathematician who lived between five and six hundred years earlier than Jesus, from 580 to 500 BCE.

One hundred fifty-three "happens" to be what the Pythagoreans called a "triangular number." Try it yourself, and you’ll find that 153 is the sum of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17.

But that’s not all that makes the number special. 153 is also what you get if you add 1+(1x2x3)+(1x2x3x4)+(1x2x3x4x5). And finally, if you add together the cubes of the three digits in 153, you get 153. Try it!

The section of the Life of Pythagoras that informs the gospel story goes like this:

Pythagoras was going from Sybaris to Krotona. At the shore, he stood with men fishing with nets; they were still hauling the nets weighed down with fish from the depths. He said he knew the number of fish they had hauled in: 153. The men agreed to do what he ordered if the number of fish was as he said. He ordered the fish to be set free, alive, after they were counted accurately to total 153. What is more astonishing, in the time they were out of the water being counted, none of the fish died while he stood there. He paid them the price of the fish and went to Krotona. They announced the deed everywhere, having learned his name from some children.

In the story of Pythagoras, declaring the correct number was the miracle. The whole thing was done for the sake of freeing the fish since Pythagoreans were strict vegetarians. Christians were not vegetarians, so the miracle shifted from freeing the fish to Jesus’ providing the catch.


Other questions that raise a red flag concerning the historicity of the Gospel of John can be found here (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/gospel_john.html) and here (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.html).

Also, Check out Bart Ehrman's college textbook on the New Testament that addresses questions pro and con concerning how much we know or don't know about the authors of each Gospel. Even the writings attributed to Luke could be based on some other person's usage of some Lukan material rather than directly by Luke. And early Christian letters in the N.T. like those attributed to Peter and Jude and Paul's later letters are also dubiously attributed to them. As are the letters and Christian writings that soon followed the N.T. like 1st and 2nd Clement and the Didache with its unknown author.

In all, such questions are not easily answered. Church tradition gives varying answers. Most scholars in fact do not believe that any of the Gospels were written by people who were eyewitnesses themselves of any of the stories told within them.

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . . .

‘Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

‘Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

‘Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

‘John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’"

--cited by Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506


There is also a new series on the web that you can sign up for that is beginning an examination of the Gospel of Mark and the other Gospels. See here (http://u.about.com/#)and scroll down to Religion.

Also, over 90% of Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke, all written in Greek, including incidental Greek connecting phrases from Mark that show up in Matthew and Luke. So since Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek, there was most likely a literary borrowing going on from one early Greek Gospel to the latter two, and so we are not dealing with different eyewitness testimonials, just the same written story of one earlier Gospel that was copped and edited differently and added to by two later Gospel writers, "redacted." Look up "Markan Priority" on the internet. Or see here (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mark.html) and here (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/babinski-jordan/2.html).

Nearly the only things that Matthew and Luke did not repeat from Mark are the nativity and resurrection stories about Jesus, both of which Mark lacked, and as expected, those are the two parts of Matthew and Luke that differ most from each another, probably because neither Matthew nor Luke could follow Mark's lead in those places--since Mark begins with Jesus's baptism, not his birth, and Mark ends before anyone gets to see the resurrected Jesus.

Cheers,
Ed

[jpholding]

Excuse me, Edski, I was just rousting around looking for silly comments to address, and I found yours:

Because the author of John’s gospel has chosen to give the exact number of fish, 153, which is irrelevant to the rest of the story, scholars trace the source of the story to a section from the Life of Pythagoras. Those of you who have studied geometry and algebra may remember that Pythagoras was a Greek mathematician who lived between five and six hundred years earlier than Jesus, from 580 to 500 BCE.

Gee, Edski -- WHICH "Life of Pythagoras"?

The one by Iamblichus of Chalcis, who lived 250-325 AD -- LONG AFTER John was written, even as late as you'd like to date it?

Or the one by Porphyry, who lived 234–305 A.D -- also LONG AFTER John was written?

Or some other Life of Pythagoras you keep in your mango tree that you swing from every day in the backyard?

Informs the gospel story, my kiester. You just showed once again what a gullible stooge you are for anything that confirms your view of the world. And when you're done, try explaining why the heck a Palestinian fisherman would give a flying carp about Pythagorean mathematics, and show me that Pythy had an interest in 153 before the first century.

UH OH! Look at this!


Hey........i am 10 years old and have an IQ of 153.

The kid musta been reading Iambichus! :hehe:

Funny too how this cite:


Pythagoras was going from Sybaris to Krotona. At the shore, he stood with men fishing with nets; they were still hauling the nets weighed down with fish

Appears ONLY on that one page. So how's about you put down that book stamp and give us a reputable bibliographic citation, huh? Maybe your boss will let you use OCLC.




Also, Check out Bart Ehrman's college textbook on the New Testament

I trust Chicken Little Bart, all right. :hehe:


In all, such questions are not easily answered.

Certainly not by the likes of you who won't do any serious homework and has to resort to answers like, "Well so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees with you" when you're cornered and can't answer actual arguments! I kicked the likes of you to the curb on Gospel authorship and Q/Marcan priority, and what do you do? You go hide on someone else's blog and talk behind my back about me. Typical.

[Babaloo]

Excuse me, Edski, I was just rousting around looking for silly comments to address, and I found yours:

Gee, Edski -- WHICH "Life of Pythagoras"?

The one by Iamblichus of Chalcis, who lived 250-325 AD -- LONG AFTER John was written, even as late as you'd like to date it?

Or the one by Porphyry, who lived 234–305 A.D -- also LONG AFTER John was written?

Or some other Life of Pythagoras you keep in your mango tree that you swing from every day in the backyard?

Informs the gospel story, my kiester. You just showed once again what a gullible stooge you are for anything that confirms your view of the world. And when you're done, try explaining why the heck a Palestinian fisherman would give a flying carp about Pythagorean mathematics, and show me that Pythy had an interest in 153 before the first century.

UH OH! Look at this!


The kid musta been reading Iambichus! :hehe:

Funny too how this cite:

Appears ONLY on that one page. So how's about you put down that book stamp and give us a reputable bibliographic citation, huh? Maybe your boss will let you use OCLC.

I trust Chicken Little Bart, all right. :hehe:

Certainly not by the likes of you who won't do any serious homework and has to resort to answers like, "Well so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees with you" when you're cornered and can't answer actual arguments! I kicked the likes of you to the curb on Gospel authorship and Q/Marcan priority, and what do you do? You go hide on someone else's blog and talk behind my back about me. Typical.



Hi J.P. Scoldy , :teeth:
Please see the Wikipedia article,
Catch of 153 fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish)

And if the information it supplies is correct (which in historic terms means we may not know for certain), then Plato (circa 300+ B.C.) may have been the first one to tell the story about Pythag. catching those fish.


Also, if Wiki's correct, "in the time of Pythagoras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras) [pre-Jesus] 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction) known, at the time, to the true value of the square root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root) of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). This number frequently cropped up in geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry), most notably in a simple shape known as the vesica piscis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis), Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) for the body of the fish (because the shape looks like the body of a stereotyped fish), and the ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio) of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the hellenic world as the measure of the fish." So the "measure of the fish" appears to have preceded the appearance of the Gospels. Or Wiki could be wrong. Let me know what you find out.


Wiki adds that, "The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars, with some suggesting that the number of fish in the New Testament episode was possibly a familiar large number to the writer, or even a deliberate reference to the geometric nomenclature and "measure of the fish" that was known at that time. It is significant that as I said above, a story was told of Pythagoras, and later reported by Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato), that is very similar, even in some wording, to the Biblical story told in the appendix to the fourth Gospel."


As to when the Gospel tale of catching the 153 fish was written, that tale appears in the Gospel of John, the last written of all the canonical Gospels, and neither does it appear in the body of that work but in the final chapter, a seeming appendix to that Gospel, chapter 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_21), a chapter that follows chapter 20 which had its own perfectly fine ending verses that you can read quite clearly for yourself:


"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

Sounds like an ending to me.


But then AFTER the above ending, chapter 21 picks up with the words, After these things...[see the Wiki article for the Greek] and nonchalantly recounts another appearance of Jesus, as if the concluding sentences at the end of the prior chapter weren't even there--as if the text was flowing "...and they all lived happily ever after. The end. Anyway, back in Galilee they...". Therefore, most scholars of textual criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism) hold that John 21 is a later addition to the work, normally called the Appendix to the Gospel by scholars.


As to the exact age of the appendix to the Gospel of John, I don't know, but I find some of the things it says funny if that is the way an inspired work is to end, indeed the inspired capstone ending of the entire Gospel section in the Bible. I won't go into the "I want him to remain until I come" idea found in the appendix. But I would like to mention a bit about the second ending found in John, chapter 21, which goes:


"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."


This second ending repeats the "many other signs, not written in this book" idea of the first ending in chapter 20. But what's funny is what it says, once you think about it.

The “world” could not contain the books? The author of the Fourth Gospel was not displaying much prophetic ability when he wrote that line, I guess he wasn’t inspired enough to foresee that we can now store whole libraries in a single suped-up laptop computer.


Moreover, the books we do have that tell of “things Jesus did,” consist of only four slim “Gospels,” not one of them over forty pages in length. Two of them, Matthew and Luke, even repeat over 90% of what appears in Mark. So the four Gospels minus the overlapping portions would be even slimmer. Not a lot of "books" about what Jesus did I'm afraid. To reiterate the silly last sentence in the fourth Gospel:


"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."


Is there a less convincing way for an allegedly “inspired” book to end than with the faltering phrase, “I suppose?”


“I suppose” such a last verse made sense to believers back then, who were being regaled and entertained by ever new and fabulous tales of Jesus’s infancy, youth and adulthood churned out by their fellows and incorporated into additional “Gospels” many of which we only know the titles of today. But ending an inspired book with such a silly exaggeration, followed by the faltering words, “I suppose,” does not make much of an impression, not even strictly literarily speaking.


But hey, J.P.Scoldy, if you want to believe in the existence of inerrant original Biblical manuscripts (conveniently lost) , go right ahead. And by the way for all of your faults, at least neither of us today are end times mania Christians, thinking we could blast off at any moment into the sky like a rocket.


Big hug to my favorite female bunny impersonator.

[jpholding]

Oh yeah, he's back at it again....


Please see the Wikipedia article,

Wikipedia? Do you ever plan to get out of third grade, Edski?

I accept nothing from Wikipedia. Present it in terms of an original source and then we'll talk about it. Not before. Wikipedia has no editing controls worth their salt so that, for example, the article on Mithraism is full of nonsense

153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest known, at the time, to the true value of the

Now that's just plain stupid, Edski. What purpose would that serve for John, to connect the number of fish caught to some obscure mathematical happenstance?

Have you ever thought of thinking for yourself rather than letting Bob Price do your thinking for you?

Hey, you know what? Maybe you're right! Check this out:

http://archive.wn.com/2004/08/16/1400/p/5e/eb144f3dbee32f.html

Ooo! Ooo! Obviously the terrorists who killed these people were trying to get across some secret message about Pythagoras! Ya think so?

http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsarchive.php?newsid=956

Dang! The people who made that diet pill must be members of some secret order of Pythagoreans...

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2006/06/

DAGNAB! Look at the June 6 entry. Must be a Pythagorean conspiracy in Congress.

Edski, you're such a maroon sometimes, it's PITIFUL. :hehe:

chapter 21], a chapter that follows chapter 20 which had its own perfectly fine ending verses that you can read quite clearly for yourself:

I have no issue with it being an appendix added by John himself. Even as dumb as you are, you know about books having prefaces written by their authors in later editions, right??


As to the exact age of the appendix to the Gospel of John, I don't know, but I find some of the things it says funny if that is the way an inspired work is to end,

Based on what? Your fundy understanding of what "inspiration" constitutes? No thank....we're grown up past that sort of childish thinking here...inspiration doesn't bar later editions.


The “world” could not contain the books? The author of the Fourth Gospel was not displaying much prophetic ability when he wrote that line, I guess he wasn’t inspired enough to foresee that we can now store whole libraries in a single suped-up laptop computer.

Good night, you are fundamentalist-stupid. As if those words were meant to be read beyond the context of the first century to begin with, and as if they were even meant as some sort of page-tally count in the first place.

Ever hear of "dramatic orientation," there, Edski? You might want to learn about how some of these backwards cultures you look down your nose at express themselves.


Is there a less convincing way for an allegedly “inspired” book to end than with the faltering phrase, “I suppose?”

Only if your mind is so rotted by fundy literalism that you can't read it any other way....I suppose. :doh:




Big hug to my favorite female bunny impersonator.

That's fine. Flemming deserved that sort of response. Sheila is over 6 feet tall and five times stronger than the average human, so we'll send her over to knock some sense into you, eh? :hehe: Time Turkey is sure gonna take care of you in Atheist Survivor, though, so maybe we won't have to send Sheila....

Big kick in the butt to my favorite fundy atheist who lives in a library basement and never backs up his research when challenged. Thankfully I know one person who fits that description.

[Kyle Williams]

Not long ago, I got an email asking why I had not responded to Sheila's critique. I had not responded because I didn't know who Sheila was, and because she had resorted to belittling me. When an opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks, I take it as an admission that she has nothing of value to say. I thought it was obvious to every discerning reader that I had the better arguments. Then someone told me that Sheila was a mask behind which J.P. Holding was hiding. I won't charge Holding with cowardice, but I would like to know why he/she used an alias.

At any rate, here is my belated response:

Sheila: Now we'll see if we can determine that the NT documents contain eyewitness testimony. Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It's one thing to claim that you're an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it's another thing to prove it.

Sheila: So, what's your epistemic test to determine this for a writer?

Kyle: I don't know what you mean by epistemic, but such assertions must be tested on a case-by-case basis.

Sheila: Usually confirmation of details is a sign used by historians, and you were told how accurate Acts was...

Kyle: For the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

Sheila: Good. Now since Luke has proven accurate with so many details, why is it not anything but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records?

Kyle: What's wrong with an anti-supernatural bias?

Sheila: If God exists, we should expect him to perform miracles.

Kyle: Well, you have failed to prove that God exists.

Sheila: No, you postulated some rather lame arguments against the arguments that God exists.

Kyle: I disagree. Your arguments for the existence of God are based on logical fallacies. Shall we go back and discuss this some more?

Sheila: Maybe later. But why don't you take the gospel writers' word for it?
Kyle: When a person reads about miracles, he reasonably presumes that he's reading fiction. If a writer wants to overcome that reasonable presumption, he has the burden of proof. The more extraordinary the assertion, the stronger the proof required to establish it as fact. The gospel writers failed to provide sufficient evidence that their miracles are anything but fiction.

Sheila: Come on, Kyle. Hume tried that silly argument years ago and he was made a fool of with the "ice analogy". That kind of logic means that a tropical prince could never believe in ice.

Kyle: No, Sheila, I'm not saying that I will never believe in miracles. I'm saying that a reasonable person would require good evidence before believing in such an extraordinary thing as a miracle.

Sheila: Who are you decide what is "extraordinary" and in what way? If God exists, then a miracle is not "extraordinary" to do. If you mean "extraordinary" in terms of how often it is done, then you create a contrived means of judgment that doesn't jibe with real life. How often do you see a total eclipse? Or have you seen the Earth's core? Obviously mere experience doesn't mean dip.

Kyle: Who's talking about personal experience? We have access to the common experience of mankind through books, magazines, film, Internet and all kinds of media. Therefore, we expect some things, like eclipses, that are unusual, but natural. According to current knowledge, it would be extraordinary to see a dead person crawling out of his grave, or a virgin giving birth, or a small loaf of bread satisfying hundreds of hungry people with enough left over to fill the trash bin. If you think such things are ordinary, I'd like to know what drugs you're taking.

Sheila: But if the Book of Luke is accurate about so much detail, what makes you think its miracle claims are fictitious?

Kyle: Many fictitious stories have historically and geographically accurate settings. If you'd like an example, I can introduce you to The Pearl of Great Price.

Sheila: We've met, thanks. I know what kind of silliness you're trying to pull, Kyle.

Kyle: Apparently not. And you might want to watch your attitude. It's not at all appealing. If my arguments are weak, expose the weakness. But don't charge me with trying to be silly. It smacks of an ad hominem attack.

Sheila: I know the Pearl has many accurate points of history. But I don't reject what it says about Joseph Smith having visions and such because of a supernatural bias. I reject it because, for example, New World archaeology doesn't help one bit to verify Smith's claims.

Kyle: Wait a minute. You already acknowledged that the Pearl "has many accurate points of history." Are you talking about the Book of Mormon now?

Sheila: Yes.

Kyle: I agree. Archaeology has failed to substantiate the Book of Mormon. And if Joseph Smith produced false scripture with the Book of Mormon, his Pearl of Great Price starts out with a presumption that it, too, is false. I might add that the same goes for the gospels. If one gospel is false, the others are tainted with a presumption that they, too, are false. Of course, such presumptions are rebuttable.

Sheila: Also because, Mormon claims about the meaning of the Old and New Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence.

Kyle: I'm glad you brought that up, because the New testament claims about the meaning of the Old Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence. This is a very good reason for doubting the miracle claims in the New Testament.

Sheila: So, sorry, Geisler and Turek didn't make a weak argument; you just didn't do your homework.

Kyle: Au contraire. I admit I don't know everything, and perhaps more homework is in order. But I think you unduly dismiss my arguments. I have exposed serious weaknesses in Geisler & Turek. Your comments have not convinced me otherwise.

Sheila: But a book that has accurate details should tell true stories.

Kyle: How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail...

Sheila: Kyle, that's another silly argument. Have you forgotten what you said about genre? Did Hugo market his book as non-fiction?

Kyle: I doubt it.

Sheila: Whereas, Luke "marketed" his work as a biography of Jesus. Therefore your comparison is false.

Kyle: So we're talking about two bits of evidence: (1) The author claims to be telling the truth, and (2) The setting is accurate. What you're telling me is that an accurate setting, by itself, is not sufficient evidence that a book is true.

Sheila: Right.

Kyle: But an accurate setting combined with the author's claim is sufficient? Well, look at the Author's Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe...

Sheila: Which was marketed as what, now?
Kyle: As non-fiction. The author said in the preface, "The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it...."

Sheila: But how many details in Robinson Crusoe are accurate?

Kyle: That would be something to look into. How about The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas? It satisfies both conditions nicely. Its setting is accurate, and the author claimed that it was a true story.

Sheila: Kyle, I don't care how many examples like this you bring up. For one thing, you're ignoring your own objection about genre and intent.

Kyle: Please explain.

Sheila: Maybe later. For another, historians always have and always will use confirmation of details as a reason to trust a work. You're trying to pretend to know better than historians how these things work.

Kyle: That's only one factor. As you admitted when talking about Joseph Smith, there are weightier factors. All else being equal, the confirmation of detail may tip the scales, but it is not the strongest factor.

Sheila: It puts the burden on you to explain why a work should not be trusted.

Kyle: The general burden of proof is on the person who claims that the Bible is true. You are correct in saying that when an apologist makes an argument, the burden to refute that particular argument shifts to the opponent. I have clearly refuted the argument that because some details are accurate, Luke's story must be true. I have given you several examples to the contrary. You have avoided the issue by bringing up other claims.

Sheila: Now can you explain why the New Testament should not be trusted?

Kyle: Absolutely. (1) The miracle claims create a reasonable presumption that the New Testament is fictitious. The presumption may be rebutted, but the evidence to do so must be strong enough to overcome the presumption. I have yet to see such evidence. (2) The New Testament routinely takes Old Testament passages out of context and misinterprets them. (3) The New Testament is full of errors, some of which appear to be intentional. (4) Texts similar to the New Testament are generally considered fictitious. (No, I have not forgotten about genre.) (5) There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within the New Testament and between the New and Old Testaments. (6) Apologists, trying to support the New Testament, typically come up with the same old tired arguments, which are easily refuted, as I have demonstrated.

Sheila: But the New Testament can't be fiction, because novelists usually don't use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

Kyle: Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

Sheila: What's your point here again, Kyle? You're demanding confirmation by archaeology for average, everyday people.

Kyle: No, you offered it. I'm only asking you to back up your assertion.

Sheila: Are you going to tell me that you need "archaeological confirmation" for someone before they could have existed?

Kyle: No.

Sheila: Are you saying, "My point is more that you can't argue that these people were real when you want to argue that people don't make up main characters?"

Kyle: Uh, you might want to rephrase that question. It doesn't make much sense. It certainly doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

Sheila: Let's skip to the next point. Geisler and Turke said that if the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

Kyle: That's a pretty weak argument. For one thing, by the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead.

Sheila: I'd say that's not likely the case for all of them.

Kyle: Did I say all of them?

Sheila: No, but you also don't seem to know that the families of those named would also be interested in such things. Very much so -- it would be a matter of family honor and reputation. For example, the family of Nicodemus would have had something to say if the story about him in John were made up.

Kyle: What would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

Sheila: I can see you know little about what would motivate ancient people. There are a large number of factors that would motivate them to disprove Christian claims -- and they wouldn't apply to cults like Mithraism and Neoplatonism, which were socially acceptable whereas Christianity was not. Do you even understand what the difference is between our world and an honor and shame society?

Kyle: Was first century Jerusalem an honor and shame society? How exactly did that work?

Sheila: Maybe we'll talk about that later.

Kyle: Isn't it a relatively minor point? Do you really want to pursue this line of argument? It doesn't seem to be your highest card.

Sheila: Well, the gospels don't appear to be novels. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

Kyle: I'm inclined to agree that they aren't mere novels. The gospel stories developed as oral legend first, and then they were written down.

Sheila: That's very easy to say, but do you mind proving it for one of these doctrines? It doesn't make a lot of sense, you see. For example, crucifixion was a shameful death that would never have been "developed" for the "necessity of the times." If anything it would the first thing dropped.

Kyle: Not necessarily. The "suffering servant" theme had been popular since the sixth century BC, when it was written by Deutero-Isaiah. Maybe even before then.

Sheila: You can read about it from the link just above.

Kyle: Could you repeat that link, please? It doesn't seem to have transferred to the forum.

Sheila: Why are there similarities and differences among the gospels?

Kyle: The stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That's why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

Sheila: That's an interesting theory, but you're just following Ehrman uncritically.

Kyle: Is there any reason to doubt his statement?

Sheila: He doesn't give any reason to say that the Gospels "did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses," he just says so. He does not explain why we should think they were anonymous; that was an issue you refused to discuss.

Kyle: When did I refuse to discuss it? Actually, Ehrman does expound on that. In lecture 3 of "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity" (Available from the Teaching Company, www.teach12.com), Professor Bart D. Ehrman says:

... When you read the books, you'll see that, in fact, the authors are anonymous. They don't give us their names. We continue to call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply by way of convenience. When you read Matthew, you will never read a passage where Matthew says, "Then Jesus and I, one time, went up to Capernaum," or anything like that. They are written in the third person about the things that Jesus said.

These books, in fact, did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses. They are written about Jesus and his followers. They are anonymous. They're written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. They're written decades after the facts that they narrate....

Sheila: And he doesn't even compare their attestion to other ancient documents.

Kyle: Their what?

Sheila: I don't know why he thinks their being written in Greek was an issue; many ancient people were bilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire.

Kyle: Maybe it's not an issue.

Sheila: He also doesn't explain why he dates them late, and you even granted for the sake of argument that they were written early. So do you want to defend those points now?

Kyle: No, I'll still say, for the sake of the argument, that the gospels were written as early as G&T suggests – a 15- to 40- year gap between the death of Jesus and writing of the gospels. That's still plenty of time for the legend to develop.

Sheila: Ehrman's tales of stories just being made up is so lacking in evidence that there's really not much to say.

Kyle: I don't think that's his position, that Jesus was made up out of whole cloth. It isn't necessarily mine either. There could have been a man after whom the legends of Jesus were patterned. He might have been a faith healer. He might have been crucified. The gospel stories might be partially true. But where do you draw the line between the history and the legend? That's a good question, and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. I do know that the gospels cannot be entirely historical. The contradictions destroy that notion.

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have provided more convincing evidence. Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead.

Sheila: Why? You're just begging the question of what is "reasonable."

Kyle: You've got to be kidding. Is it reasonable for you to believe me if I tell you that Elvis was dead, but he crawled out of his grave? The reasonableness of skepticism is self-evident here. Anyone who believes such a tale without evidence is unreasonable.

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories.

Sheila: Kyle, don't be so spoiled and provincial. The way they told their stories was normal for their period. Just look at the series of items in the link above.

Kyle: What link? And how am I being "spoiled and provincial"? Is that an ad hominem attack? If a writer wants to be credible, he can take measures to write as accurately as possible. The gospel writers were careless with their "facts." Is such carelessness "normal for their period"? If so, how can anyone trust the gospels?

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen.

Sheila: Well, there you go again, demanding extra evidence above what is needed, and for what? To suit yourself. Not because of any objective standards of epistemology.

Kyle: Hold on a minute. I was only responding to your question (G&T's question, but you have adopted it). I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm only suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Sheila: And you still need to learn what "hearsay" is and explain why it is a problem.

Kyle: According to my dictionary, hearsay is "rumor," or "something heard from another." (I also know what hearsay evidence is, but we're not in a courtroom, so we're not talking about legal definitions.) Did I say it was a problem? I'm only responding to your question, and suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Sheila: As it is, sicne you accept junk like Remsberg's list without question, I'm not so sure you really care about reason and evidence.

Kyle : I have not heard of Remsberg or his list. I do care about reason and evidence. Do you?

CONCLUSION: G&T argued that Luke told the truth about geographic and historic details, and therefore he must have told the truth about miracles. I exposed the logical fallacy in his argument. Sheila's response missed the mark. Instead of addressing the issue, she changed the subject. She came up with some good points, though.

G&T argued that people would have objected to the use of their relatives' names in the gospels if the stories were not true. I gave some reasons that they might not. Sheila gave some reasons that they might have. I think the entire argument is too speculative, and pretty lame. I've got bigger fish to fry. How about the false prophecies and phony fulfillments? Now there's something you can sink your teeth into.

G&T argued that the gospels are unlike novels. I agreed, and I pointed out a false dichotomy. As an alternative, I suggested that the gospels are most likely records of legends that had developed orally. Sheila's response skirted around some details, but didn't really strike at the main issue.

G&T asked what more the gospel writers could have done to show that they were telling the truth. I made some suggestions. Sheila must have been getting tired because her response was not at all reasonable.

[jpholding]

because she had resorted to belittling me.

Hello, Kyle, this is Sheila. So you want to know why I'm doing the honors rather than JP, dearie? It's very simple. 1) You apparently think books talk, so why not a talking rabbit too? Or is your imagination limited to inanimate objects on your world talking? 2) Oh, do stop crying about "ad hominem" -- you who insult Geisler and Turek by trying to make them look like they'd have no answer for your arguments, and then having their book burn itself at the end. If you can't take the heat, don't start any fires. Got it, sweetie? I'll give you fire when you spit fire. Fair enough?


Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It's one thing to claim that you're an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it's another thing to prove it.

Sheila: So, what's your epistemic test to determine this for a writer?

Kyle: I don't know what you mean by epistemic, but such assertions must be tested on a case-by-case basis.

If you don't know what "epistemic" means then you might wish to invest in a decent dictionary, Kyle, dear.

The point is that asking questions like "why should we trust them" is a sham. The same questions could be asked of any document (Tacitus' Annals, Josephus' Antiquities) and it's no more an argument there, so you're just showing off.

If you want to impress us, show how you'd determine the authorship of, say, the Annals, then apply the same tests to the Gospels, for example, and treat them consistently. Simple, really.

Next point requiring comment... really, dear, you need to be more considerate and learn to use the quote function here so tyhe good people can know when you're saying something new. Why don't you?




Kyle: I disagree. Your arguments for the existence of God are based on logical fallacies. Shall we go back and discuss this some more?

Go ahead. I didn't say later; you put that in my mouth.


Kyle: When a person reads about miracles, he reasonably presumes that he's reading fiction.

No, Kyle, dear, YOU presume that and then call it "reasonable" based on your presumption of what is reasonable.

Kyle: Who's talking about personal experience?

The real problem is that we have no idea what you're talking about at all because you never tell us a thing about your epistemology. But you clearly are talking about personal experience:

We have access to the common experience of mankind through books, magazines, film, Internet and all kinds of media. Therefore, we expect some things, like eclipses, that are unusual, but natural. According to current knowledge, it would be extraordinary to see a dead person crawling out of his grave, or a virgin giving birth, or a small loaf of bread satisfying hundreds of hungry people with enough left over to fill the trash bin.

And the disciples had access to people coming back from the dead, and a loaf of bread satisfying hundrreds, and so on. So once again, it's the same old Hume canard, isn't it? You cluster validation subjectively around YOUR experience -- just as the prince did with ice.


If you think such things are ordinary, I'd like to know what drugs you're taking.

What I think is that what you call "ordinary" is utterly subjective and beside the point of whether an event was historical.


Kyle: Apparently not. And you might want to watch your attitude. It's not at all appealing. If my arguments are weak, expose the weakness.

I did...repeatedly. But like I said, dear, if you can't take the heat, don't start a fire.

Kyle: Wait a minute. You already acknowledged that the Pearl "has many accurate points of history." Are you talking about the Book of Mormon now?

I'm talking about the Mormon canon as a whole, dear, including the Pearl. Joseph Smith was the reputed prophetic authority behind all of it, no? So it's fair to talk about all of it in one breath.

might add that the same goes for the gospels. If one gospel is false, the others are tainted with a presumption that they, too, are false. Of course, such presumptions are rebuttable.

Actually, dear, THAT *is* false because different authors were behind each Gospel. If Luke is false, that does not prove Matthew is, unless you're a fundamentalist, which it seems you were at one time and still are. An error in Tacitus does not taint Livy, now, does it?

Kyle: I'm glad you brought that up, because the New testament claims about the meaning of the Old Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence.

What, THAT old canard? I canned you in Chapter 13 on that, dear.

Your comments have not convinced me otherwise.

It's doubtful that with the bar set this high, that a 2 by 4 would convince you that wood exists, come to that.

Kyle: So we're talking about two bits of evidence: (1) The author claims to be telling the truth, and (2) The setting is accurate. What you're telling me is that an accurate setting, by itself, is not sufficient evidence that a book is true.

No, I said that it puts the burden on you to explain why a work should not be trusted.

Sheila: Which was marketed as what, now?
Kyle: As non-fiction. The author said in the preface, "The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it...."

No, dear, that's your mistake again. What you're unaware of is that this is itself a literary technique. Look:

http://www.primapublishing.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375757327&view=rg

Defoe's novel is also thought to be one of the earliest examples of the use of psychological realism. Defoe posits himself as "editor" and Crusoe as the author. How does his use of voice and point of view differ from that of his contemporaries? How much of his fiction might be influenced by his background in journalism and nonfiction?

So, I'm sorry, dear, but Crusoe was never actually meant to be understood as non-fiction. What you're quoting is simply a technique for helping suspend disbelief. I understand your Umberto Eco is fond of this sort of thing too. As for Dumas, I need a quote from him.


Sheila: Kyle, I don't care how many examples like this you bring up. For one thing, you're ignoring your own objection about genre and intent.

Kyle: Please explain.

Explain what? There's nothing to explain. Get busy.


Kyle: The general burden of proof is on the person who claims that the Bible is true.

Kyle, dear, that old game doesn't work here. Each side in a debate is claiming something is "true" and therefore has a burden. Your claim is that you think it is true that the Bible is fabricated. So don't use that canard as an excuse for your own laziness.


Kyle: Absolutely. (1) The miracle claims create a reasonable presumption that the New Testament is fictitious. The presumption may be rebutted, but the evidence to do so must be strong enough to overcome the presumption. I have yet to see such evidence.

Since you set the bar arbitrarily high based on your own experiences, that will never be satisfied.

(2) The New Testament routinely takes Old Testament passages out of context and misinterprets them.

Killed this is Ch. 13. Do your homework, dear.

(3) The New Testament is full of errors, some of which appear to be intentional.

No specifics? Bring them on....I'm sure JP has killed each of them...or rather, set them on fire, that pyro! :hehe:

(4) Texts similar to the New Testament are generally considered fictitious. (No, I have not forgotten about genre.)

Forgotten, no. Ignorant, perhaps. Greco-Roman bioi and epistles you can name then?

(5) There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within the New Testament and between the New and Old Testaments. (6) Apologists, trying to support the New Testament, typically come up with the same old tired arguments, which are easily refuted, as I have demonstrated.

:zzz: Don't hurt yourself beating your chest, Kyle, dear. See 3 above.

Sheila: But the New Testament can't be fiction, because novelists usually don't use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

I never said this, dear, and wouldn't. But what can we expect, since you have a proclivity to put straw men in the mouths of others?


Kyle: No, you offered it. I'm only asking you to back up your assertion.

And I'm asking what the point of your demand is. What is it? Do you even know, or do you just make up demands on the fly?


Kyle: Uh, you might want to rephrase that question. It doesn't make much sense. It certainly doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

That's sort of the problem! You never really "said" anything substantive to explain yourself!

Sheila: Let's skip to the next point. Geisler and Turke said that if the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

No, dear, YOU repeated that argument of theirs to me,. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Kyle: Was first century Jerusalem an honor and shame society? How exactly did that work?

We don't need to talk about that later. The answer is yes it was; so was the whole the ancient Roman Empire. I'd recommend that you read some basic works like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity; Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, and Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. And no, it's not a "minor point" -- it's very critical to understanding the world of the Bible (as well as history in general, but that's a tangent).


Sheila: Well, the gospels don't appear to be novels. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

I never said this either, dear. The Gospels are ancient biographies; this isn't open to question. As for "oral legend" I doubt if you have any idea how oral transmission works, do you?


Kyle: Not necessarily. The "suffering servant" theme had been popular since the sixth century BC, when it was written by Deutero-Isaiah. Maybe even before then.

Crucifixion, dear. Crucifixion. Not "suffering". Here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

... When you read the books, you'll see that, in fact, the authors are anonymous. They don't give us their names.

Baloney, dear. Their names are at the beginning of each Gospel. Just the same as for Tacitus' Annals.

When you read Matthew, you will never read a passage where Matthew says, "Then Jesus and I, one time, went up to Capernaum," or anything like that. They are written in the third person about the things that Jesus said.

What of it? Writing in the third person was a standard convention; Josephus did it, and besides that, the Gospels, again, are BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, which means there's nothing that should require us to expect any of the authors to make first person references.

They're written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic.

I suppose Ehrman forgot that Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire, hm? Has he ever heard of a "translation" do you think, too?


Sheila: And he doesn't even compare their attestion to other ancient documents.

Kyle: Their what?

Attestation of their authorship.

Sheila: I don't know why he thinks their being written in Greek was an issue; many ancient people were bilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire.

Kyle: Maybe it's not an issue.

Maybe Ehrman isn't as reliable as you suppose, either. You might want to check this review of his latest work:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

But where do you draw the line between the history and the legend? That's a good question, and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. I do know that the gospels cannot be entirely historical. The contradictions destroy that notion.

Why, please?


Kyle: You've got to be kidding. Is it reasonable for you to believe me if I tell you that Elvis was dead, but he crawled out of his grave?

That's hardly as simple as it is, dear. Follow the link I gave you to JP's article and you'll see what I mean.


Kyle: What link? And how am I being "spoiled and provincial"? Is that an ad hominem attack?

No, it's a fact. http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html is the link. All you're telling me is that you have no objective measure and have made no effort to study these things in depth.

Kyle: Hold on a minute. I was only responding to your question (G&T's question, but you have adopted it). I'm not "demanding" anything.

Yes...you are.


Kyle: According to my dictionary, hearsay is "rumor," or "something heard from another." (I also know what hearsay evidence is, but we're not in a courtroom, so we're not talking about legal definitions.) Did I say it was a problem?

Don't play games, dear. You brought up hearsay as an objection, so clearly you consider it a problem. I'll give you a link you may not have been given in the transfer: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html The fact is you believe hearsay every day.

I'm only responding to your question, and suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Kyle : I have not heard of Remsberg or his list.

Then it appears you accepted it second-hand when you said, "Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in sources that probably would have mentioned Jesus, had they ever heard of him: Jewish sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Juvenal, Epictetus, Seneca, Plutarch and Quintilian. From such sources we get only silence. They didn’t know Jesus or his apostles." That's a distilled version of the Remsberg's list argument. He threw together a list of writers who did not mention Jesus and acted like this was some sort of argument. It isn't. Here's an example why: Do you know who Quintilian is? Probably not. He was a writer on rhetoric, or how to speak and write effectively. Now tell me dear....why would such a person mention Jesus? Hmm?

How about the false prophecies and phony fulfillments? Now there's something you can sink your teeth into.

Dear, did someone pass on only pieces of what I wrote to you?

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/faithatheist.html

[Kyle Williams]

We seem to be veering from the issues. That's partially my fault. In order to focus our energy, I am summarizing the arguments and ignoring irrelevant comments. First, I repeat G&T's own summary:

a. The New Testament contains at least four to six lines of early, independent eyewitness written testimony. We conclude this because:

i. The major New Testament writers record the same basic events with diverging details and some unique material.

ii. They cite at least thirty real historical figures who have been confirmed by ancient non-Christian writers and various archaeological discoveries.

iii. Luke peppers the second half of Acts with at least 84 historically confirmed eyewitness details and includes several others in his Gospel.

iv. Luke's proven trustworthiness affirms that of Matthew and Mark because they record the same basic story.

v. John includes at least 59 historically confirmed or historically probable eyewitness details in his Gospel.

vi. Paul and Peter provide the fifth and sixth written testimonies to the Resurrection.

b. Since this early, independent eyewitness testimony is within one generation of the events, the New Testament events cannot be considered legendary.

So there's no question that real historical events are at the core of the New Testament.

G&T relies on the following arguments, which I have lettered for convenience. G&T's arguments are indented. My comments are not:

ARGUMENT A

1. Luke told the truth about his journeys (in Luke and Acts).
2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.
3. Therefore, Luke told the truth about miracles.

I stipulate the first premise, for the sake of the argument. I submitted several examples to demonstrate that the second premise is false. If the second premise is false, the conclusion is unsupported. (G&T applies same argument to John, so John is equally unsupported.)

ARGUMENT B

1. Luke told a true story.
2. Mark and Matthew told the same basic story.
3. The basic story of Mark and Matthew must be true.

I show above that G&T fails to support the first premise. Therefore this conclusion is unsupported.

ARGUMENT C

1. At least thirty characters in the New Testament have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources.
2. A story that uses real people as characters must be true.
3. Therefore, the New Testament story must be true.

I stipulate the first premise. I gave examples to demonstrate that the second premise is false. The conclusion, therefore, is unsupported by the argument.

ARGUMENT D

1. The New Testament is either a historical novel or the truth.
2. It isn't a historical novel.
3. Therefore, it's the truth.

I stipulate the second premise, for the sake of the argument. I assert that the first premise is a false dichotomy, and I provide an alternative – that the gospels are records of legends.

Question: Do G&T's objections to the historical novel hypothesis apply to the legend hypothesis? Here are his objections and my comments:

ARGUMENT D-1

Independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament.

These references come decades after the gospels were written. Therefore, they are as likely to be based on legend as on historical reality. (But this topic is covered in another chapter, and probably should be discussed on a different thread.)

ARGUMENT D-2

It can't explain why the New Testament writers endured persecution, torture, and death. Why would they have done so for a fictional story?

People often suffer and die on behalf of their pet legends. (This, too, is the topic of another chapter, and probably should be discussed on another thread.)

ARGUMENT D-3

Historical novelists usually do not use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories. If they did, those real people: especially powerful government and religious officials: would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them for doing so.

(1) By the time the New Testament was written, most people involved were dead. (2) This is speculative. Objecting to such a thing is only one of several options. The easiest option is to ignore it. (3) It is possible that someone objected, but the objection has not been preserved as a written document.

ARGUMENT D-4

Since the New Testament contains multiple independent accounts of these events by nine different authors, the historical novel theory would require a grand conspiracy over a 20- to 50-year period between those nine authors, who were spread all over the ancient world. This is not plausible either.

The legend hypothesis explains the discrepancies (or "divergent details") better than the truth hypothesis.

ARGUMENT E

What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

The implication is that the New Testament writers did everything they could to prove their point. I disagree. If they really wanted to convince others that they were telling the truth, they could have taken other measures:

Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead. They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories. They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen. They could have proven their case to the courts, the media of their time, or the non-Christian world in general. Instead, the first century world is silent, as if Jesus never existed at all. From all appearances, the New Testament writers were not the least bit worried about convincing future skeptics that their stories were true. The reasonable conclusion is that the stories were legendary. There were no eyewitnesses, because the miraculous stories about Jesus never happened in reality.

Now for a summary of Holding's relevant arguments:

In ARGUMENT A, I argued that "A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles." is false. Holding attempts to weaken my examples. Holding says that Robinson Crusoe (and by implication The Three Musketeers and Notre Dame de Paris) were marketed as fiction.

My response: I agree that the modern novels are marketed as fiction. I was talking about internal truth claims. Holding is talking about external truth claims. The modern novels are like the New Testament in that they contain internal truth claims, even though they differ in their external truth claims. One of my examples survives Holding's argument. The Pearl of Great Price contains both internal and external truth claims, just like the New Testament. Therefore, Argument A remains debunked.

Holding says nothing about ARGUMENT B. Because Argument A is false, Argument B is also false.

Holding supports ARGUMENT C with Argument D-3. He strengthens Argument D-3 by explaining the honor and shame society, which would make people more likely to object to the use of their relatives' names in fictitious stories.

My response: This may marginally strengthen the case for D-3 (and therefore C). However, I think my comments are still valid. Arguments C and D-3 are speculative and weak. Even considering the honor society, it is not apparent that people would have objected, or even could have objected, or that their objections should be expected to survive in written form.

ARGUMENT D: Holding does nothing to dispel my assertion that "historical novel versus truth" is a false dichotomy.

ARGUMENT D-1 is best left to another thread.

ARGUMENT D-2 is best left to another thread.

ARGUMENT D-3: I admit that Holding has strengthened Argument D-3. But even with his added support, I think the argument is weak.

ARGUMENT D-4 remains untouched by Holding.

ARGUMENT E: Holding seems to agree that the New Testament writers did all they could to prove their case. Holding even says that people should not be skeptical about miracle claims. I disagree. I think a reasonable person would not believe in any miracle without strong evidence. Holding thinks my standards are too high. I think Holding's standards are too low. I ask Holding: What keeps you from believing in weeping statues, or miraculous images of Jesus on pancakes, or the child Jesus bringing clay birds to life? Surely you have some level of skepticism in you.

I think I have summarized all our relevant arguments. If I've missed something, let me know. Otherwise, I think I've effectively rebutted G&T's arguments. This chapter fails to establish that the New Testament stories are historical.

When we're done with this chapter, I suggest we start a new thread on Chapter 13. I believe that chapter involves the strongest case against the veracity of the New Testament.

[jpholding]

We seem to be veering from the issues. That's partially my fault.

[attachment=1]

Seemed we were doing fine to me, Kyle, dear.

2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.

I doubt if you could ever directly quote them to that effect, which is why you assume to argue on their behalf. No, it is more like, "a writer who is proven reliable places a burden on the critic to dispute historicity." You're trying to wrap this into another issue of materialism, which is bogus. If you want to play that game, it's on a different board.

As for the rest of your summations...I really don't care, dear. Either get with the program of what *I* offer, which responds to your arguments already, or do us the courtesy of getting off the pot so that someone else can use it. We don't need to re-read these plates of reheated hash.

In ARGUMENT A, I argued that "A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles." is false. Holding attempts to weaken my examples. Holding says that Robinson Crusoe (and by implication The Three Musketeers and Notre Dame de Paris) were marketed as fiction.

My response: I agree that the modern novels are marketed as fiction. I was talking about internal truth claims. Holding is talking about external truth claims. The modern novels are like the New Testament in that they contain internal truth claims, even though they differ in their external truth claims. One of my examples survives Holding's argument. The Pearl of Great Price contains both internal and external truth claims, just like the New Testament. Therefore, Argument A remains debunked.

Land sakes, Kyle, this is a contrivance to beat the band! You've just plain lost the argument here, dearie; your parallels of Dumas and Hugo flopped, and that shows that the challenge to you is an entirely different one. There's no "extarnal" or "internal" here to speak of. And I showed you why POGP fails: Because it (unlike the NT) fails the test.

Even considering the honor society, it is not apparent that people would have objected, or even could have objected, or that their objections should be expected to survive in written form.

"It is not apparent" that you appreciate what an honor society is all about, I'd say. It is VERY apparent that people would have objected, because honor to them was THE most important thing there was. Dear, did you ever read any of James Clavell's novels? Do you know about people who commit suicide over a loss of honor? Come now. Do some homework, please. This is most embarrassing to have to correct you on such basic matters.

As to surviving in written form, it doesn't matter; the nature of the world they lived in was such that they WOULD occur as required. Period.

ARGUMENT D: Holding does nothing to dispel my assertion that "historical novel versus truth" is a false dichotomy.

I expect not even a 2 by 4 would dispel anything you believe when it comes to that.

ARGUMENT D-4 remains untouched by Holding.

What's to touch? You make a bare assertion and expect us to dance?

I ask Holding: What keeps you from believing in weeping statues, or miraculous images of Jesus on pancakes, or the child Jesus bringing clay birds to life?

Evidence, dear, evidence. That last one for example comes from a source hundreds of years late and filled with other improbabilities (eg, teachings that Jesus would never have offered in first-century Jewish Palestine). Will you please do some real research before you address these issues again?

I've not looked into the others, sorry...not of any significance to make them worth a look even if they are true.


I think I have summarized all our relevant arguments. If I've missed something, let me know.

Read my last post. Now you know. :thumb:

[Kyle Williams]

I doubt if you could ever directly quote them to that effect,
You are correct. That is not a direct quote. It is, however, the missing premise required for G&T's argument.

No, it is more like, "a writer who is proven reliable places a burden on the critic to dispute historicity."
Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

You're trying to wrap this into another issue of materialism, which is bogus. If you want to play that game, it's on a different board.
What?

As for the rest of your summations...I really don't care, dear. Either get with the program of what *I* offer, which responds to your arguments already, or do us the courtesy of getting off the pot so that someone else can use it. We don't need to re-read these plates of reheated hash.
Summation and review are good tools for getting derailed arguments back on track. In my judgment, we were due for it.

Well, Holding, I gave you an opportunity for reasonable discourse, and you "really don't care." Nor do I care for conducting a discussion on *your* terms if you insist on obscuring the issues. If you don't want to be reasonable, let's call the whole thing off.

It's possible that I'm being unreasonable (but I don't think so). If any third party is eyeing this discussion, how about a judgment? Which of us is trying to illuminate the issues, and which of us is trying to obscure them?

[jpholding]

[attachment=1]

You are correct. That is not a direct quote. It is, however, the missing premise required for G&T's argument.

It's the premise you installed to create circularity.

Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

No, it is not -- it's standard historiography. You don't presume yourself to be right.

What?

I speak English here, dear.


Well, Holding, I gave you an opportunity for reasonable discourse, and you "really don't care." Nor do I care for conducting a discussion on *your* terms if you insist on obscuring the issues. If you don't want to be reasonable, let's call the whole thing off.

It's too hard for you, even against a toon. I understand.

[Soundsurfr]

Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

It is entirely circular.

Summation and review are good tools for getting derailed arguments back on track. In my judgment, we were due for it.

And you've done a fine job of it.

It's possible that I'm being unreasonable (but I don't think so). If any third party is eyeing this discussion, how about a judgment?

OK.

Which of us is trying to illuminate the issues,

You are.

and which of us is trying to obscure them?

He is.

[jpholding]

Running out of things to do, are you? :hehe: Smarting from the repeated beatings you've been given there, SS? Maybe you can take up where he left off. Start with that bit about dating the Gospels compared to other works.

[Soundsurfr]

Running out of things to do, are you? :hehe: Smarting from the repeated beatings you've been given there, SS?

Funny, I don't remember any beatings.

Maybe you can take up where he left off. Start with that bit about dating the Gospels compared to other works.

Not my cross to bear. I gave up believing in magically re-attached ears long ago. I'm just responding to Kyle's request for the opinion of us lurkers, and enjoying the ride as the water-into-wine crowd attempts to justify its irrationality.

Maybe you can take a shot at establishing an ounce of credibility in this thread by addressing the circular argument you presented.

:popcorn:

[jpholding]

Funny, I don't remember any beatings.



Yep, that's how bad they were. :hehe:

Not my cross to bear.

But obviously your one-liners to belch, at any rate.


Maybe you can take a shot at establishing an ounce of credibility in this thread by addressing the circular argument you presented.


I did -- there isn't one. :thumbd:

Live and learn.

[Soundsurfr]

Yep, that's how bad they were. :hehe:



But obviously your one-liners to belch, at any rate.



I did -- there isn't one. :thumbd:

Live and learn.

Yeah, I figured you'd simply dismiss it. You're nothing if not predictable.

Seriously tho, I think one of the biggest weak spots in your argument is your contention that the credibility of an author can be assessed by virtue of their consistency with regard to verifyable statements and that this then transfers to non-verifyable statements made in the same work, no matter how implausible those statements are.

Example:

A hundred years from now, we find an author's account of an episode in NY City. He indicates that he was walking along the West Side Highway. It was the morning of September 11th, 2001. He witnesses an airplane impacting the side of one of the towers in the World Trade Center. He sees another airplane impact the other tower 20 minutes later. He runs toward the towers. He describes other things that are historically consistent with the date, time and location. Then he describes seeing a firefighter leap from the ground to the 100th floor of the building. He writes that the firefighter saved an unconscious man from death by leaping back to the ground with the man in his arms and depositing him safely on the pavement.

Questions:

1. Given that the description of the historically verifyable events was consistent, is it your contention that we have no reason to disbelieve the account of the supernatural firefighter? Or is there more evidence needed?

2. Is it your contention that there is no difference in veracity or plausibility between the claim "I was walking on the West Side Highway" and the claim "I saw a fireman jump 100 stories"?

3. Does it take an "anti-supernatural" bias to doubt the fireman story? If so, is it more reasonable or less reasonable to have such a bias?

[Kyle Williams]

... And you've done a fine job of it....
Thank you, Soundsurfr.

[jpholding]

Yeah, I figured you'd simply dismiss it. You're nothing if not predictable.

If that's all it takes, that's all it gets.

Seriously tho, I think one of the biggest weak spots in your argument is your contention that the credibility of an author can be assessed by virtue of their consistency with regard to verifyable statements and that this then transfers to non-verifyable statements made in the same work, no matter how implausible those statements are.

That's not what I said. I said that such credibility puts a burden on the critic to come up with a reason why the account should not be trusted otherwise.

Arbitrarily inserting materialistic presuppositions is not fulfilling the burden, and I say the same of the fireman story.

Of course, your fireman story doesn't match analogically, unless someone starts a movement around the fireman ("Firemanology"), complete with social implications, and the fireman himself has a record of doing such things, etc. Isolated events are not a match for a broad social and literary track record.

Which means, your questions don't address a comparable situation in the least. Nevertheless:


1. Given that the description of the historically verifyable events was consistent, is it your contention that we have no reason to disbelieve the account of the supernatural firefighter? Or is there more evidence needed?

The information level is nowhere near as comparable, as noted. But you do need a reason besides, "I don't believe in miracles."

2. Is it your contention that there is no difference in veracity or plausibility between the claim "I was walking on the West Side Highway" and the claim "I saw a fireman jump 100 stories"?

Yes. There is only a difference in terms of the nature of what is reported. Your question begs the question of "veracity" and "plausibility" in a way that Hume also failed. Only the words "experiential commonality" might suffice.

3. Does it take an "anti-supernatural" bias to doubt the fireman story? If so, is it more reasonable or less reasonable to have such a bias?

3a. Yes, perhaps, assuming there's no technology at work that is available. 3b. It is unreasonable and presumptive, period.

[Soundsurfr]

First, thank you for answering my questions.

I think the answers you provided offer clear insight into why you are a Christian apologist and I am a skeptic. We hold fundamental philosophical differences with regard to epistemology.


That's not what I said. I said that such credibility puts a burden on the critic to come up with a reason why the account should not be trusted otherwise.

And I disagree. We can look at our court system, among other models, to see that your philosophy has been long ago discarded in favor of a more pragmatic and effective approach to solving the practical issues that face us in life. A far different standard is generally applied when we consider philosophical, spiritual and religious issues. Your approach conflates the two, IMO.

Arbitrarily inserting materialistic presuppositions is not fulfilling the burden, and I say the same of the fireman story.

Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack. Hundreds, if not thousands of his followers will testify to Moon's authority in this matter.

Holding's philosophy would label an outright dismissal of Moon's defense by the courts as an "arbitrary insertion of materialistic presupposition", as well as a bias against the existence of Moon's alleged god. Perhaps a thousand years ago there may have been courts in Western society willing to entertain the notion that God and devils should be taken into account when evaluating human affairs. But not any more.

Any entertainment of the "god" defense leaves the court in the impossible position of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a) god does not exist and b) Moon was not acting on god's behalf. The reductio ad absurdum of this stance would place us in a position where no criminal could ever be convicted without applying an equally unsupported bias in favor of some other supernatural belief.

This is equally true for the theist's attempts to empirically justify their own religious beliefs. They are forced to argue by biased speculation, and how could any of us say that anyone who argues this way about an interpretation of events is wrong, other than by speculation of a different bias?

Of course, your fireman story doesn't match analogically, unless someone starts a movement around the fireman ("Firemanology"), complete with social implications, and the fireman himself has a record of doing such things, etc. Isolated events are not a match for a broad social and literary track record.

I concede that the story does not match perfectly from the standpoint of analogy, however I don't see how the existence of a "movement" around the fireman in any way increases the veracity of the claim. Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse? There are movements around all manner of things, many of which must be wrong by virtue of the fact that they are mutually exclusive.

Which means, your questions don't address a comparable situation in the least. Nevertheless:

The information level is nowhere near as comparable, as noted. But you do need a reason besides, "I don't believe in miracles."

That is a shift in the burden of proof. I am willing to allow that the fireman may have magically jumped 100 stories, but I have a responsibility to suspend that belief until it is empirically substantiated. To argue otherwise is absurd.

Yes. There is only a difference in terms of the nature of what is reported.

Please explain what you mean by "the nature of what is reported".

Your question begs the question of "veracity" and "plausibility" in a way that Hume also failed. Only the words "experiential commonality" might suffice.

Perhaps the inconclusiveness of Hume's methodology leaves you dissatisfied, however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.

Is it better for us to reserve judgment as to the existence of ice until experience provides an unequivocal answer, or is it better to assign varying degrees of significance to all manner of suggestions based on some non-empirical judgment - the manner of which cannot even be qualified?

I believe that in the West, at least, we have answered this question on a social and academic level. On a religious level, we must apply a different standard to what we believe, whether we admit it or not.

3a. Yes, perhaps, assuming there's no technology at work that is available. 3b. It is unreasonable and presumptive, period.

Then our social framework is, in most respects, unreasonable and presumptive. Our historical analyses are unreasonable and presumptive. And with the exception of certain personal biases, we are all unreasonable and presumptive in the conduct of our daily lives. IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity. And as such it is not unreasonable or presumptive at all.

[jpholding]

And I disagree. We can look at our court system, among other models, to see that your philosophy has been long ago discarded in favor of a more pragmatic and effective approach to solving the practical issues that face us in life

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.

Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's; just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means. I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court; if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).

Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack

This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil. Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?


Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse?

As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.

That is a shift in the burden of proof.

As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.

I am willing to allow that the fireman may have magically jumped 100 stories, but I have a responsibility to suspend that belief until it is empirically substantiated. To argue otherwise is absurd.

For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).

Please explain what you mean by "the nature of what is reported".

Type of activity (walking versus falling).

however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.

This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence. Moreover, as any review of a place like snopes.com will reveal, the "supernatural" is hardly the determining factor in this.

Is it better for us to reserve judgement as to the existence of ice until experience provides an unequivocable answer, or is it better to assign varying degrees of significance to all manner of suggestions based on some non-empirical judgement - the manner of which cannot even be qualified?

If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

To put it as I have, if every Skeptic were Kyle Gerkin, I'd probably have another job.


Then our social framework is, in most respects, unreasonable and presumptive.

I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.


IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity.

If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

[Babaloo]

If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

I have read critical book reviews concerning Stark's work in a variety of publications (in other words, not just in "freethought" magazines). Even Stark acknowledges elements besides Christianity alone that were involved in the rise of reason, science, and democracy. He certainly mentions the debt of Islam in the case of the rise of science and reason, and the even earlier debt owed to pre-Christian philosophers and politicians of ancient Greece and Rome. (Another book, not written by Stark, but on the topic of the rise of western culture argues that crucial roles were also played by "Guns, Germs, and Steel"--see Jared Diamond's book with that title). Also, the historian, Francis Fukuyma [check my spelling] mentioned that religion had first to be "defanged" in the west before political liberalism and modern day liberal democracies could arise.

It would also appear that Christianity's contributions to art, science, and culture peaked some time in the past. Today anyone of any religion, or no religion, can study and perform research in science, history, art, architecture, write novels and plays, do philosophy, or study and teach the subject of "religion" in colleges and universities the world round. (And as such studies continue to flourish round the world regardless of one's religion or lack thereof, it would appear that human curiosity and a yearning to know and accumulate and share knowledge appear to be basic traits more universal than Christianity.)

(Speaking of "peaking"--it may be that computers and human minds will increasingly interact in future and we'll learn so much from continued study of the human brain and also from artificial intelligence, that machines might be developed that sense the environment and continue learn from it, absorbing more and more input, and becomingly strikingly more "human-like" in their knowledge, sensory distinctions, and ability to interact with the environment and even with human beings. In that case who knows what kind of human-machine hybrids, or artificially intelligent organisms (mostly machine with perhaps a bit of brain-like functioning in them, perhaps a bit of brain matter as well, grown from stem-cells) might arise? And in that case humanity might peak and new life forms take over, at first hybrids, later perhaps more totally machine-like, which isn't saying God doesn't exist, but perhaps humanity's belief in ITS centrality will once again be overthrown, as was the case of us believing we lay at the center of the cosmos, or the belief that we had no genetic nor psychological/sociological/behavioral relations to any of the species that preceded us on the planet.)

Lastly, if you find out more about Stark's current beliefs please share. His wife was very ill I seem to recall reading, which turned his mind more toward religion. But even after having been a believer in God (deist/monotheist?) for years before he became a Christian, he does not appear to have become an inerrantist. For instance, Stark was interviewed in a Baylor university magazine in 2004, and here's how it went:

"I never had any trouble believing in God; I had a lot of trouble with the New Testament, with the whole notion that somehow blood sacrifice is essential to make certain things happen. It seemed to me very pagan," he says, adding that he wondered why God wouldn't choose another way to convey the message of salvation. It was while he was researching the origins of science in Christianity that he came to an understanding and acceptance that made sense to him. "Christian commitment to reason is massive, and part of it is that one shall sit and reason about Scripture," he says. "Augustine says, ‘There are many things here we do not understand about God's revelations, but one day we will.' That suggests to me that the task is there for all of us." In that process of reasoning it out, Stark realized that God's choice of revelation had more to do with us, with his creatures, than it did with God. "It's about what's communicable and can be understood. The limiting factor here was us. What could first century people understand? That's the shape that that particular revelation, that particular great gift, would come in because that was the way it could be accepted and understood. There's a way in which the New Testament story - although timeless - is marked by its time and is thereby appropriate, necessary and true."

[jpholding]

I have read critical book reviews concerning Stark's work in a variety of publications

I didn't ask YOU, you simple-minded buffoon. Mind your own business and keep your long-winded speeches about nothing to yourself. :hehe:

As if it were actually the argument that Christianity ALONE was the enabler; or that people today kept up with its phislophical implications. No one said this, not me, not Stark. Argue with the wall --you may as well, since you already do.

religion. But even after having been a believer in God (deist/monotheist?) for years before he became a Christian, he does not appear to have become an inerrantist. For instance, Stark was interviewed in a Baylor university magazine in 2004, and here's how it went:

Edski, when the heck are you going to learn that this kind of stupid statement doesn't mean a thing to me? I don't CARE who is an inerrantist!

They need to make a commercial with you in it saying:

"Help! I'm talking -- and I can't shut up!" :lmbo:

[Soundsurfr]

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.

Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's; just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means. I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court; if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).



This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil. Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?




As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.



As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.



For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).



Type of activity (walking versus falling).



This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence. Moreover, as any review of a place like snopes.com will reveal, the "supernatural" is hardly the determining factor in this.



If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

To put it as I have, if every Skeptic were Kyle Gerkin, I'd probably have another job.



I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.




If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

JP - sorry for not getting back right away - I've been off with other things.

Will try to respond in detail today or tomorrow.


(Am I having a civil discussion with JPH?:noid: )

[jpholding]

JP - sorry for not getting back right away - I've been off with other things.

Will try to respond in detail today or tomorrow.

Actually....wait a week if you can. *I* will be travelling until the 25th, starting in about 16 hours. I have no idea if I'll even be able to log in here.


(Am I having a civil discussion with JPH?:noid: )

No...this is Sheila. How are you? :hehe:

[Soundsurfr]

Actually....wait a week if you can. *I* will be travelling until the 25th, starting in about 16 hours. I have no idea if I'll even be able to log in here.



No...this is Sheila. How are you? :hehe:

My response is ready, Sheila, but it's not a problem to wait another week.

Enjoy your travels, and please warn me in advance if they bring you anywhere near New York.

[Soundsurfr]

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.


Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's;

Indeed. And if it is impractical to suggest, then it is, by the same token, impractical to believe. This is my point. If it happened, why would it be impractical to suggest that it happened? If the courts allow that it can happen, and the defendant claims that it happened, then unless we investigate further, how can we be sure beyond a “reasonable” doubt that it didn’t?

I can envision a great many criminals being sprung from jail through the application of… let’s call it…. a less naturalistic epistemic philosophy.

just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means.

Ditto to the above. However, if it were able to be shown by demonstration that it is possible for human X to forge the defendant’s fingerprints by some natural means, then it would no longer be impractical to suggest or believe.

I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court;

You may be right on this – I was speaking based on a recollection I had of a case in which the judge was invoking his/her own appeal to divine guidance and was criticized for it, but I cannot find a reference to it, and I don’t remember the details.



if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).

Clearly that’s just a figure of speech. It’s ironic that it refers to natural events outside of the control of the concerned parties.



Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack



This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

So if Moon actually was acting on behalf of God, it would still be our responsibility to put him in jail?

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil.

Oh, I’m sure they did.

Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?

None. I am an avid proponent of the Hume approach. I would see no advantage to accepting a supernatural explanation for anything, and I would reserve judgment as to whether the event actually did occur even by natural means until it was unequivocally shown that it could. Note that in the case of the Indian Prince, The Prince gains no advantage to believe that ice exists in a scenario where it cannot be shown to exist, so he reserves judgment unless or until there is means provided for him to experience it. If that happens, the question is settled. If it doesn’t, he is none the worse off. The alternative approach leaves the Prince vulnerable to any manner of outrageous suggestions, as there is no consistent method of determining the truth value of any of them.





Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse?



As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.

I’m not sure if there actually was an answer to my yes or no question in there somewhere, but I’ll extrapolate and take it as a “no”.

As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.

We disagree.

For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).

So, we should expect God to conform to certain expectations?

however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.


This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence.

We disagree.

If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

Depends on how you look at it.

I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.

That’s fair and consistent, given your worldview.





IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity.



If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?



Probably the topic of another discussion, but I see Stark’s case as the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

[freethinker]

[QUOTE=jpholding]I found your work so poor that when someone asked me to respond to it, I turned it over to someone else. You can read the whole thing at http://www.tektonics.org/af/faithatheist.html

Kyle is not given enough credit for his inventive way of reviewing a book. I read the "faith" book myself and reviewed it concentrating more on scientific errors than religious errors. The mistakes are too many too list here, they can be viewed on my web site book review (http://saenen.4t.com).
In my opinion someone who publishes obvious errors cannot be trusted to champion the truth.
:sad:

[jpholding]

Eh, somehow missed this on vacation I guess...

Indeed. And if it is impractical to suggest, then it is, by the same token, impractical to believe.

Yes, but not because of the issue of whether it is possible for such to happen; rather, because it needs more evidence same as any other defense theory would. Thus:

So if Moon actually was acting on behalf of God, it would still be our responsibility to put him in jail?

Yes. If God is behind Moon, God will do an Acts job as he did with Peter and spring him....or else God must want Moon in jail. Maybe to preach to inmates. :lol: But with the former, we'd have our evidence.


Note that in the case of the Indian Prince, The Prince gains no advantage to believe that ice exists in a scenario where it cannot be shown to exist, so he reserves judgment unless or until there is means provided for him to experience it

That's fine. Hume, however, said that he'd reject a "supernatural" explanation even if the most intelligent men were witnesses who have it to him, did he not? He did not say he'd reserve judgment.


So, we should expect God to conform to certain expectations?

If God is love, and love means looking out for the interests of those who love, then it is indeed to be expected.

[Ishmael]

The article seems compelling enough until you consider that the accurate information about titles, leaders, ports, city locations, events, etc. are also included in works of the classical era that are considered mythology.

[jpholding]

The article seems compelling enough until you consider that the accurate information about titles, leaders, ports, city locations, events, etc. are also included in works of the classical era that are considered mythology.

Ever hear of this concept called "genre"?

Funny, but last I checked, historians used accurate info about such things as a marker of reliability. I guess you're hiding under your bed these days afraid that the aliens will getcha, huh?

[Ishmael]

Ever hear of this concept called "genre"?

Funny, but last I checked, historians used accurate info about such things as a marker of reliability. I guess you're hiding under your bed these days afraid that the aliens will getcha, huh?
Despite your condescension, I know about the genre (they teach that at Seminary, even at New Orleans Baptist), I just don't happen to see how that makes any difference. Fictional books sometimes give factual information and Historical books sometimes record fictional or mythological information. There is no reason to believe the mystical claims of the bible even while accepting that much of it is factually correct historically.

[jpholding]

Despite your condescension, I know about the genre (they teach that at Seminary, even at New Orleans Baptist), I just don't happen to see how that makes any difference.

Then you didn't learn very much, did you? It makes every bit of difference to historians. Maybe you know something they don't.

You went to NOB? I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you had an academic education. :rasberry:

[Ishmael]

Then you didn't learn very much, did you? It makes every bit of difference to historians. Maybe you know something they don't.

You went to NOB? I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you had an academic education. :rasberry:
There is a difference between prosiac issues such as city names, ports, etc. and the account of miracles. Just because the former can be accepted based on a perponderance of accuracy doesn't mean that the latter is an historical fact. All that the historical accuracy tells me is that the author might have believed what he was writing, 30 years (more or less) after the events took place.

When I place this notion of eyewitness testimony, which is a claim of personal experience, against my own redundant experience of the way that the world naturally works, I confirm David Hume's proof. It is possible that the miracles happened just as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John report that they did, however, an infinite number of other possible Natural explanations are more probable.

That is my point, meany.

[jpholding]

There is a difference between prosiac issues such as city names, ports, etc. and the account of miracles.

Yes...just as there is a difference between reports of plane takeoffs and plane crashes. Your point is what?

Just because the former can be accepted based on a perponderance of accuracy doesn't mean that the latter is an historical fact.

The same can be said of every line of every history. Again, what's your point? Is this the sort of thing you dropped your faith for? I'm sorry.


When I place this notion of eyewitness testimony, which is a claim of personal experience, against my own redundant experience of the way that the world naturally works, I confirm David Hume's proof

Hume was rendered inert by the ice analogy. He's a bad choice for a role model if you're looking for a definite way to look at things (as opposed to withholding judgment).

It is possible that the miracles happened just as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John report that they did, however, an infinite number of other possible Natural explanations are more probable.

If they're infinite, perhaps you can name three for three different scenarios and tell us why they should be accepted.

That is my point, meany.

It's not a very good one.

[Ishmael]

Hume was rendered inert by the ice analogy. He's a bad choice for a role model if you're looking for a definite way to look at things (as opposed to withholding judgment).


Perhaps you'll take a little time to explain to us lowly agnostics how Hume was defeated by the ice analogy...?


If they're infinite, perhaps you can name three for three different scenarios and tell us why they should be accepted.


Turn around is fair play... Why should should I believe that the authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses to miracles when I am certain, from personal experience, that miracles do not happen? I have a great deal of historical evidence in my life that suggests that there are no miracles. I mean, we could end this argument here and now if I were to experience just one tiny little miracle that was obvious, like one of those stories from the bible...


It's not a very good one.
A matter of opinion, one based on spending way too much time coming up with ANE excuses for classical Christianity.

[Soundsurfr]

Yes, but not because of the issue of whether it is possible for such to happen; rather, because it needs more evidence same as any other defense theory would.

It needs more evidence, you say, than an eyewitness account? I agree, but that would not be true for "any other defense theory".

Thus:

Thus, we find your approach to be flawed.

Yes. If God is behind Moon, God will do an Acts job as he did with Peter and spring him....or else God must want Moon in jail.

So either way, we don't have to care about whether or not God was involved in the Reverend Moon's killing spree, because whatever happens is what God wanted. Pretty slick. That's the kind of thinking that used to land suspects on top of burning pyres based on little or no evidence. I thought we had gotten over it, to the betterment of the species.

Maybe to preach to inmates. :lol: But with the former, we'd have our evidence.

No we wouldn't. If we didn't have evidence for the first miracle, what makes you think we'd have evidence for the second?

That's fine. Hume, however, said that he'd reject a "supernatural" explanation even if the most intelligent men were witnesses who have it to him, did he not? He did not say he'd reserve judgment.

That works too. As I said, it serves no useful purpose for the prince to believe there is ice if it cannot be proven that there is, while at the same time it exposes him to other risks more serious. This holds true in all cases, AFAIC.

If God is love, and love means looking out for the interests of those who love, then it is indeed to be expected.

Only if you know the ultimate outcome of everything, which you don't.

[jpholding]

It needs more evidence, you say, than an eyewitness account? I agree, but that would not be true for "any other defense theory".

Having great familiarity with the legal process from the defendant's POV, I disagree. An eyewitness can see a bomb go off and kill someone and not see who planted the bomb. A defense theory could say that the accused touched the bomb but did not set it.


So either way, we don't have to care about whether or not God was involved in the Reverend Moon's killing spree, because whatever happens is what God wanted. Pretty slick. That's the kind of thinking that used to land suspects on top of burning pyres based on little or no evidence.

Oh? Name three specific case examples and perform a parallel analysis. That's certainly not how eg, witch trials worked; the accused never said "God did it" for something they were accused of.

Maybe to preach to inmates. But with the former, we'd have our evidence.

No we wouldn't. If we didn't have evidence for the first miracle, what makes you think we'd have evidence for the second?

Yes, we would: The effects. What we do not have is the explanation, not the evidence.


That works too. As I said, it serves no useful purpose for the prince to believe there is ice if it cannot be proven that there is, while at the same time it exposes him to other risks more serious

Utility has no bearing on where the evidence actually leads.



Only if you know the ultimate outcome of everything, which you don't.

Of what?

[jpholding]

Perhaps you'll take a little time to explain to us lowly agnostics how Hume was defeated by the ice analogy...?

It's been done elsewhere by me....use your search function. You may also want to read "Hume's Abject Failure' by Earman.

Turn around is fair play... Why should should I believe that the authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses to miracles when I am certain, from personal experience, that miracles do not happen?

Because your personal experience means exactly zero in terms of what happens elsewhere.

I mean, we could end this argument here and now if I were to experience just one tiny little miracle that was obvious, like one of those stories from the bible...

My, but aren't we important? :wink:

A matter of opinion, one based on spending way too much time coming up with ANE excuses for classical Christianity.

A non-answer....of the sort I have become accustomed to from you.

[Ishmael]

It's been done elsewhere by me....use your search function. You may also want to read "Hume's Abject Failure' by Earman.


Reading your article. I do not need to endure Earman again.


Because your personal experience means exactly zero in terms of what happens elsewhere.

Not even close. If someone (or fifty someones) tells me that they saw a pink dolphin swimming in a pool of orange jello in their backyard, I am at perfect liberty to doubt it, even reject it out of hand because I know that the perponderance of evidence concerning dolphins suggests that there are no pink dolphins. When that person shows me the pink dolphin, then I must accept it. I might, however, assume that the pool full of jello exists because it is much more probable based on what I know about pools and jello.


My, but aren't we important? :wink:


Apparently I am. Or did you redefine the character of the personal God of the Bible so much that now he or she is only concerned with communities?


A non-answer....of the sort I have become accustomed to from you.
It was a response to you suggestion that my position wasn't very good. It's an answer to an egotist who believes that just because he says the "ice analogy" was defeated and writes an article on Humean thought, that the matter is settled.

Now off to read your article.

EDIT: Article read. There is nothing more for us to talk about concerning Hume. Your mundane, typically Christian, criticism is noted.

[jpholding]

Reading your article. I do not need to endure Earman again.


Can't answer him, huh? Kinda spoils the party too, since he's not a Christian.... :hehe:

Not even close. If someone (or fifty someones) tells me that they saw a pink dolphin swimming in a pool of orange jello in their backyard, I am at perfect liberty to doubt it,

Of course you are. Fifty people would hardly own a single backyard. But then again, if they are all reliable witnesses with detailed and reasonably consistent descriptions, and so on, you begin to look very foolish yourself the more you hold out.

Alternatively, you've most likely just decided in advance what can be accepted and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind...just like Hume said of himself.

because it is much more probable based on what I know about pools and jello.

I take it you play "white whale" in some backyard pool filled with orange jello, huh....



Apparently I am. Or did you redefine the character of the personal God of the Bible so much that now he or she is only concerned with communities?

The contextual definition of agape determines that to be true. God isn't obliged to play nanny to a stubborn holdout. :wink:


EDIT: Article read. There is nothing more for us to talk about concerning Hume. Your mundane, typically Christian, criticism is noted.

Funny, because I got it from Earman, who, um, as I said, isn't one.

Good luck in defending your faith. :thumb:

[Ishmael]

Funny, because I got it from Earman, who, um, as I said, isn't one.

Good luck in defending your faith. :thumb:
Geez, you call it "dead and qualified," lots of people call it clarification. You spend countless hours "qualifying" the morally bakrupt portions of the Bible, using technicalities that mean quite a lot of nothing conerning you have this huge elephant of a problem: the silence and hiddennes of God-- I suppose you call this clarification for God? Or is it "qualifying" the surface argument?

Anyway, I think I agree with Earman, but I also agree with the skeptic that anwered your article, mostly. It's not either-or and Hume is not as defeated as you would like him to be.

[jpholding]

Geez, you call it "dead and qualified," lots of people call it clarification. You spend countless hours "qualifying" the morally bakrupt portions of the Bible, using technicalities that mean quite a lot of nothing

Sounds like your replies, doesn't it?

conerning you have this huge elephant of a problem: the silence and hiddennes of God-- I suppose you call this clarification for God?

I call it the misplaced expectation of selfish, individualist, "gimme attention waaah waaaah" moderns with personal insecurities. IOW it's a contrived problem, not a real one.


Anyway, I think I agree with Earman, but I also agree with the skeptic that anwered your article, mostly. It's not either-or and Hume is not as defeated as you would like him to be.

When you come up with actual details as to why, let us know.

[OU812]

I call it the misplaced expectation of selfish, individualist, "gimme attention waaah waaaah" moderns with personal insecurities. IOW it's a contrived problem, not a real one



"If the god of the bible were real, he would have carved 'Jesus is Lord' on the moon!"......... :bawl:




:wink:

[freethinker]

Miracles - natural explanations (post #53)


Quote:
It is possible that the miracles happened just as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John report that they did, however, an infinite number of other possible Natural explanations are more probable.

If they're infinite, perhaps you can name three for three different scenarios and tell us why they should be accepted.
It's not a very good one.

1. Changing water into wine.
1.1 Wine or vinegar was used in water as a preservative. A drunk guest would not have known the difference.
1.2 A prank by a practical joker.
1.3 Emergency delivery from the neighbors.
2. Walking over water.
2.1 A flat rock with the sun shining on it would look like water due to a thermal inversion layer.
2.2 The water could have been shallow.
2.3 There could have been an ice layer.
3. Multiplication of the loaves.
3.1 This is obviously a historic record of the first collection. People contributed waste food as they hadn't learned yet you have to pay hard cash for religion.
3.2 The commotion had attracted caterers and leftovers were royalties to the organisers.
3.3 The food was not guaranteed to be kosher and the disgusted audience spread the rumor that more was left than was eaten.

[HRG_new]

Miracles - natural explanations (post #53)



1. Changing water into wine.
1.1 Wine or vinegar was used in water as a preservative. A drunk guest would not have known the difference.
1.2 A prank by a practical joker.
1.3 Emergency delivery from the neighbors.
2. Walking over water.
2.1 A flat rock with the sun shining on it would look like water due to a thermal inversion layer.
2.2 The water could have been shallow.
2.3 There could have been an ice layer.
3. Multiplication of the loaves.
3.1 This is obviously a historic record of the first collection. People contributed waste food as they hadn't learned yet you have to pay hard cash for religion.
3.2 The commotion had attracted caterers and leftovers were royalties to the organisers.
3.3 The food was not guaranteed to be kosher and the disgusted audience spread the rumor that more was left than was eaten.


Let's not forget that there is an infinite number of different supernatural explanations for the reports in the texts we call gospels by Mark, Luke and John - apart from the natural explanations.

Let's not forget either that someone who argues against the natural explanations on the basis of some allegedly established regularities of nature, must first explain why he ignores the exceedingly well-established regularities that water stays water and dead people stay dead.

[P-Dunn]

Hi, freethinker! Welcome to TWeb.


1. Changing water into wine.
1.1 Wine or vinegar was used in water as a preservative. A drunk guest would not have known the difference.
1.2 A prank by a practical joker.
1.3 Emergency delivery from the neighbors.
1.1 I beg to differ. I'm not sure anybody would have been drunk in the first place, since this isn't like your typical 21st century wedding, but even if they were, are you telling me drunk people don't have any sense of taste?
1.2 Are you saying Jesus was the joker, or someone else? If the first, then it's a rather foolish way to pull a prank. He set it up like a miracle. If the second, that surely doesn't make sense when you read what actually happens in the story.
1.3 People would have noticed that easily.

None of those explanations make any sense at all when you read the story in John 2:1-11.

2. Walking over water.
2.1 A flat rock with the sun shining on it would look like water due to a thermal inversion layer.
2.2 The water could have been shallow.
2.3 There could have been an ice layer.
2.1 Okay, then. Explain why Peter thought it was water and sank into the rock.
2.2 If water is shallow enough to walk on top of it, you have practically no water at all. Certainly not enough to float a boat on, unless it's one that comes in Happy meals.
2.3 Explain how Peter sank into it, and how the boat was out there floating to begin with.

3. Multiplication of the loaves.
3.1 This is obviously a historic record of the first collection. People contributed waste food as they hadn't learned yet you have to pay hard cash for religion.
3.2 The commotion had attracted caterers and leftovers were royalties to the organisers.
3.3 The food was not guaranteed to be kosher and the disgusted audience spread the rumor that more was left than was eaten.
None of those explanations make any sense when you read the story. This says nothing about everyone bringing their own food.

[P-Dunn]

Let's not forget either that someone who argues against the natural explanations on the basis of some allegedly established regularities of nature, must first explain why he ignores the exceedingly well-established regularities that water stays water and dead people stay dead.
Sounds like an appeal to personal experience to me. But it doesn't logically follow that there have never been miracles if we do not experience them personally today. It doesn't logically follow that since nobody rises from the dead today, nobody has ever risen from the dead.

We're not arguing that Jesus rose from the dead in a naturalistic way. This is a supernatural event, and it's a one time event. If people did rise from the dead today, what would the significance of Christ's resurrection be?

You're forbidding the possibility of miracles from the outset.

[jpholding]

Miracles - natural explanations (post #53)


Dunno how I missed this, but let me add a few mote notes to what PD said in answer to this stupidity:

1. Changing water into wine.
1.1 Wine or vinegar was used in water as a preservative. A drunk guest would not have known the difference.

Um, right. :ahem: That's why bars get away with it so easily when they sub light beer for the regular stuff.

1.2 A prank by a practical joker.

It's a little hard to conceive of any Galileean peasant having enough money to buy the requisite wine. A wedding of this sort was a community affair in which everyone contributed something.

Only people too stupid to know the social context make idiotic suggestions like these. That's why they're called "freethinkers" -- they're free of thinking and all that it implies.

1.3 Emergency delivery from the neighbors.

Ditto for the above.

2. Walking over water.
2.1 A flat rock with the sun shining on it would look like water due to a thermal inversion layer.

No such structures in the Sea of Galilee. Next.

2.2 The water could have been shallow.

They were in the middle of the Sea of Galilee, which at its deepest point is 150-200 feet. Nice try.

2.3 There could have been an ice layer.

This latest fantasy theory is quite interesting as it seems to forget that a storm was going on at the time. Oops. Maybe Jesus was ice surfing, huh, and had special cleated boots he picked up from the time travel surplus store.


3. Multiplication of the loaves.
3.1 This is obviously a historic record of the first collection. People contributed waste food as they hadn't learned yet you have to pay hard cash for religion.

Interesting excuse, but if they had waste food, then there's no need for food to be collected for them to eat....duh. :doh: There was also no such thing as "waste food" in this time when the average peasant was nearly always on the verge of starvation.

3.2 The commotion had attracted caterers and leftovers were royalties to the organisers.

No doubt Dum Dum here checked the Galilee Yellow Pages for "caterers". Actually he is so stupid that he thinks that such a profession existed to serve dismally poor peasants in rural Galilee.

3.3 The food was not guaranteed to be kosher and the disgusted audience spread the rumor that more was left than was eaten.

Fish and bread without leaven are pretty obviously kosher.

Got any more stupid things to say?

[The Plain Jane]

Dang that is a long article!

[freethinker]

Dunno how I missed this, but let me add a few mote notes to what PD said in answer to this stupidity:



Um, right. :ahem: That's why bars get away with it so easily when they sub light beer for the regular stuff.

(...)

Got any more stupid things to say?

Yes.
The requirement was for three natural explanations for three miracles. There was no requirement regarding probability.
I do agree with jpholding that local peasants at the time were exceedingly stupid, illiterate, and an easy prey for charlatans pretending to perform miracles.

[HRG_new]

Sounds like an appeal to personal experience to me.

Like the standard appeal of apologists that people woukd not die for a lie ?

But it doesn't logically follow that there have never been miracles if we do not experience them personally today. It doesn't logically follow that since nobody rises from the dead today, nobody has ever risen from the dead.

No, it doesn't. But our experience says that the a priori probability of resurrections are extremely low - lower than mass hallucinations, lies, pious embellishments, mistakes etc. IOW, the natural explanations of the resurrection stories is more probable than the specific supernatural one proposed by Christians.

This is a standard procedure in error theory. If one alleged data point in 10 billion deviates from the straight line on which all other data points are sitting, assume it is a measurement error unless its genuineness has been established with a certainty level of 1 in 10 billion.

We're not arguing that Jesus rose from the dead in a naturalistic way. This is a supernatural event, and it's a one time event.

This kind arguing is called special pleading and could be applied to support a one-time hoax by Loki, cold fusion, N-rays etc.

If people did rise from the dead today, what would the significance of Christ's resurrection be?

It would directly prove that the supernatural exists. Why does Christ's resurrection have to be unique ?


You're forbidding the possibility of miracles from the outset.

If I am, so are you. You are forbidding the possibility that all of Jesus life was a gigantic hoax by Loki. Or that the memories of the gospel authors were miraculously altered. Or that the words that they wrote were miraculously altered. Etc.

In brief, you admit only a very small set of all conceivable miracles - those which fit your religion - and exclude all others.

[jpholding]

Yes.
The requirement was for three natural explanations for three miracles. There was no requirement regarding probability.

Oops. Sounds like an excuse for being a loser to me. :hehe:

I do agree with jpholding that local peasants at the time were exceedingly stupid, illiterate, and an easy prey for charlatans pretending to perform miracles.

Gee. I wonder how we got from what I did say they were (poor and unfortunate) to that (stupid, easy prey).

Sounds like we have a bigot on our hands. :rofl:

Feel free to say more stupid stuff. You might win a Screwball Award yet.

[P-Dunn]

Hi, HRG!

Like the standard appeal of apologists that people woukd not die for a lie ?
I honestly don't see how this has any relevance to what we're talking about, or how it's an appeal to personal experience. Could you explain this, please?

No, it doesn't. But our experience says that the a priori probability of resurrections are extremely low - lower than mass hallucinations, lies, pious embellishments, mistakes etc. IOW, the natural explanations of the resurrection stories is more probable than the specific supernatural one proposed by Christians.
I've never really seen the point of saying how improbable resurrections are as a means to discount the story. It may be more improbable, but again, that's what gives the event significance in the first place. You ask about this later, so I'll get to it when it comes.

The natural explanations are more probable? Did the disciples steal his body, hmm? Or perhaps he didn't really die at all. Take your pick.

This is a standard procedure in error theory. If one alleged data point in 10 billion deviates from the straight line on which all other data points are sitting, assume it is a measurement error unless its genuineness has been established with a certainty level of 1 in 10 billion.
Is this to say that we have no kind of certainty level of the resurrection, and must therefore assume that it's false?

This kind arguing is called special pleading and could be applied to support a one-time hoax by Loki, cold fusion, N-rays etc.
Maybe so. But it seems silly to me to lump supernatural events in with natural events. I was just clarifying what we're arguing about.

It would directly prove that the supernatural exists. Why does Christ's resurrection have to be unique?
It would prove the supernatural exists, but what good does that do when it provides no ground as to what god or gods exist.

It has to be unique to have any kind of significance. Let's say you saw on the news at least once a day that a person had risen from the dead. At first it might surprise and awe you, and you'd probably be a deist by then, but after a while, you wouldn't be surprised at it due to your own desensitization. So how meaningful and lifechanging would reading about some guy 2000 years ago be? Not very. If Christ was one of thousands of people who had risen from the dead, Christianity as we know of it today would probably not even exist at all. Who cares if anotherNazarean rose from the dead anyway?

But here's the point: We don't see people rising from the dead. If the event is unique, there's a whole lot more significance to it. Do you see now?

If I am, so are you. You are forbidding the possibility that all of Jesus life was a gigantic hoax by Loki. Or that the memories of the gospel authors were miraculously altered. Or that the words that they wrote were miraculously altered. Etc.

In brief, you admit only a very small set of all conceivable miracles - those which fit your religion - and exclude all others.
That's awfully presumptuous of you. I'm not forbidding any such possibilities, just looking at what makes the most sense given the evidence we have. For instance, the only thing you have to support those three examples you gave is mere speculation, therefore I see no reason to believe it unless you can back it up with evidence.

That's not to say you would defend such examples, of course.

[HRG_new]

Hi, HRG!


I honestly don't see how this has any relevance to what we're talking about, or how it's an appeal to personal experience. Could you explain this, please?

It is one of the standard apologist arguments that people would not die for a lie, and therefore the gospel stories should be regarded as reliable. But we know the premise only by an appeal to personal experience.

I've never really seen the point of saying how improbable resurrections are as a means to discount the story. It may be more improbable, but again, that's what gives the event significance in the first place. You ask about this later, so I'll get to it when it comes.

We are looking for an explanation for our data (the existence of the gospel manuscripts). Why should we pick the more improbable one ?


The natural explanations are more probable? Did the disciples steal his body, hmm? Or perhaps he didn't really die at all. Take your pick.

Sure. None of these explanations is as improbable as an actual resurrection (1:1010). Therefore one of them should be preferred.

Is this to say that we have no kind of certainty level of the resurrection, and must therefore assume that it's false?

Not at all. It's just that other explanations are less or equally improbable.

Maybe so. But it seems silly to me to lump supernatural events in with natural events. I was just clarifying what we're arguing about.

But we don't know that the gospel stories are based on an actual supernatural event; that's exactly the point under debate. To assume it a priori would be special pleading.



It would prove the supernatural exists, but what good does that do when it provides no ground as to what god or gods exist.

It has to be unique to have any kind of significance. Let's say you saw on the news at least once a day that a person had risen from the dead. At first it might surprise and awe you, and you'd probably be a deist by then, but after a while, you wouldn't be surprised at it due to your own desensitization. So how meaningful and lifechanging would reading about some guy 2000 years ago be? Not very. If Christ was one of thousands of people who had risen from the dead, Christianity as we know of it today would probably not even exist at all. Who cares if anotherNazarean rose from the dead anyway?

What if all resurrected people told us that Christ themselves resurrected them ?

And I am sure that an omniscient god could come up with a miracle which convinces all people - if he exists, of course ;).

But here's the point: We don't see people rising from the dead. If the event is unique, there's a whole lot more significance to it. Do you see now?

That's not the point. We have only claims that someone was resurrected - and those are not unique (see Appolonius of Tyana). Unless you assume it a priori, you cannot state that someone was resurrected until you have excluded all more probable alternatives.

That's awfully presumptuous of you. I'm not forbidding any such possibilities, just looking at what makes the most sense given the evidence we have

The evidence we have includes the basic facts of physiology, confirmed by 10 billion examples: dead people remain dead.

And what makes sense depends on the beholder. I did just notice that specific kinds of miracles make sense to you, while others don't - although there is no essential difference between them.

For instance, the only thing you have to support those three examples you gave is mere speculation, therefore I see no reason to believe it unless you can back it up with evidence.

What speculation ? An alternative which is based on natural, observed mechanisms (lying, stealing etc.) is always less speculative than one which is based on a supernatural, unobserved mechanism (resurrection). The evidence to back this statement are the well-confirmed regularities of nature - something which had much less weight for the more miracle-credulous people of the 1st century than for us.

BTW, I did not defend the particular explanations which freethinker gave.

[P-Dunn]

It is one of the standard apologist arguments that people would not die for a lie, and therefore the gospel stories should be regarded as reliable. But we know the premise only by an appeal to personal experience.
So are you saying such an argument is unreliable? If so, then why are you arguing that we should not believe in resurrections because we don't see them happening today?

We are looking for an explanation for our data (the existence of the gospel manuscripts). Why should we pick the more improbable one ?
Because there is evidence to support it. It would be one thing if we were just pulling it all out of our rears while there was tons of evidence to support more "probable" alternatives, but that is not the case.

All of the data in the gospel manuscripts supports a physical resurrection. You're automatically coming up with a different explanation of what the text plainly says. What's your reason for forbidding the possibility of miracles from the outset?

Sure. None of these explanations is as improbable as an actual resurrection (1:1010). Therefore one of them should be preferred.
I disagree with both parts of this, actually. I posit that surviving the combined events of the flogging, the walk through the town, hanging on a cross bleeding for hours, getting stabbed in the chest by a spear, being put in a cold tomb without medical attention for three days, and then rolling the stone out of the way, beating the guards into submission, and walking back to Jerusalem and convincing all of his disciples that he had somehow triumphed over death as a risen savior is simply impossible. I think an actual resurrection is much more probable than something like this.

With the disciples stealing the body, that in itself is more probable than a resurrection, I suppose. But it's still not a very likely possibility.

Not at all. It's just that other explanations are less or equally improbable.
You said that we should "assume it is a measurement error unless its genuineness has been established with a certainty level of 1 in 10 billion." I'm not sure that can be used to say that x is less probable than y...That seems to convey x is an error, period.

But we don't know that the gospel stories are based on an actual supernatural event; that's exactly the point under debate. To assume it a priori would be special pleading.
If we were just assuming it, sure it would. But again, there is evidence to support this view.

What if all resurrected people told us that Christ themselves resurrected them ?

And I am sure that an omniscient god could come up with a miracle which convinces all people - if he exists, of course ;).
There would still be skeptics, even then. The question, "Who raised Christ?" would logically follow. If all these people had another person raise them from the dead, it would be logical to assume that some other person had raised Christ from the dead. There would be a reason still to deny the significance of Christ's resurrection.

I'm afriad that's your problem, not God's. He's done more than enough.

That's not the point. We have only claims that someone was resurrected - and those are not unique (see Appolonius of Tyana). Unless you assume it a priori, you cannot state that someone was resurrected until you have excluded all more probable alternatives.
...Which begs the question as to whether or not we have evidence to back up the claims.

JP makes quick work (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/apollonius.html) of Appolonius of Tyana.

What other "probable alternatives" do you have? Keep in mind all of the social and historical contexts when you state some.

You have still failed to address my claim. If Christ was the only person to rise from the dead, is it more or less significant?

The evidence we have includes the basic facts of physiology, confirmed by 10 billion examples: dead people remain dead.

And what makes sense depends on the beholder. I did just notice that specific kinds of miracles make sense to you, while others don't - although there is no essential difference between them.
An additional thought for this subject: If Jesus was more than just a man, is it still improbable that he would rise from the dead? In other words, if it can be demonstrated that Jesus was God, would it still be improbable for a resurrection to occur? It seems to me that you're automatically restricting Jesus to be a normal human being.

There's plenty of difference between "God raised Jesus from the dead" and "Jesus' life was a gigantic hoax by Loki." I don't think I should be required to understand miracles you ask me to analyze that you don't even believe in yourself.

What speculation ? An alternative which is based on natural, observed mechanisms (lying, stealing etc.) is always less speculative than one which is based on a supernatural, unobserved mechanism (resurrection). The evidence to back this statement are the well-confirmed regularities of nature - something which had much less weight for the more miracle-credulous people of the 1st century than for us.
Last I knew, we were referring to such alternatives as, "Jesus life was a gigantic hoax by Loki." You said nothing of "observed mechanisms." Such a claim doesn't have any evidence, but speculation...Unless you can point me to something that I have overlooked.

BTW, I did not defend the particular explanations which freethinker gave.
I didn't think you would. You're more intelligent and reasonable than he is. :teeth:

[OU812]

And I am sure that an omniscient god could come up with a miracle which convinces all people - if he exists, of course ;).


Like what? Carving "Jesus is Lord" on the moon?







The evidence to back this statement are the well-confirmed regularities of nature - something which had much less weight for the more miracle-credulous people of the 1st century than for us.


"Less weight", huh? I guess that would explain how and why ancient 'credulous' people would call something a 'miracle' in the first place ....:huh: :shrug:

[freethinker]

Oops. Sounds like an excuse for being a loser to me. :hehe:

Gee. I wonder how we got from what I did say they were (poor and unfortunate) to that (stupid, easy prey).

Sounds like we have a bigot on our hands. :rofl:

Feel free to say more stupid stuff. You might win a Screwball Award yet.
OK. There are two miracles in the Bible that can't be explained naturally.
First: Pontius Pilate governed Judaea from Caesarea om the coast, about 100 km away. He is known to have been in Jerusalem once, an unusual event duly recorded. His alleged presence in Jerusalem in time for the the crucifixion means he was multicorporal.
Second: Jesus Christ is alleged to have lived in Nazareth. The most likely founders of Nazareth and the earliest possible settlers were the Evyonim-Nosrim in 135 AD. There is no record of Nazareth in the Old Testament or the Talmud.

[freethinker]

Hi, freethinker! Welcome to TWeb.


1.1 I beg to differ. I'm not sure anybody would have been drunk in the first place, since this isn't like your typical 21st century wedding, but even if they were, are you telling me drunk people don't have any sense of taste?
1.2 Are you saying Jesus was the joker, or someone else? If the first, then it's a rather foolish way to pull a prank. He set it up like a miracle. If the second, that surely doesn't make sense when you read what actually happens in the story.
1.3 People would have noticed that easily.

None of those explanations make any sense at all when you read the story in John 2:1-11.


2.1 Okay, then. Explain why Peter thought it was water and sank into the rock.
2.2 If water is shallow enough to walk on top of it, you have practically no water at all. Certainly not enough to float a boat on, unless it's one that comes in Happy meals.
2.3 Explain how Peter sank into it, and how the boat was out there floating to begin with.


None of those explanations make any sense when you read the story. This says nothing about everyone bringing their own food.


As I explained elsewhere I didn't bother to find the most probable natural explanations. Here are some more thoughts.
A wedding party in Biblical times lasted several days. The host was not in the position of somebody who realizes at midnight that the booze is finished and the shops are closed. If he was inclined to hide his miscalculation he had the opportunity. In any case this story is unsavory to me because alcoholics use it to justify their addiction.
What probably happened on lake Gallilee was that the strong wind made the apostle's boat drift to about 20 meters from the shore in pitch darkness. When they unexpectedly were hailed by Jesus from he shore it must have been very disorienting. Peter's first thought was obviously that Jesus was standing on the water. His next thought was that they were ashore, but he disproved that by stepping overboard. Fortunately they were close enough to shore at the time so he didn't drown: like most fishermen he probably couldn't swim.

[P-Dunn]

OK. There are two miracles in the Bible that can't be explained naturally.
First: Pontius Pilate governed Judaea from Caesarea om the coast, about 100 km away. He is known to have been in Jerusalem once, an unusual event duly recorded. His alleged presence in Jerusalem in time for the the crucifixion means he was multicorporal.
Second: Jesus Christ is alleged to have lived in Nazareth. The most likely founders of Nazareth and the earliest possible settlers were the Evyonim-Nosrim in 135 AD. There is no record of Nazareth in the Old Testament or the Talmud.
With comments like that, you should probably start bracing for impact of the Stupid Hammer. I am, merely because I quoted you.

*braces for impact*

As I explained elsewhere I didn't bother to find the most probable natural explanations.
Why not? Did you really think posting the first thing that came to your head with no research would suddenly disprove miracles, or less, even make us doubt their historicity for one moment? :ahem:

A wedding party in Biblical times lasted several days. The host was not in the position of somebody who realizes at midnight that the booze is finished and the shops are closed. If he was inclined to hide his miscalculation he had the opportunity. In any case this story is unsavory to me because alcoholics use it to justify their addiction.
Since drunkenness as a condition was condemned by the Scriptures, and since the wine they were drinking would have been diluted to prevent drunkenness, it's unlikely anyone would have been drunk at a party that Jesus was at. I also don't understand why an alcoholic would use this story to justify themselves, as it's a huge decontextualization.

What probably happened on lake Gallilee was that the strong wind made the apostle's boat drift to about 20 meters from the shore in pitch darkness. When they unexpectedly were hailed by Jesus from he shore it must have been very disorienting. Peter's first thought was obviously that Jesus was standing on the water. His next thought was that they were ashore, but he disproved that by stepping overboard. Fortunately they were close enough to shore at the time so he didn't drown: like most fishermen he probably couldn't swim.
This explanation fails completely, because you haven't taken into account Matthew 14:24: "but the boat was already a considerable distance[a] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

And this one: "Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."

[jpholding]

OK. There are two miracles in the Bible that can't be explained naturally.
First: Pontius Pilate governed Judaea from Caesarea om the coast, about 100 km away. He is known to have been in Jerusalem once, an unusual event duly recorded. His alleged presence in Jerusalem in time for the the crucifixion means he was multicorporal.

Wow. That WAS stupid. I didn't think you could do it.

I can't imagine who the procurator/prefect of Rome's most troublesome province would take the responsibility to be present in Jerusalem at a time when trouble was most likely. After all, he had fax machines to send orders if a rebellion started, right? :hehe:

Of course, the ultimate proof he has is that there is evidence of "Super Glue" on Pilate's seat in Caesarea.


Second: Jesus Christ is alleged to have lived in Nazareth. The most likely founders of Nazareth and the earliest possible settlers were the Evyonim-Nosrim in 135 AD. There is no record of Nazareth in the Old Testament or the Talmud.

No, sorry, that's even dumber. For one thing, if you want to say it existed in 135 AD, then that there's no mention of it in the Talmud (3rd-4th century) only defeats the point you're trying to make. Second, I'd like to see you show us that every other village in Galilee the size of Nazareth was mentioned by the OT or by the Talmud, as well as that every Greco-Roman city of such size was mentioned by Greco-Roman historians.

Being a freethinker is great. It means you have absolute license to be this stupid at any time. :bonk:

[freethinker]

Wow. That WAS stupid. I didn't think you could do it.

I can't imagine who the procurator/prefect of Rome's most troublesome province would take the responsibility to be present in Jerusalem at a time when trouble was most likely. After all, he had fax machines to send orders if a rebellion started, right? :hehe:

Of course, the ultimate proof he has is that there is evidence of "Super Glue" on Pilate's seat in Caesarea.



No, sorry, that's even dumber. For one thing, if you want to say it existed in 135 AD, then that there's no mention of it in the Talmud (3rd-4th century) only defeats the point you're trying to make. Second, I'd like to see you show us that every other village in Galilee the size of Nazareth was mentioned by the OT or by the Talmud, as well as that every Greco-Roman city of such size was mentioned by Greco-Roman historians.

Being a freethinker is great. It means you have absolute license to be this stupid at any time. :bonk:

I'm always willing to elucidate.
The first sentence seems to have a spelling mistake, I can't make out the intention. Rebellions were ubiquitous and Romans had a standard way of dealing with them. No orders needed. In any case in 33 the Jews were still wailing and tearing their clothes, not revolting. Pilate resided in Caesarea because it was the civil and military capital of Judaea since 13 BC.
Let me make the story of Nazareth more clear. It did not exist between 1 AD and 33 AD. It is not listed anywhere. The Bible reports a synagogue in Nazareth therefore it had to be listed. The present Nazareth does not correspond to Bilical descriptions: it is located in a depression instead of on a mountain. There are no ruins where Nazareth was supposed to have been.

[jpholding]

The first sentence seems to have a spelling mistake, I can't make out the intention.

That stupid, huh?

Rebellions were ubiquitous and Romans had a standard way of dealing with them. No orders needed.

Oh, really? And would you mind telling us what gumball machine you got this factoid out of? Pilate never had to give orders, eh? So what was his office for? Decoration? :hehe:

Listen...go to your fridge right now, get some mustard, and slather it all over your foot, OK? Cuz you want it to taste real good after this:

http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/wars-jews/b2c9.html


After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.

Wars of the Jews, 2.9.4 (old cite method)

That sound you hear is your credibility blowing into itsy bitsy pieces. :lmbo:

If the man was in Jerusalem for one thing, nothing stops him from coming for others unless you want to be so stupid as to "special plead" your way into gluing him to his chair.

In any case in 33 the Jews were still wailing and tearing their clothes, not revolting.

Oh yes. Incidents like the shields bit were no cause to keep an eye on things, now, were they?

You do have documentation that ALL procurators and prefects were stuck to their chairs, right?



Let me make the story of Nazareth more clear. It did not exist between 1 AD and 33 AD. It is not listed anywhere.

Neither are dozens of other Galileean villages and hundreds of Greco-Romans burgs of the same size. What's your point?

The Bible reports a synagogue in Nazareth therefore it had to be listed.

Had to be listed in WHAT? You have some list titled, "All places with a synagogue in Galilee between 1-33 AD"?

The present Nazareth does not correspond to Bilical descriptions: it is located in a depression instead of on a mountain

Snore -- you're misreading Luke. Nazareth was and still is situated in a hollow "high up against the slopes of a mountain" so that it is enclosed on three sides by portions of the mountain. The "brow" of Luke refers rather to a 30-40 foot limestone cliff at the southwest corner of city, and he is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.


There are no ruins where Nazareth was supposed to have been.

The modern city is built on top of it, you moron. :doh:

How stupid, guy. Be more stupider. :hehe:

[freethinker]

That stupid, huh?
Oh, really? And would you mind telling us what gumball machine you got this factoid out of? Pilate never had to give orders, eh? So what was his office for? Decoration? :hehe:
Pilate was second-rate nobility lording it over a backwater place making as much money as possible. His office was for collecting taxes. He had auxiliary local troops (3000) at his command, a sort of police force. An uprising would be quelled with a legion from Syria.

Listen...go to your fridge right now, get some mustard, and slather it all over your foot, OK? Cuz you want it to taste real good after this:
http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/wars-jews/b2c9.html
Wars of the Jews, 2.9.4 (old cite method)
That sound you hear is your credibility blowing into itsy bitsy pieces. :lmbo:

It pains me to have to write about Josephus, a Jewish traitor and generally unsavory character. He wrote his history in 70AD and was obviously prejudiced against Pilate. His writings while interesting are not acceptable. By the way, mustard is used by eaters of dead animals which I'm not.


If the man was in Jerusalem for one thing, nothing stops him from coming for others unless you want to be so stupid as to "special plead" your way into gluing him to his chair.
True. Not enough is known about Pilate to consign him to a certain place at a certain time. His presence in Jerusalem is not completely impossible, just very unlikely. His casual brutality makes it clear that he would not have patience with a non tax-paying troublemaker.


Had to be listed in WHAT? You have some list titled, "All places with a synagogue in Galilee between 1-33 AD"?
The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any "Nazareth" from its list.
Not a single ancient historian or geographer mentions the place before the 4th century.
St. Paul was obviously unaware of the existence of Nazareth.


Snore -- you're misreading Luke. Nazareth was and still is situated in a hollow "high up against the slopes of a mountain" so that it is enclosed on three sides by portions of the mountain. The "brow" of Luke refers rather to a 30-40 foot limestone cliff at the southwest corner of city, and he is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.
The point is present Nazareth is not built on a mountain except for the part added in 1957. The cliff is not suitable for casting someone down. At most the unfortunate victim would part with his dignity while rolling down the slope.



The modern city is built on top of it, you moron. :doh:
No, there are no ruins below present Nazareth. Archaeologists know how to locate them. They have a good incentive in this case. There was no lack of trying.
A few km from present Nazareth is the village of Sepphoris, the ruins of which do exist.



How stupid, guy. Be more stupider. :hehe:

[jpholding]

Pilate was second-rate nobility lording it over a backwater place making as much money as possible. His office was for collecting taxes. He had auxiliary local troops (3000) at his command, a sort of police force. An uprising would be quelled with a legion from Syria.

So what? This proves he never went to Jerusalem, how?

It pains me to have to write about Josephus, a Jewish traitor and generally unsavory character. He wrote his history in 70AD and was obviously prejudiced against Pilate. His writings while interesting are not acceptable.

:rofl: Yep, he's wiser than all the Josephus scholars like Feldman and Thackery, that "freethinker" boy. :lmbo: So let's try again: This invalidates his comments about Pilate's travel to Jerusalem how, exactly?

And again: Please show us evidence that procurators and prefects in the Empire as a whole Super Glued themselves to their seats and never left the office.

I suspect I'm asking Shari to eat Lambchop here. :hehe: But it's so much fun to put Stupid on display like this. I've asked you for some documentation several times now and all I get is intestinal gas.

You don't happen to accept the Roman Piso theory, do you?

By the way, mustard is used by eaters of dead animals which I'm not.

Aye. Your corpse decayed a long time ago....

True. Not enough is known about Pilate to consign him to a certain place at a certain time. His presence in Jerusalem is not completely impossible, just very unlikely.

Oops. Was that a concession? OK, now let's move to the next step: Let's have that documentation that procurators and prefects were stuck in the office all the time. Start with those that govered in Asia Minor, if you please. Assuming you can even name any. :hehe:

The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any "Nazareth" from its list.

:doh: Uh, yeah, well, there were a lot more than 18 villages and towns in Galilee 1400 years later, Dum Dum, so that Nazareth isn't listed there doesn't prove jack dip. Really, how much stupider can you get? Oh...wait...

Not a single ancient historian or geographer mentions the place before the 4th century.

Please name three historians or geographers that should have mentioned it but didn't. Then show that they consistently named similar sized villages and towns in Galilee.

St. Paul was obviously unaware of the existence of Nazareth.

Why? Because he didn't go out of his way to mention it? He doesn't mention Capernaum either -- so did that not exist too? How about Bethany? I guess we're just lucky that he happened to mention Jerusalem, or that wouldn't exist either. :lolo:

Wow. I mean, you're just so...STUPID. There's no other word for it.

The point is present Nazareth is not built on a mountain except for the part added in 1957. The cliff is not suitable for casting someone down.

It is if your plan is to stone them after you throw them, which was why people were usually thrown from such places, you moron. :doh:


No, there are no ruins below present Nazareth[. Archaeologists know how to locate them.

Oh? What do they do? Pick up the modern city and look underneath? :rofl:

Keep going. The more you say, the stupider you'll look. :thumb:

[freethinker]

I suspect I'm asking Shari to eat Lambchop here. :hehe: But it's so much fun to put Stupid on display like this. I've asked you for some documentation several times now and all I get is intestinal gas.
Not at all. Your lambchops have hormones and antibiotics in them.
I did provide references.


You don't happen to accept the Roman Piso theory, do you?No


Oops. Was that a concession? OK, now let's move to the next step: Let's have that documentation that procurators and prefects were stuck in the office all the time. Start with those that govered (sic) in Asia Minor, if you please. Assuming you can even name any. :hehe:
Little is known about Roman governors besides their names. This is as exciting as reading a telephone book. Request denied. It is known however that governors or prefects including Pilate were perambulatory: they traveled. Pilate hated the Jews and Jerusalem; only unusual circumstance would compel him to travel to the city.


:doh: Uh, yeah, well, there were a lot more than 18 villages and towns in Galilee 1400 years later, Dum Dum, so that Nazareth isn't listed there doesn't prove jack dip. Really, how much stupider can you get? Oh...wait...
Please name three historians or geographers that should have mentioned it but didn't. Then show that they consistently named similar sized villages and towns in Galilee.
That's not how it works. Please provide one reference to Nazareth by one of about 20 contemporary historians. Not? Then provide one reference by anybody before the 4th century. Explain why compulsive chroniclers like the Egyptians do not mention Nazareth ever. Explain why the well-known itinerary for pilgrims compiled in 333AD the Itinerarium Burdigalense mentions holy places in great detail including Jerusalem and Bethlehem but not Nazareth. Explain why Origen didn't find Nazareth despite living 50 km away from it.


Why? Because he didn't go out of his way to mention it? He doesn't mention Capernaum either -- so did that not exist too? How about Bethany? I guess we're just lucky that he happened to mention Jerusalem, or that wouldn't exist either. :lolo:
Wow. I mean, you're just so...STUPID. There's no other word for it.
Paul mentioned Jerusalem because he worked there. The fact that he never mentioned Capernaum or Bethany or Golgotha or Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem has significance but falls out of the scope of the present thread.


It is if your plan is to stone them after you throw them, which was why people were usually thrown from such places, you moron. :doh:Irrelevant. The point is there is no cliff. The Bible specifies a cliff.



Oh? What do they do? Pick up the modern city and look underneath? :rofl:
Keep going. The more you say, the stupider you'll look. :thumb:
They dig.

[jpholding]

I did provide references.

You didn't provide anything at all. I'm waiting for all of them, including the one that by a Roman historian that shows that procurators and prefects stayed glued to their seats.


Little is known about Roman governors besides their names. This is as exciting as reading a telephone book. Request denied. It is known however that governors or prefects including Pilate were perambulatory: they traveled.

Thanks for conceding both your error and your inability to defend it.

Pilate hated the Jews and Jerusalem; only unusual circumstance would compel him to travel to the city.

*cough* Passover festival with hundreds of thousands of restive Jews in one place *cough*

Nah. Nothing unusual about that. :hehe:


That's not how it works.

Yes, that IS how it works. You're making the following claim:

* City X should be noticed because Y

You've named "X" and now you need to fill in "Y". Then you need to show that other cities with the characteristics Y received mention by historians, in order to validate your claim that it ought to have been mentioned.

Explain why compulsive chroniclers like the Egyptians do not mention Nazareth ever.

Show us that they were compulsive enough to mention EVERY city the size of Nazareth in Galilee. Otherwise you're just flabbling.

You get this crap put of 19th century freethinker works, don't you? Or maybe second-hand from "jesusneverexisted.com".


Explain why the well-known itinerary for pilgrims compiled in 333AD the Itinerarium Burdigalense mentions holy places in great detail including Jerusalem and Bethlehem but not Nazareth.

Uh, before you said that Nazareth existed in 135 AD, so I dunno what the heck you think you're helping yourself with here.

Anyway, the IB is a list of places the guy visited, not a list of all cities and villages in Palestine, so there's no reason to demand that Nazareth be mentioned. Does it mention Capernaum? Samaria? Tyre? No? Then I guess those places didn't exist either. :doh:

Good night, you are stupid.

Explain why Origen didn't find Nazareth despite living 50 km away from it.

What do you mean, "didn't find" it? Please stop copying uncritically from jesusneverexisted.com and explain yourself for once, if you even understand what you're posting. Try quoting directly from Origen, for example, saying, "I dunno where this place is, duh."


Paul mentioned Jerusalem because he worked there. The fact that he never mentioned Capernaum or Bethany or Golgotha or Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem has significance but falls out of the scope of the present thread.

:rofl: In other words, you saw the hole you'd dig for yourself if you followed through on the logic. For once you're showing some intelligence.


Irrelevant. The point is there is no cliff. The Bible specifies a cliff.

It specifies a brow of a hill.


They dig.

Wow. They dug under all of modern Nazareth? Do tell. :hehe:

[freethinker]

*cough* Passover festival with hundreds of thousands of restive Jews in one place *cough*
Nah. Nothing unusual about that. :hehe:
Nice try. I tried and failed to conjure up an image of a suave Pilate travelling to the hated city bursting at the seams with hated Jews and lending a kindly ear to the incoherent diatribes of wild barbarians.


Yes, that IS how it works. You're making the following claim:
* City X should be noticed because Y
You've named "X" and now you need to fill in "Y". Then you need to show that other cities with the characteristics Y received mention by historians, in order to validate your claim that it ought to have been mentioned.
Here is how it works. If somebody makes a claim she has to prove it. I could state that Nazareth should be noticed because miracles were performed there or Romans exacted a levy based on property or because bible-history.com ordains that 20,000 people lived there compared with an average 500 per village. But I don't have to.



Show us that they were compulsive enough to mention EVERY city the size of Nazareth in Galilee. Otherwise you're just flabbling.
If there would be a Richter scale of chronicling the Egyptians would rate a 10.


You get this crap put of (sic) 19th century freethinker works, don't you? Or maybe second-hand from "jesusneverexisted.com".
Yes, and many other sources. Congratulations on making the effort to investigate. I know only one historian whose sources are not second-hand: David Irwing.


Uh, before you said that Nazareth existed in 135 AD, so I dunno what the heck you think you're helping yourself with here.
In the interest of brevity I shortly mentioned this as the earliest possible record of habitation without qualification. The settlers were probably fugitives of the latest revolt and did not stay. They probably did not name the place.


Anyway, the IB is a list of places the guy visited, not a list of all cities and villages in Palestine, so there's no reason to demand that Nazareth be mentioned. Does it mention Capernaum? Samaria? Tyre? No? Then I guess those places didn't exist either. :doh:
If a pilgrim did not visit the most holy places there would be no purpose to the enterprise. Nazareth would be one of the three most important places.


What do you mean, "didn't find" it? Please stop copying uncritically from jesusneverexisted.com and explain yourself for once, if you even understand what you're posting. Try quoting directly from Origen, for example, saying, "I dunno where this place is, duh."
From sites like wikipedia.org it is obvious that Origen knew about Nazareth but could not locate it. The location close to Caesarea would have helped him greatly because Christians were already at each other's throats vying for the souls and small change of followers.



:rofl: In other words, you saw the hole you'd dig for yourself if you followed through on the logic. For once you're showing some intelligence. It specifies a brow of a hill.
I've seen pictures. The menacing multitude could conceivably roll a victim down the slope. I can't see a rabble baying for blood taking so much time. The proper way to stone somebody is to bury him to the waist and let fly.


Wow. They dug under all of modern Nazareth? Do tell. :hehe:
I've been at some archaealogical digs myself. It is sobering to be in a Roman villa 2000 years old with modern traffic a few meters overhead. I doubt that there is any place on this planet where so much digging has gone on as in Nazareth.

[jpholding]

Nice try. I tried and failed to conjure up an image of a suave Pilate travelling to the hated city bursting at the seams with hated Jews and lending a kindly ear to the incoherent diatribes of wild barbarians.

Here's a better idea: Clean your your brainpan, then conjure one of a Pilate conscious of his job as prefect over Rome's most troublesome province travelling to the hated city to be able to give orders at a moment's notice should something happen.

Where you get the idea that I was saying he was offering psychotherapy sessions, I don't know, but it probably came from a 19th century freethinker who was just as miseducated.



Here is how it works. If somebody makes a claim she has to prove it. I could state that Nazareth should be noticed because miracles were performed there or Romans exacted a levy based on property or because bible-history.com ordains that 20,000 people lived there compared with an average 500 per village. But I don't have to.

Whatever all that was about. You're making a claim about why cities are mentioned in sources. You can't back it up, quite obviously.

If there would be a Richter scale of chronicling the Egyptians would rate a 10.

Then where's the beef I asked for, Clara?



Yes, and many other sources

Not one of them credible, from the looks of it.

In the interest of brevity I shortly mentioned this as the earliest possible record of habitation without qualification. The settlers were probably fugitives of the latest revolt and did not stay. They probably did not name the place.

:rofl: :lolo: :lol: But the record of their arrival did name it, huh?

Not much more needs to be said to that contrived "excuse o rama". So let me ask you a question:

* What year was Nazareth named?
* What year were the Gospels written?
* If the answer to the first is a later year than the second, please explain how it is that the Gospel authors managed to pick a correct name for a city that wasn't built yet. Then explain why they were oblivious to the fact that this city, being recently built, could not have been around in the time of Jesus.


If a pilgrim did not visit the most holy places there would be no purpose to the enterprise. Nazareth would be one of the three most important places.

By whose reckoning? Nothing is recorded as having happened in Nazareth except a very unheartfelt welcome at the synagogue, and a notable lack of miracles. :lolo:


From sites like wikipedia.org it is obvious that Origen knew about Nazareth but could not locate it.

I ask for a quote, I get "wikipedia" -- the Abomination that Causes Misinformation.

Either quote Origen as saying, "Duh, I dunno where Nazareth is" or admit you're is denial.


I've seen pictures. The menacing multitude could conceivably roll a victim down the slope. I can't see a rabble baying for blood taking so much time. The proper way to stone somebody is to bury him to the waist and let fly.

However "proper" it is (and who made you the world's leading expert on stoning, I don't know -- I would have thought "being stoned," yes, not stoning), it was done often by throwing someone down from a higher place first. Check the story of James in Josephus.


I've been at some archaealogical digs myself. It is sobering to be in a Roman villa 2000 years old with modern traffic a few meters overhead. I doubt that there is any place on this planet where so much digging has gone on as in Nazareth.

Care to validate that view with some backup from a credible archaeological source? Last I heard it was Jericho that had that distinction.

At this point, you're clearly so stupid and gullible that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

[freethinker]

Here's a better idea: Clean your your brainpan, then conjure one of a Pilate conscious of his job as prefect over Rome's most troublesome province travelling to the hated city to be able to give orders at a moment's notice should something happen.
Why then isn't there a record of Pilate going to Jerusalem on other Passovers? The previously mentioned historian Josephus chronicled the most boring and unimportant things in his Jewish wars. Pilate was his favorite villain, surely worth mentioning. In an uprising Jerusalem would have been a trap and the two cohorts of auxiliaries wouldn't save Pilate. Caesarea had an escape route. There is also an inconsistency that has to be pointed out. The priests had immediate access to Pilate in the middle of the night. On another more serious occasion petitioners asking to remove Roman standards (sometimes called shields) had to wait five days before being addressed. Admittedly the average Bible reader does not know this.


Then where's the beef I asked for, Clara? [ Nazareth & Egyptians]
Sorry, time pressure. And you could rightly claim that it would not prove anything one way or the other.


* What year was Nazareth named?
* What year were the Gospels written?
* If the answer to the first is a later year than the second, please explain how it is that the Gospel authors managed to pick a correct name for a city that wasn't built yet. Then explain why they were oblivious to the fact that this city, being recently built, could not have been around in the time of Jesus.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
The name Nazareth existed before the foundation of the village. It was first named in the gospel of Mark but this was a mistake. Mark thought that "Nazarene" had to refer a place while in actual fact it can be translated as "the one of the truth." This dates Nazareth as a name to 70 AD. The village was finally founded by empress Helena between 300-327 AD, exact date unknown. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Keep in mind that the early Christians had an incentive to keep the non-existence of Nazareth secret.
The gospels were written between 70 AD and 1563 AD.


[Nazareth unmentioned] By whose reckoning? Nothing is recorded as having happened in Nazareth except a very unheartfelt welcome at the synagogue, and a notable lack of miracles. :lolo:
One would expect a number of false prophets and some stonings of true prophets, scandals, murder in a decent sized Jewish city, and at least one unfavorable remark by an Essene. The usual run of things.

Either quote Origen as saying, "Duh, I dunno where Nazareth is" or admit you're is (sic) denial.
Origen would rather cut off a body part than admit anything of the sort. His complete silence on the matter is eloquent.

However "proper" it is (and who made you the world's leading expert on stoning, I don't know -- I would have thought "being stoned," yes, not stoning), it was done often by throwing someone down from a higher place first. Check the story of James in Josephus.
I approve of casting someone down first. It would break limbs and the victim could be stoned at leisure. Alas, Nazareth has no suitable cliff or brow. It is unrealistic to expect an unconstrained victim to meekly await death by stoning. The multitude would witness a new record being set in the 100 meter dash. I'm not an expert on stoning, Arabs are, but I can guarantee the forementioned .


[archaeaology underground]Care to validate that view with some backup from a credible archaeological source? Last I heard it was Jericho that had that distinction.
The site is in in the middle of Tongeren, densely populated. It is open to the public. In Troy there are seven cities each one built upon the other, all excavated. It is good to be skeptic so go and look. In Nazareth furious digging has gone on since the time of the crusades when there was more open space. The result of eight centuries of effort is zero.


At this point, you're clearly so stupid and gullible that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

[jpholding]

istorian Josephus chronicled the most boring and unimportant things in his Jewish wars. Pilate was his favorite villain, surely worth mentioning.

Yeah. Right. Even if on a visit he didn't do anything rotten. :doh: If he came, he saw, and nothing bad happened, Josephus sure would record it wouldn't he? Kind of like Beaver Cleaver writing in his diary:

"Woke up. Went to school. Came home. Went to sleep." :bonk:

In an uprising Jerusalem would have been a trap and the two cohorts of auxiliaries wouldn't save Pilate. Caesarea had an escape route.

So now we'll contrive the excuse that Pilate was a coward? Well, then he would never go to Jerusalem ever by that logic, and you've already had to admit your error and allow that he did go once recorded by Josephus.

Just keep gyrating and writing more history to excuse away history. It's funny. :lmbo:


There is also an inconsistency that has to be pointed out. The priests had immediate access to Pilate in the middle of the night.

Sigh...more ignorance.

1) Because the day was so hot, ancient people often awoke very early (4-5 AM) to do work and took a midday siesta. This was normal.
2) In capital cases, the priests would have notified Pilate IN ADVANCE that they were going to make an arrest, because Rome had to approve all executions, legally. So Pilate would be ready for it.

Any more dumb ideas?

On another more serious occasion petitioners asking to remove Roman standards (sometimes called shields) had to wait five days before being addressed. Admittedly the average Bible reader does not know this.

I do. And there's a difference between that and a capital case. Of course the priests had been plotting this for the prior week, so don't be too sure Pilate wasn't in on it five days before. And that five days, you might consider an example of Pilate trying to hold out against his better judgment. Which would have informed him this time around.


Sorry, time pressure. And you could rightly claim that it would not prove anything one way or the other.

In other words, you realize you can't buffalo me so you withdraw the argument.

How old are you? 15?


ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Zeus help us. He uses Wikipedia as a source.

The name Nazareth existed before the foundation of the village. It was first named in the gospel of Mark but this was a mistake. Mark thought that "Nazarene" had to refer a place while in actual fact it can be translated as "the one of the truth."

That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.

But let me get this straight. Mark saw Jesus as "one of the truth" so he assumed he was from a town with a name that means what? "One of the truth place"? And then someone in 70 conveniently named a town this very thing? And yet it wasn't on an itinerary from the 3rd-4th century, so it didn't exist then? What happened? Did some aliens come down and phase shift it into another dimension for like 500 years after 70?

This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Keep in mind that the early Christians had an incentive to keep the non-existence of Nazareth secret.

*cough* *splutter*

Wow. Can you give me some hints on how to do that? There's this real backwards burg near here I'd like to have hidden for a while. :rofl:


The gospels were written between 70 AD and 1563 AD.


1563 AD???

That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.

1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

One would expect a number of false prophets and some stonings of true prophets, scandals, murder in a decent sized Jewish city, and at least one unfavorable remark by an Essene. The usual run of things.

:glare:

None of that happened in Nazareth. What the heck is your point?


Origen would rather cut off a body part than admit anything of the sort. His complete silence on the matter is eloquent.

So in other words, you admit you have nothing to show that Origen did not know where Nazareth was (even though it was founded in 70 AD, or is it 135?). Thank you.

Alas, Nazareth has no suitable cliff or brow.

Um, it's real simple. All you need is a place that's higher than another. Nazareth has that. Case closed.

It is unrealistic to expect an unconstrained victim to meekly await death by stoning.

That's why you roughed him up on the way, dum dum. :doh:

In Nazareth furious digging has gone on since the time of the crusades when there was more open space. The result of eight centuries of effort is zero.

In other words, you can't quantify your earlier statements or compare to other cities to show that this is unusual. Thank you.

Pitiful indeed you are.

[freethinker]

<Plate>Yeah. Right. Even if on a visit he didn't do anything rotten. :doh: If he came, he saw, and nothing bad happened, Josephus sure would record it wouldn't he? Kind of like Beaver Cleaver writing in his diary:
"Woke up. Went to school. Came home. Went to sleep." :bonk: (...)
Let it stand that there is no independent record of Pilate being in Jerusalem on a critical day. Circumstantial evidence is against him being there also. Miracles have been claimed for lesser reasons.


1) Because the day was so hot, ancient people often awoke very early (4-5 AM) to do work and took a midday siesta. This was normal.
I wasn't aware that siesta had such a long history. Is there any evidence of this?


<Jesus the Nazarene>That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.
OK, I studied Greek. At the time when the Bible was being penned Greek was the lingua franca in the East and there must have been some translation problems. The Greek word "Nazaraios" as used in the Bible means Nazarene, "Nazarethaios" would mean "of Nazareth". The following search: "http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=nazarene&btnG=Search&meta=" will result in 4,610,000 references.


But let me get this straight. Mark saw Jesus as "one of the truth" so he assumed he was from a town with a name that means what? "One of the truth place"? And then someone in 70 conveniently named a town this very thing? And yet it wasn't on an itinerary from the 3rd-4th century, so it didn't exist then? What happened? Did some aliens come down and phase shift it into another dimension for like 500 years after 70?
Here is the timeline: The first followers of Jesus Christ called themselves Nazarenes, not Christians. In 135 AD they settled for a short while in an empty area and may have called it Nazareth, but this is not certain. Sometime after 303 AD empress Helena, a devout Christian, came looking for Nazareth, didn't find it, founded it. With the resources available to her Helena would have found Nazareth if it existed. Interestingly Jesus of Nazareth is on record as saying "I am the Truth."


<hiding Nazareth>*cough* *splutter*
Wow. Can you give me some hints on how to do that? There's this real backwards burg near here I'd like to have hidden for a while. :rofl:
Easy: obfuscation. Politicians do it all the time. Read their lips.


Bible1563 AD???
That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.
1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

1) AD 117. It may have taken a few years.
2) If falls within the lifetime of Tacitus and was his last great work. The Roman practice of keeping track of dates using the name of the ruling emperor and historical events makes Roman dates somewhat inaccurate.
3) ref http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
The very first version of Mark was probably written around 66AD, as Mark seems unaware of the siege of Jerusalem. Exact dates are impossible to get but the gospel of John was probably written before 110 AD. Different sects proceeded to tailor the gospels to their requirements.
The Bible was finalized at the council of Trent in 1563. No more changes were allowed after that.


:glare:<events>None of that happened in Nazareth. What the heck is your point?
It is circumstantial evidence that the place didn't exist. Nothing happens in Neverville so that place doesn't exist.


So in other words, you admit you have nothing to show that Origen did not know where Nazareth was (even though it was founded in 70 AD, or is it 135?). Thank you.
The onus is on the apologist to prove that Origen knew about Nazareth. The missing quote should sound like this: "Nazareth is 50 kays from me therefore Caesarea (which is me should be the center of Christianity, not Jerusalem." Here is a thought experiment that illustrates how convincing negative evidence really is. You go to a helicopter. Ask the pilot if he can fly the thing. The pilot looks at you, doesn't answer. At this point the negative evidence will assume overriding importance.


Um, it's real simple. All you need is a place that's higher than another. Nazareth has that. Case closed.
That's why you roughed him up on the way, dum dum. :doh:
No and no. A mob in a killing frenzy doesn't drag a victim up a slope to roll him down. And the victim in this case was not handled roughly: he was still able to evade the mob.


In other words, you can't quantify your earlier statements or compare to other cities to show that this is unusual. Thank you.
Pitiful indeed you are.
In every big city in Europe you will find a museum of natural history with a compound total of millions of artifacts on display. Each artifact has a description including the retrieval site. You will find museums in Israel too. You will never find an artifact hailing from pre-300AD Nazareth. In Jerusalem, Caesarea, nearby Sepphoris and all old cities in Israel you can find guides to bring you to ancient ruins. Not so in Nazareth

[jpholding]

Let it stand that there is no independent record of Pilate being in Jerusalem on a critical day.

There's no "indepedent record" (whatever that is in context!) of Pilate doing any single thing he did. Your point is what?

Circumstantial evidence is against him being there also

There's no such thing against him being there whatsoever. You have simply contrived a rule about travel of Roman officials out of nothing.


I wasn't aware that siesta had such a long history. Is there any evidence of this?

You bet. And I'll give it to you once I get all that I've been asking you for on stuff like travel of Roman officials.

<Jesus the Nazarene>That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.

OK, I studied Greek. At the time when the Bible was being penned Greek was the lingua franca in the East and there must have been some translation problems. The Greek word "Nazaraios" as used in the Bible means Nazarene, "Nazarethaios" would mean "of Nazareth". The following search: "http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=nazarene&btnG=Search&meta=" will result in 4,610,000 references.

In other words, you haven't got any reputable authority to back up your claim. Thank you.


Here is the timeline: The first followers of Jesus Christ called themselves Nazarenes, not Christians. In 135 AD they settled for a short while in an empty area and may have called it Nazareth, but this is not certain. Sometime after 303 AD empress Helena, a devout Christian, came looking for Nazareth, didn't find it, founded it. With the resources available to her Helena would have found Nazareth if it existed. Interestingly Jesus of Nazareth is on record as saying "I am the Truth."

In other words, all you have is this contrived fantasy.

* "Christians" was coined by pagans....not followers of Christ.
* They did not call themselves "Nazarenes". The movement was call "The Way."
* Before it was Jewish preists who settled there. Now you say it is Christians/Nazarenes. What year do you plan to make up your mind?
* If they did call it Nazareth in 135 for the first time (or even if it was 303), may I ask why it is that someone didn't choose a town that was known to have existed?
* Do you ever plan on proving to me that other burgs the size and worth of Nazareth always received mention in these sources you keep rambling about but never validate?


Easy: obfuscation. Politicians do it all the time. Read their lips.

In other words, you have no real answer. Thank you again.



That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.
1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

1) AD 117. It may have taken a few years.
2) If falls within the lifetime of Tacitus and was his last great work. The Roman practice of keeping track of dates using the name of the ruling emperor and historical events makes Roman dates somewhat inaccurate.
3) ref http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org...ian_gospels.htm
The very first version of Mark was probably written around 66AD, as Mark seems unaware of the siege of Jerusalem. Exact dates are impossible to get but the gospel of John was probably written before 110 AD. Different sects proceeded to tailor the gospels to their requirements.

Wow. You actually got something right for a change on 1 and 2.

Now let's dive into Mark on 3. Explain why the date has to be 66 and not earlier, like 50. That's where I put it -- c. 50-55.

You have a whole week to think about it, because I have to travel for a while.


The Bible was finalized at the council of Trent in 1563

Did Trent also forge the mss. that scholars date to the 3rd and 4th century?


It is circumstantial evidence that the place didn't exist. Nothing happens in Neverville so that place doesn't exist.

That...made no sense at all.

The onus is on the apologist to prove that Origen knew about Nazareth.

No, it is not. The onus is on the claimant, and you claim that he did not know where it was. You have been asked again and again to provide evidence. You have not. I make no claim here other than that Origen did not say any such thing, and that I have found to be true.


No and no. A mob in a killing frenzy doesn't drag a victim up a slope to roll him down.

Sure, just like they don't take him to a tree to hang him. :doh:

And the victim in this case was not handled roughly: he was still able to evade the mob.

Oh. I guess they just took out little tweezers and gently picked him up with them when they were trying to stone him, huh? :hehe:

You will find museums in Israel too. You will never find an artifact hailing from pre-300AD Nazareth.

Then all you have to do is show me that there are pre-300 AD artifacts from ALL similar sized towns with similar situations, and you're starting to get somewhere.

Pitiful indeed. This is a classic example of why we need critical thinking taught in our schools.


I'll be back next week to see what other nonsense you come up with.

[freethinker]

There's no "indepedent record" (whatever that is in context!) of Pilate doing any single thing he did. Your point is what?
My point is that if Pilate was in Jerusalem, it was a miracle.

In other words, you haven't got any reputable authority to back up your claim. Thank you.
In Acts, xxiv, 5 the Christians are spoken of by Tertullus as "the sect of the Nazarenes".
There is a tradition as early as Tertullian that an early name for Christians was Nazarenes.
Epiphanius in Panarion 29,7 describes Nazarenes as decidedly orthodox in all matters including the deity of Christ, except that of observance of Jewish customs.
Jerome has written extensively about Nazarenes :"The Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law ..."
Talmudic literature: a dozen or so refs to 'Nazarene' and all but two of these refer to Jesus.
For an exhaustive report on Nazarenes read Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Stephen G. Wilson, Fortress: 1995.

* Before it was Jewish preists who settled there. Now you say it is Christians/Nazarenes. What year do you plan to make up your mind?

Who cares what they were. The called themselves Nazarenes, came and went.

* If they did call it Nazareth in 135 for the first time (or even if it was 303), may I ask why it is that someone didn't choose a town that was known to have existed?
Why indeed. The only thing I know for sure is that I didn't do it.


* Do you ever plan on proving to me that other burgs the size and worth of Nazareth always received mention in these sources you keep rambling about but never validate?

I did: The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns. What's the purpose of an incomplete list? I also explained that the good empress Helena went looking, couldn't find it, built it. Helena was a saint, incapable of lying.



Now let's dive into Mark on 3. Explain why the date has to be 66 and not earlier, like 50. That's where I put it -- c. 50-55.
Most Biblical scholars refer to chapter 13 of Mark as referring to the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. Therefore the earliest possible date for the gospel is 66. A more likely date is after 70 when Herod's temple was destroyed. Geisler seems to think Mark was even earlier than 50 AD and he makes money out of it.

Did Trent also forge the mss. that scholars date to the 3rd and 4th century?
You misconstrue. The council of Trent ended the age of forgeries. The alleged Tacitus forgeries are dated to the 14th century. Absolute certainty is equal to insanity, so a reasonable person will always allow for doubt. The probability of forgery in the case of Tacitus is below 1%.


No, it is not. The onus is on the claimant, and you claim that he did not know where it was. You have been asked again and again to provide evidence. You have not. I make no claim here other than that Origen did not say any such thing, and that I have found to be true.
Very little is known of the life of Jesus in Nazareth. I can't imagine the kind of nonchalance that would result in Origen foregoing the opportunity to visit Nazareth and try to find out more and then shout it from the rooftops.


Sure, just like they don't take him to a tree to hang him. :doh:
Oh. I guess they just took out little tweezers and gently picked him up with them when they were trying to stone him, huh? :hehe:
This stoning theory is pure conjecture. It does not correspond to the Bible. The Bible clearly states casting someone down a "brow" with lethal intent. Don't change the Bible.


Then all you have to do is show me that there are pre-300 AD artifacts from ALL similar sized towns with similar situations, and you're starting to get somewhere.
The best example is Nazareth itself. There are in fact artifacts from the Nazareth area indicating early habitation in the stone, bronze and iron age. Usually these are connected to funeral sites, and there is some pottery. There is no sign of occupation from about 500 BC to 300 AD. This includes the Babylonian, Greek and Roman age. One would at least expect burial sites and the foundations of the alleged synagogue.


Pitiful indeed. This is a classic example of why we need critical thinking taught in our schools.
Dead right, but it's probably too late.

[jpholding]

My point is that if Pilate was in Jerusalem, it was a miracle.

A point you have yet to validate by any reasoning whatsoever, especially the habits of Roman officials.

At this point I've become tired of your stupidity. You are completely unable to back up your points and merely contrive excuses.


In Acts, xxiv, 5 the Christians are spoken of by Tertullus as "the sect of the Nazarenes".

The same author you cite (Luke), the earliest of all you cited, also regards Nazareth as a real city that existed. So why do you accept what he says here as true but reject his testimomy on the existence of Nazareth?

Is it possible for you to get any stupider, or do you have limits?

For an exhaustive report on Nazarenes read Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Stephen G. Wilson, Fortress: 1995.

I noticed that none of this showed that Christians called themselves Nazarenes, other than a late sect well past the time of the first century.

Who cares what they were. The called themselves Nazarenes, came and went.

They'll also no doubt be whatever else you need them to be for your convenience: Purple aliens from Pluto....dentists....retired parachutists. :doh:


I did: The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns. What's the purpose of an incomplete list?

If the Talmud does not say that the list is intended to be an exhaustive list of all towns in Galilee (which it is certainly not), then the "purpose" is not for you to decide or change on a whim.

Come on -- THINK for once in your life! :huh:

I also explained that the good empress Helena went looking, couldn't find it, built it.

It's too bad your explanation doesn't have the backing of a credible source. Real archaeologists know that small villages leave behind little or no evidence -- just the sort your hero Humphreys notes.

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence that villages of similar size and nature left much more substantial artifacts. Well?


Most Biblical scholars refer to chapter 13 of Mark as referring to the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. Therefore the earliest possible date for the gospel is 66.

Yawn...same old nonsense.


Apocalyptic Prediction. 70 seems to be a very popular date for Mark (and the other Gospels as well); but why? The answer lies in the "little apocalypse" of Mark 13, where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This took place in 70 AD, and since it is assumed that predictive prophecy is impossible, skeptics (and even some who are not skeptics) must date the book no earlier than 70, and some after 70. (See [Perr.NTI, 159]; [Spiv.ANT, 62-3]; [Ander.GM, 26]) Other than noting the anti-miraculous bias of this position, we may counter that:

The context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Verses 13:1, 3 and 11 imply that the temple is still standing, referring to it in a very casual way. (In fact, this stands as a reason to date Mark BEFORE AD 70!)

The warning of fleeing to the mountains does not fit the picture. By AD 68, Jerusalem was isolated, and there were Romans and hostile Sicarii in the mountains - people fled INTO Jerusalem, and to forts like Masada and Herodion - NOT from Jerusalem and into the mountains. Christians, according to Eusebius, fled to Pella in the Decapolis [Robin.RNT, 16-7], which is decidedly not where Jesus said to flee. This did not happen in 70 AD or anywhere near then; and if it is suggested that Mark writing in 70 (or slightly before) and was guessing that such things would happen shortly, we may ask why his Gospel was not trashed for missing the boat!

A prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique anyway. First, destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were. Second, several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions; they were a dime a dozen, and seemingly about as common as modern Americans suggesting blowing up the White House. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 AD [ibid., 15]. Third, warnings of the Temple being completely torn down - which to a Jewish mind, would have beem the only conceivable method of judgment involving the Temple [Heng.Mark, 15]- are found throughout the OT and in the Book of 2 Maccabees.

Therefore, there is no reason to use this section of Mark 13 as an argument for dating the whole of Mark at 70 or later.

Care to be a little more critical this time?

Geisler seems to think Mark was even earlier than 50 AD and he makes money out of it.

Ken Humphreys gives his book away free, does he?

You misconstrue. The council of Trent ended the age of forgeries. The alleged Tacitus forgeries are dated to the 14th century.

There is also no evidence of forgery in the Gospels. But feel free to lay out what I know you will lay out as "evidence". It's all old news.

Very little is known of the life of Jesus in Nazareth. I can't imagine the kind of nonchalance that would result in Origen foregoing the opportunity to visit Nazareth and try to find out more and then shout it from the rooftops.

Then perhaps you need to inform your ignorance. Ancient people thought personality was static; what happened as a person grew up was considered overwhelmingly irrelevant. A person's childhood would never be featured in a biography unless there was a special event which served to illustrate how they were prodigies and how they would be in the future. People of this culture (as in most cultures today) did not have your Western golly-gee mentality and did not "get to know" each other as people.

Thus there is nothing that would compel Origen to do any such thing as you describe.


This stoning theory is pure conjecture. It does not correspond to the Bible. The Bible clearly states casting someone down a "brow" with lethal intent. Don't change the Bible.

Don't be ignorant of the contexts. Stoning was the normal and expected way a false prophet would be dealt with. That is what the picture fits no matter how hard you stamp your feet.


The best example is Nazareth itself. There are in fact artifacts from the Nazareth area indicating early habitation in the stone, bronze and iron age. Usually these are connected to funeral sites, and there is some pottery. There is no sign of occupation from about 500 BC to 300 AD.

Wrong -- there are Herodian era tombs. There's the burial sites.

One would at least expect burial sites and the foundations of the alleged synagogue.

Listen, stupid....a "synagogue" was just at least 10 Jewish men -- not a building. They just as readily met outdoors or in someone's mud or straw hut.

Dead right, but it's probably too late.

For you, definitely.

[freethinker]

Before destroying some more theist theories I want to draw attention to the original theme of this thread "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" Presumably this means theist protagonists will use rational arguments, at least in this thread. Wishful thinking, assumptions, extrapolations are all faith-based.

"The same author you cite (Luke), the earliest of all you cited, also regards Nazareth as a real city that existed. So why do you accept what he says here as true but reject his testimomy on the existence of Nazareth?"
- A liar can speak the truth by mistake.


"If the Talmud does not say that the list is intended to be an exhaustive list of all towns in Galilee (which it is certainly not), then the "purpose" is not for you to decide or change on a whim.
Come on -- THINK for once in your life! :huh:"
- Let's have it in black and white. The name Nazareth is never mentioned anywhere before the 3rd century. Hands up all those who think this is irrelevant.



"It's too bad your explanation doesn't have the backing of a credible source. Real archaeologists know that small villages leave behind little or no evidence -- just the sort your hero Humphreys notes."
An article in New Scientist in October states that remnants of uninhabited stone buildings are expected to survive at least 3,000 years.


"I'm waiting for you to produce evidence that villages of similar size and nature left much more substantial artifacts. Well?"
- http://erfgoed.gemeentemol.be/product/1568/default.aspx?_vs=0_N&id=2426
This is a museum in a rather small village, early population a few dozen. Evidence of habitation during the Gallo-Roman age and stone age is available. Most locations in Europe have such museums. Space forbids me to make 10,000 entries.
Even worse: Nazareth has evidence of occupation before and after Biblical times, not during. I explained this before.


"There is also no evidence of forgery in the Gospels. But feel free to lay out what I know you will lay out as "evidence". It's all old news."
- There was a motive and opportunity.


"Then perhaps you need to inform your ignorance. Ancient people thought personality was static; what happened as a person grew up was considered overwhelmingly irrelevant. A person's childhood would never be featured in a biography unless there was a special event which served to illustrate how they were prodigies and how they would be in the future. People of this culture (as in most cultures today) did not have your Western golly-gee mentality and did not "get to know" each other as people.
Thus there is nothing that would compel Origen to do any such thing as you describe. "
- You just descrived why Nazareth is so important. In any event two seconds of applied common sense will show that there is then also no reason to give places like Bethlehem and Jerusalem special status.


"Wrong -- there are Herodian era tombs. There's the burial sites."
- You mean the bronze age caves discovered by father Bagatti? The tombs are too close to where Nazareth should have been. There was a taboo against burial sites close to habitation.


"Listen, stupid....a "synagogue" was just at least 10 Jewish men -- not a building. They just as readily met outdoors or in someone's mud or straw hut."
- Not true. There were and are strict rules concerning the synagogue building, which direction it must be facing , where the Torah scrolls are kept etc.. Read Luke 4:20 and explain why you think there is no building.