1

Ah, Joe:

This sort of stuff would be laughable, except that it is taken seriously by a lot of people who do not understand the basic credibility of the historical records regarding Jesus. Indeed, I recall that a recent survey of the younger sections of the British public indicates that a majority, even of the educated, think that Jesus was a myth -- in the teeth of evidence that makes it plain that he was an historical figure, with a force aptly summed up by Barrister Frank Morison:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecuter became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

In that, they have been misled by 2+ centuries of philosophically ill-founded, destructively self-referentially absurd and unjustifiably historiographically skeptical critical scholarship, now augmented by a slanderous assault on those who challenge the alleged wisdom of such.

I note a key excerpt from W L Craig, in his debate with Gerd Ludemann:

I want to share four facts that are widely accepted by New Testament scholars today.

Fact 1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea . . . .

Fact 2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers . . . .

Fact 3: On multiple occasions and under multiple circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead . . . .

Fact 4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason [i.e. it was counter to their interests and even safety] not to . . . .

In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. H. McCullagh lists six [comparative difficulties based] tests used by historians to determine the best explanation for historical facts. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" passes all these tests.

1. It has great explanatory scope. It explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw postmortem appearances of Jesus and why the Christian Faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power. It explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution [his death being certified by the executioner and accepted by the governor, who then released his body for honourable burial] . . .

3. It is plausible. Given . . . Jesus' own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation . . .

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. It requires only one additional hypothesis -- that God exists . . .

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis . . . does not in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise naturally from the dead . . .

6. It far outstrips any of its rival theories in meeting conditions 1 through 5. . . . various rival explanations have been offered -- for example the conspiracy theory, the apparent death theory, the hallucination theory and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. No naturalistic hypothesis has attracted a great number of scholars . . . .

[W]hy, we may ask, does Dr Ludemann [as a representative among many other modernist-influenced scholars] reject the resurrection hypothesis? As you read his book, the answer becomes clear: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr Ludemann just cannot bring himself to believe in miracles. He states, "Historical criticism . . . does not reckon with an intervention of God in history." Thus, the resurrection cannot be historical; the hypothesis goes out the window before you even sit down at the table to look at the evidence . . . He says, "Hume . . . demonstrated that a miracle is defined in such a way that 'no testimony is sufficienrt to establish it.' " The concept of a resurrection, he says, presupposes "a philosophical realism that is untenable since Kant." [Excerpted, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, Eds. Copan & Tacelli, IVP 2000, pp. 32 - 38. Links and parentheses added; italics in original. NB: Subsequent to this debate, Dr Ludemann became an atheist.]

That should suffice to set a context for those who would wish to seriously take up the issue.

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

2

Isn't interesting how much time a resources are directed against Christians by unbelievers?

Why, it's almost...supernatural!

3

Isn't interesting = Isn't it interesting

4

Not only does Flemming use several minutes of the footage from that film but mockingly adds a disclaimer admitting that it is used without permission. Audacity is one thing, stupidity quite another.

He could probably argue that he is protected under the fair use doctrine. It is a shame that the documentary was so shoddy. i would very much like to see a work on the historical Jesus done from a skeptics point of view.

Isn't interesting how much time a resources are directed against Christians by unbelievers?

Once again Christianists view different beliefs as action directed against them. Like the leftists from the 70's and 80's, soup has learned to never miss an opportunity to play the victimization card. Not too long ago Joe argued that he thought the God of the Jewish and Islamic religions was not the God of the Christian religion. Obviously this is a belief against Jewish and Islamic doctrines but would it be fair to say Joe was directing his resourses 'against Jews/Muslims' or simply expressing his beliefs?

5

I think the guys who gave Mr. Carter the tape figured exactly he'd write a review in the manner that he did: riddled with ad hominem attacks, mocking the production style of the film, but not making, you know, making any decisive blows against what the film was actually conveying.

Gordon Mullings, to his credit, (and cribbing from others; I've seen this stuff elsewhere) tries his hand at that; but alas, all historians simply don't have a uniform set of critieria for determining historicity.

So, in the interest of fairness and balance, let's see if historians can even agree that the gospels are consistent in a way that all historians quoted in the above linked Wikipedia article would agree.

6

The New Testiment has more bibliographical evidence than any ten pieces of classical literature put together. If you question his existence you may as well question the existence of any historical figure.

7

Tales like this -- and the absolutely silly Da Vinci Code -- make me want to beat my head against the wall. I wish I could plop these people into any one of the history seminars I've had to take in grad school.

The historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not in doubt. Even if we did not possess the Gospels, there is abundant literary evidence of Christ and the early Church from hostile ancient Roman sources (who, by the way, have no interest in promulgating a myth).

For instance, Jesus is mentioned in the Roman histories of Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Tacitus is, for the record, one of the most pre-eminent Roman historians; Josephus was a Romanized Jew.

See too mention in Lucian (a Greek who alludes to the Crucifixion while he sneers at the Church)) and also in various Jewish sources.

8

I don't believe there is much historical evidence from the time period that much of anyone existed. For example, isn't there only a single known document (aside from the Bible) that references Pilot as being the Governor of the area during the time?

Also how relevant are the 'hostile Roman sources'? Did they have first hand or even second hand knowledge of the historical Jesus? Or did they simply assume that the Christian story was accurate in the respect that their leader was cruicified? In itself that would have hardly been remarkable enough for a Roman orientated historian to have seriously questioned.

9

Obviously, whether there is any evidence that some person named Jesus did or said any of the things claimed in the Bible is irrelevant.

At least, it shouldn't be relevant to a person who possesses the sort of faith which Jesus allegedly extolled.

If I'm a Christian, then I don't care if Christianity is expanding like a fresh blimp or withering like this past summer's grape vines. What difference could it possibly make to the Truth of His Saving Grace?

I'd just keep preaching and preaching and preaching the Word -- in an honest and unannoying way, of course.

10

Several years ago Errol Morris produced a brilliant documentary about Fred Leuchter, an engineer who became an expert on execution devices and was later hired by revisionist historian Ernst Zundel to "prove" that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. After Zündel was arrested in Canada for publishing neo-Nazi materials, he hired Leuchter, as an expert on gas chambers, to go to Auschwitz and gather evidence. Leuchter collected samples of bricks and mortar from the concentration camp, and after performing his own objective analysis, determined that the Holocaust was a "myth."

Teach the controversy!

11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Has a good review of the matter. Josephus's references to Jesus, for the most part, are considered forged after the fact. On the other hand little evidence exists that Jesus was entirely made up....if he was he would have had to have set a world record in terms of myth creation since Christians less than 100 years after his death already accepted that he was a real life historical figure.

The academic consensus would appear to be that Jesus was a historical person who really lived and was cruicified around the time and the place that the Bible states. However, the "Jesus was a myth" view remains a distinct minority opinion.

The New Testiment has more bibliographical evidence than any ten pieces of classical literature put together. If you question his existence you may as well question the existence of any historical figure.

Here here Terrance. Are you seriously going to say there evidence that Julies Ceasar, Mark Anthony or Cleopatra existed greater than the evidence that Jesus existed? You're overstating your case IMO.

12

I hear you, Boonton.

Regarding previous posts: Pontius Pilate's rule as procurator of Judaea was mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus, and his office has since been verified by the discovery of an inscription, written in Latin and dated to the correct time period. This was discovered in 1961 in Caesarea, and announces that Pilate dedicated some sort of shrine to the Roman emperor Tiberius.

Note:
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/latin/pilate.html
(with image of the stone plus some bibliography)

Furthermore, the idea that identity and historical existence of people in the first century AD can't be verified is, pardon me, historically unsound. May I point out that we have archaeological evidence in plenty for people who lived much earlier.

13

Boonton :

I would probably not disagree with the fact that some religious guy existed whose name was eventually translitterated to "Jesus."

But like Cassie Bernall, like George W. Bush, the main points can get way out of hand rapidly.

Of course it's the construction fallacy to say "Jesus existed therefore he rose from the dead" or some such hoo-hah.

Reminds me of Brian of Nazareth, but I'd better not link there.

But I've always been partial to this bit of dialogue, which actually does illustrate my point:

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!

14

See the user comments at IMDB for a take on this very different than Joe's. Most of the people there note the lack of scholarship but seem to find some things, like humor, appealing in the film.

15

AndyS,

See the user comments at IMDB for a take on this very different than Joe's.

C'mon, Andy, I'm suprised you are falling for that gimmick. The fact that the first eight reviews treat the film as if it were a remake of Citizen Kane should have tipped you off that something was fishy.

When I pointed out in my review that Flemming is a "consummate self-promoter" I wasn't just making that up out of thin air. As Aaron Swartz has pointed out, Flemming is not above using questionable marketing tactics:

Flemming has always had what Bill O'Reilly might call a "parasitic" sense of self-promotion. His film Nothing So Strange received press largely because it included scenes of Bill Gates being assassinated. And during the California Recall, Flemming jumped into the fray on the platform "If elected, I will resign." (Thus making Lt. Governor Bustamante governor, since at the time he was refusing to run, thinking he'd draw support away from the actual governor.) When FOX sued Al Franken for using the phrase "Fair and Balanced", Flemming wrote a play with the name. When Arnold Schwarzenegger sued the makers of a bobblehead version of him, Flemming posted a photo of Arnold's penis.

Both times, he insisted the works were a form of political protest, but he still charged money for the products. He did the same when he released portions of Nothing So Strange under a Creative Commons license. It's one thing to support free speech; it's another to try to make money off of other people's support for it. What's unsettling about this film is not how Flemming is using various atheist groups to screen and promote it -- that's perfectly reasonable, especially since he's giving the DVDs to the groups at outrageously low prices.

No, what's unsettling is a hidden feature on Flemming's site called the Grassroots Promotion Team or GPT. In general these things are nothing new -- just personally, I remember volunteering for Apple when the iMac came out and joining a "Street Team" website to promote a Buffy DVD. The idea behind such sites is that your particular group of obsessive lonely fans will spend their free time promoting your products on various forums and websites in exchange for a chance to win some lame prizes.

It's sad when big corporations do this, but when independent political folks like Flemming do it, it becomes a little creepy. It's also problematic. Take the movie's soundtrack, which is sold on Amazon. Normally such obscure CDs have hardly any reviews. But this one not only had 11, but they were all amazingly glowing. "Wow, this CD must be really good," I thought. But when I saw Flemming was awarding 100 "points" for each Amazon review, it suddenly made sense. If everyone plays this game, Amazon reviews will quickly become meaningless, which is why I don't think it's a very good idea to start.

I suspect that the IMDB reviews are put up by the same people who wrote the praises at Amazon.

16

Once again Christianists view different beliefs as action directed against them. Like the leftists from the 70's and 80's, soup has learned to never miss an opportunity to play the victimization card. Not too long ago Joe argued that he thought the God of the Jewish and Islamic religions was not the God of the Christian religion. Obviously this is a belief against Jewish and Islamic doctrines but would it be fair to say Joe was directing his resourses 'against Jews/Muslims' or simply expressing his beliefs?

So are you stating that the subject film is not directed against Christianity in general, or Christians in particular?

Are you stating that the director is simply "expressing his beliefs" into the aether; for nothing and against nothing? Are you making the case that this film is a mere artistic expression that by happenstance denies the existence of Jesus Christ?

And just to set the record straight I was alluding to the ongoing satanic assault against the person of Jesus not playing the "victim card"; though I can see how those who lack basic reading comprehension skills could arrive at such a conclusion after a cursory review of my post.

17

Hey Larry...It's by grace that we are saved, through faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It all sounds pretty relevant to me.
Hey Soup... The're just doing the will of their father as we do the will of ours. As you know, there will be a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

18

pilgram

Hey Larry...It's by grace that we are saved, through faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Um, yeah.

It all sounds pretty relevant to me.

You misunderstood what I wrote. It is the evidence for (or against) the existence 2000 years ago of a physical being named Jesus that is irrelevant (or should be irrelevant) to the strength of your faith that such a person/deity existed.

This is a critical feature of most religions.

Remember when Joe said a few months back that his belief in Jesus (and presumbably the resurrected Jesus) was immune from challenge by scientific or historical evidence?

That's what I'm talking about. And I'm not casting judgment either way. People are entitled to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose to hold. Whatever makes 'em happy.

19

So are you stating that the subject film is not directed against Christianity in general, or Christians in particular?

Since I haven't seen the film I can't answer this question. I can say, though, that the only argument I've seen here is that the director used shoddy scholarism to argue his thesis that Jesus never existed as a real person in history.

Obviously this belief contradicts Christian teachings but it hardly follows that a person who believes it and argues his point (whether well or poorly) is attacking Christians.

I suppose you can say he is acting 'against Christianity in general' in the sense that by arguing his case he is by definition arguing against a set of very important Christian beliefs. Why, though, adopt the hyper politically correct speech of victimology? Why is it notable that a non-Christian accepts his beliefs? Do you talk this way every time a Christian expresses a belief? Do you say that when a Christian talks about the Trinity or Christ they are directing action 'against Judism' or 'against Islam'?

20

Larry,

Remember when Joe said a few months back that his belief in Jesus (and presumbably the resurrected Jesus) was immune from challenge by scientific or historical evidence?

I think you misunderstood what I meant. My faith in the resurrection is not immune from challenge by the historical evidence but is confirmed by it. I think that the historical evidence as well as my own experience with Christ is more than sufficient reason for me to have "faith." My original point was that it would take some very, very strong counter-evidence for me to change what I know is true.

You seem to think that "faith" means "blind trust." That's not what Christians mean at all. Any Christian who believes despite thinking the evidence is weighted against that belief should either stop believing or do some more searching.

21

Any Christian who believes despite thinking the evidence is weighted against that belief should either stop believing or do some more searching.

Well, there's too much "believing" and "thinking" to parse through in that sentence so I am unable respond directly.

But I am drawn again to the story of a certain Thomas who saw probably quite a few people die horrible deaths, then get buried and stay buried.

So when Jesus came back to life, Thomas was skeptical. Thomas' previous observations -- i.e., the evidence Thomas had accumulated about how human corpses should "behave" -- led Thomas to the conclusion, or at least suspicion, that this person who claimed to be the Resurrected Jesus was a fraud.

And Jesus made sort of an example out of Thomas' skepticism and need for evidence, and it was evidently a big enough deal that it shows up in more than one of the gospels, if memory serves.

And I don't recall Jesus saying anything like, "Dude, remember all that water into wine and healing the blind, not to mention Lazarus? Of course I can rise from the dead! How much more evidence do you need that I'm the One and Only???"

Instead, Jesus said something strikingly different: "Blessed are those that do not see and still believe," which strongly suggests that evidence is beside the point and Thomas should have known better.

Believing is the key. Period. Thinking about the "evidence" that supports that belief is beside the point and, in fact, would appear to remove you from the "blessed" category that Jesus defined for his followers when he scolded Thomas.

22

Joe writes: The fact that the first eight reviews treat the film as if it were a remake of Citizen Kane should have tipped you off that something was fishy.

Hardly unequivical praise in these excerpts from a variety of IMDB users' comments:

The piece has a refreshingly irreverent, witty, and independent tone similar in spirit to some of the works of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. And, like those works, can unfortunately sometimes cross into a "preaching to the converted" (rather, in this case, literally "unconverted") tone.

I went into the film hoping that it would provide me with a tool I could share with Christian friends and family, perhaps opening their eyes to some of the historical facts that are so seldom actually, "never" would be closer to the truth) discussed in evangelical & fundamentalist churches. But, the fact of the matter is that I won't be using the film as a tool for that purpose, for the following reasons: – I thought this film would spend most of it's time detailing the historical holes in Christian "history". But it didn't. Some key points are covered, but The film seems to only spend about a half or less of it's time actually handling this sort of material. The rest of it dwells on how ridiculous modern Christianity is.
…
To sum up – Agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians of all stripes will love this movie. It's funny, it's watchable, it's educational… But that doesn't seem to be the intended audience – and the phrase "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.
…
Bottom Line – I will not share this film with my Christian friends and family. It's tone is NOT consistent with the way I have decided to deal with our differences of belief. Some believers will be so offended by this film that they will miss the embedded (and very important) facts it contains… and that's very unfortunate.

I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

It's rather funny that no one gets too excited regarding the debate about whether or not Will Shakespeare was a real person — and he "lived" only 400 years ago. In fact our enjoyment of those plays is not lessened if the man we think of as Shakespeare did not write them.

I doubt you'll find many Buddhists caring much one way or the other if the Buddha turned out not to be a distinct, histortical individual. It's the message not the man. Isn't that true about Jesus as well? Just a few posts back you made the case that one should try to be like Jesus. That would still be true if he's a myth and not a historical person.

23

AndyS,

Isn't that true about Jesus as well? Just a few posts back you made the case that one should try to be like Jesus. That would still be true if he's a myth and not a historical person.

Um, no. Christianity is rooted in a historical fact -- that Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven. If any of those are not true then our entire religion is bunk.

Part of what we consider our "faith" is a trust in the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. What seperates our religion from some others is that it is not based on wish-fulfilment but on historical reality.

24

Part of what we consider our "faith" is a trust in the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. What seperates our religion from some others is that it is not based on wish-fulfilment but on historical reality.

So which is it?

Historical reality? Or "trust"?

I submit that it's 99.99%% "trust" because independent verification of the stories in the New Testament barely exists.

And I highly doubt that Christianity's alleged basis in historical fact has anything to do with its apparent appeal.

And mostly I disagree with the dismissive attitude towards the ideal of faith, but that's just my personal take on spiritual matters. A solid faith-based approach maximizes the positive aspects of the supernatural mindset. Concepts like "historical reality" and "miracles" shouldn't be intermingled, lest the potency of the concepts be diluted.

25

Concepts like "historical reality" and "miracles" shouldn't be intermingled, lest the potency of the concepts be diluted.

Miracles without historical reality are just nice stories.

Historical reality without miracles is just history.

For believers, historical reality and the reality of the Author of our faith cannot be separated.

Muslims trust not only in the "revelation" from their Allah, but also in the historical reality of their religious history.

Jews have faith in Jehovah, yet most of the Tanakh is history.

The fact of history does not detract in any way from the fact of miracles.

The fact of miracles does not detract in any way from the fact of history.

26

Miracles without historical reality are just nice stories.

Huh?

For believers, historical reality and the reality of the Author of our faith cannot be separated.

Exactly. They cannot be separated. So says Ellen. That is why evidence supporting (or against) religious beliefs is irrelevant for "believers" like Ellen.

I'm not sure why admitting this basic axiom of religious faith appears to be so difficult. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

27

Larry,

I said, "Miracles without historical reality are just nice stories." and you replied

Huh?

I am the the recipient of a miraculous healing,; those who have the historical reality of Christianity acknowledge the miracle. Those who do not call it a "coincidence - something that just happened."

A miricle without historical reality is not a miracle - it's a nice story - a "coincidence".

you said,

Concepts like "historical reality" and "miracles" shouldn't be intermingled, lest the potency of the concepts be diluted.

and

Exactly. They cannot be separated.

So, you're saying that historical reality and miracles should not be intermingled or separated.

28

It's the message not the man. Isn't that true about Jesus as well?

1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

29

Joe, Joe, Joe,... Quoting Robert Turkel?

I don't know anybody who takes that guy seriously.

The folks you generally quote...those theologian guys in the Hugh Hewitt crowd carry more weight than that guy.

And that's a lot, coming from me.

30

I have to respond to this:

If any of those are not true then our entire religion is bunk.

While it's a paraphrase of St. Paul, it's bunk itself: one can consider lots of reasons that anybody, atheist, Buddhist, Confucian, Jew, or what-not would seriously practice loving one's neighbor as one's self, feeding the hungry, practicing the parable of the Good Samaritan, and so forth without "needing" a resurrected deity in order to justify it.

It's one of those reasons I'm not a Christian- the sentence is refuted by the practice.

31

This thread has certainly taken an interesting twist and I perceive correct arguments on both sides.

As Joe has rightly pointed out, the fact of a historical Jesus Christ is central to the Christian faith, since He took upon Himself physical and spiritual death in exchange for the sins of the unredeemed (all other human beings ever to live on earth).

Yet the nature of faith is such that "true believers" are commanded to believe the Holy Writ, even though an angel were to appear and give us another gospel:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

32

Ellen

I think if you read what I wrote you'll see that what I wrote is plain is paint.

I meant what I said.

Again: believers are entitled to believe whatever they want. You want to believe the sky is green? Excellent. You want to believe that Elvis walks among us? Right on! George Washington was an alien from another galaxy? Awesome.

But when you confuse your personal religious beliefs for reality as it is objectively perceived by people who do not share your religious beliefs, you do a disservice to those people (e.g., historians, scientists, etc.) and your religion.

I'll leave it to you to figure out why, as a practical matter, that is the case.

And again: your personal beliefs are your business. I am happy for you if your religious beliefs make you happy.

Perhaps you can struggle for a time to understand why your religious beliefs -- no matter how strongly you believe them -- remain simply your religious beliefs.

Then you might understand what I mean when I say that objective evidence or the lack thereof for your personal religious beliefs is, well, sort of a non-sequitur.

And if you "believe" that Christianity is not a religion, please advocate along with me for the taxation of Christian churches.

33

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Well, which is it, Ellen?

Was he raised? Do you have independent objective evidence for that event?

Or is the lack of evidence irrelevant???

I submit the latter is true. And I submit that this is the point that Jesus (or the author of the story) was making when Jesus gave Thomas the smackdown.

34

without "needing" a resurrected deity in order to justify it.

A primary reason one "needs" the resurrected deity of Jesus Christ is be forgiven of sin and be redeemed (born-again).

This is a fairly serious need, however since without remission of sin human beings are absolutely, certainly damned for eternity regardless of the apparent quality of their lives.

35

Soup, Hebrews 11:1 is the verse which most strongly affirms my interpretation of the doubting Thomas story.

36

Perhaps you can struggle for a time to understand why your religious beliefs -- no matter how strongly you believe them -- remain simply your religious beliefs.

I've been through my share of struggles with faith.

I am not surprised by your stance; I can explain, but I cannot convict.

Was he raised? Do you have independent objective evidence for that event?

Or is the lack of evidence irrelevant???>/i>

You mistake historical reality for historical proof. There can be historical reality without having historical proof. Yes, I can almost see your ridicule before your fingers hit the keys.

But please consider this.

You accept evolution as fact, correct?

Yet, it cannot be proven as fact - at what point did an ape become human?

As you said, Larry, Do you have independent objective evidence for that event?

Can we reproduce that in a laboratory? Can we observe it in nature? Or do we simply accept the evidence that what we cannot see must be true?

It is obvious. Even without historical proof, the historical reality exists.

I accept the fact of historical reality of Christ without the historical proof - just as you accept the historical reality of your theory of evolution without historical proof.

No, I don't expect you to understand. Yes, I expect your ridicule.

37

Soup, Hebrews 11:1 is the verse which most strongly affirms my interpretation of the doubting Thomas story.

Larry, for me, it is the basis of what I believe. Looking at the Greek, it takes on a different meaning. Or even a more accurate translation:

ESV: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

The fact that God has given us faith is the assurance (hupostasis) of what we wait for (elpizo).

38

I accept the fact of historical reality of Christ without the historical proof

You have no choice, as you admitted. For the believer, they cannot be separated.

just as you accept the historical reality of your theory of evolution without historical proof.

I notice this word "proof" has popped up all of a sudden where we were using "evidence" before.

Don't do that, please.

I accept that life forms on earth have changed over time because the historical evidence for those changes is, well, rock solid (heh).

As for the mechanism responsible for the observed changes, that's a matter of scientific debate but a combination of genetic drift and natural selection would seem to be able to account for most of what we observe in the fossil record and in living organisms which continue to evolve today.

You accept evolution as fact, correct? Yet, it cannot be proven as fact - at what point did an ape become human?

Scientists can estimate the date at which apes and humans last shared a common ancestor. Is that what you mean?

But more importantly, this type of argument is just an argument from ignorance. There are aspects to every phenomenon that scientists do not completely understand. Take gravity for example. Scientists are still studying how gravity works. Does that mean that scientists are wrong to believe that the moon circled the earth before humans were around to document its movements?

You are driving on bald tires here just a few comments after I warned you about the dangers of doing so!

Trust me: you do not want to compare the objective evidence for your religious beliefs with the objective evidence that life on earth evolved.

You don't want to be another paranoid sourpuss who denies the utility of basic scientific research in a desperate effort to defend her religious beliefs against a non-existent threat.

But that's the corner you'll be crouching in if you insist on arguing that the evidence for your religious beliefs is the same as the evidence for the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

That's what I meant when I extolled the virtues of keeping "miracles" and "historical reality" separate.

39

Ellen, re Hebrews 11:1

Larry, for me, it is the basis of what I believe.

If I were to become a Christian again, it would be the basis of my religious beliefs, too.

40

"Are you seriously going to say there evidence that Julies Ceasar, Mark Anthony or Cleopatra existed greater than the evidence that Jesus existed? You're overstating your case IMO."

For those to whom this information might inspire . . .

Caesar (Book): Gallic Wars (Date written): 100-44B.C. (Earliest copy): A.D. 900 (Time Gap): 1,000 years (No. of copies): 10

New Testiment (Date Written) : A.D. 50-100 (Earliest copies) A.D. 114 (Time Gap): 50 years (No of copies): total 24,000

Cleopatra? The birth, death and resurection of Jesus Christ is by far the most well attested event in ancient history. The number two book (in all of history) is the Iliad by Homer with a mere 643 copies and a 400 year gap between the original and the earliest extant copy. The 5336 Greek copies of those 24,000 New Testiment texts are 95% (word for word), in total agreement.

41

I notice this word "proof" has popped up all of a sudden where we were using "evidence" before.

Don't do that, please.

proof = the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

I think that mere evidence would not be enough for you - it would have to be very persuasive for you to accept it. Or perhaps "cogent".

Trust me: you do not want to compare the objective evidence for your religious beliefs with the objective evidence that life on earth evolved.

I don't need to. I was making a point. There is much for which we do not have proof/cogency of evidence.

I understand that you do not understand.

42

I understand that you do not understand.

The Yoda-like condenscension is wearing thin.

I understand perfectly and you appear to be having a hard time digesting that.

The difference between your religious beliefs and my lack of religious beliefs is just that. If I want to adopt your religious beliefs -- SNAP! -- I can simply do so.

One minute I'm a believer that Christ is my savior.

PING!

The next minute I'm not.

It's that simple. I don't have to take a test or prove the depth of my faith to you or anyone else.

43

The difference between your religious beliefs and my lack of religious beliefs is just that. If I want to adopt your religious beliefs -- SNAP! -- I can simply do so.

I don't believe it's that simple.

anyway...okie dokie.

44

All:

I find the onward comments, especially by those tempted into the tar-pit swamps of selective hyperskepticism, sadly predictable but tellingly revealing of the fallacies at work.

1] Cribbing?

--> Since when is citing documents with sources cribbing? [That is, there is no foundation for the implied claim of plagiarism. Furhter to this, my synthesis in the linked notes is my own, though I have and acknowledge my intelectual debts. The unjust accusation should be withdrawn.]

2] No consensus on Historical method?

--> I never claimed such exists [how could I, given the question-begging, self-referential absurdities of secularist thought that I am complaining about?], only that there is a general approach that is illustrated by the excerpt cited by WLC, i.e. comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence [I would take this in three bites: logical, dynamical and existential], and elegance/ad hocness.

--> On the second, I imply that not only must there be a logically valid structure, but the argument must postulate and account for forces initial conditions and inertial elements that lead to the material facts, and that one should be able to live consistent with the results of the system.

--> That there is a Living God who is there and is not silent, one who acts into the affairs of men, 2000 years ago and today aptly accounts for the case in view, including my own direct experience of God in the face of Christ; coroborated by the similar experience of millions over the past 2,000 years. My personal experience specifically includes miracles in specific accord with the NT teachings and cases, in several domains, both experienced and observed in people I know at close hand. I have yet to see any naturalistic account that meets this test successfully, givern my base of material and credible facts. As with Joe, I have met and know the Living God in the face of Christ.

--> For instance, when a position of radical skepticism taken at face value ends up in an infinite regress it is plainly and absurdly self-refuting. When it is then selectively taken up to a priori exclude what one does not want to face, as Ludemann did in the mid 1990's, that in turn is question-begging.

--> Here is a further remark on the underlying problem with the Kantian thinking, taken from the same published debate:

insofar as these . . . assumptions include Kant's strictures on the scope of scientific knowledge, they are deeply, fatally flawed. For Kant must at least be claiming to have knowledge of the way some things (e.g., the mind and its structures and operations) exist in themselves and not merely as they appear; he confidently affirms that the idea of God, for instance, has the property of unknowability. [10] So the theory relies on knowledge that the theory, if it was true, would not -- could not -- allow. [p.13, IBID. Ref. [10] is to Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 3 - 30, and is shortly followed by a reference to F. H. Bradley's gentle but stinging opening salvo in his Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn.: that "The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is impossible has . . . himself . . . perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena [of metaphysics] . . . . To say that reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is to claim to know reality." (Clarendon Press, 1930), p.1]

--> In short, the Skeptics [including the so-called Higher Critics] have to face some serious questions. As Edwin Yamauchi aptly summarises:

“Higher” or literary criticism is the study which attempts to determine the questions of authorship, of the date, and of the composition of any literary texts on the basis of vocabulary, style, and consistency . . . . In biblical studies higher criticism received its classic exposition in 1878 in the work of Julius Wellhausen [through the Documentary/JEDP Hypothesis, which dated elements of the Pentateuch from the 9th to the 6th centuries, BC] . . . on the basis of Wellhausen’s concept of the evolution of Israel’s religion. According to this viewpoint, which was influenced by Darwin and Hegel, the religion of the Hebrews evolved at first into a national henotheism . . . and only much later in the time of the literary prophets and the Exile into an ethical monotheism . . . . Wellhausen, who was a great Arabic and Hebrew scholar, reconstructed Israelite life on the basis of Arabic poetry. He refused to believe that either Egyptian or Akkadian had been deciphered.

In New Testament criticism the scholar who corresponds . . . to Julius Wellhausen . . . is F. C. Baur of Tubingen (1792 – 1860). . . . Baur seems to have been influenced by Hegel’s philosophy. The philosophic dialectic of Hegel assumed that history went through a pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. According to Baur, Paul represented Gentile Christianity (thesis) advocating freedom from the law. Peter’s party representing Jewish Christianity (antithesis) and advocating adherence to the law was the group that reacted against Paul’s teaching. From this conflict emerged a synthesis of the second century church (as seen in Acts) . . . . Baur having established an evolutionary scheme of development believed he could date the New Testament documents according to their place in this pattern. On this basis he accepted only four of the epistles as genuinely Pauline . . . John’s Gospel was dated as late as the second half of the second century. The Acts of the Apostles was also assigned this late date . . . Baur’s views were quite dominant throughout the nineteenth century and have left a lasting legacy for the twentieth century , though many of his assumptions have been disproved . . . . . Johannes Munck . . . argues that the Tubingen concept of a struggle between Jewish-Christian nomism and Gentile-Christian antinomism has now been compressed by scholars into the thirty years between the death of Jesus and the death of Paul.[The Stones and the Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), pp. 27 – 30., 92 - 3]

--> The recent neo-skepticism driven by the hermeneutics of suspicion simply reiterates the problem of selective hyperskepticism:

If Albright had been able to convince a generation of scholars that the Bible's account of Israel's origin could be matched in general terms to the evidence from the digs, it was because the Bible was still considered "innocent until found guilty." The undoing of the Albright antidote to Wellhausen skepticism came when people like Lemche and Thompson began insisting that the Bible stories should be viewed as fables until indisputable evidence proved them to be historical. The accounts were now seen as fictional until proven factual, guilty until proven innocent.

This virulent neoskepticism has proven exceptionally resistant to anything smacking of a "fundamentalist" interpretation, and its proponents have set about revising what they believe was the Albright school's overeager attempts to identify discoveries as biblical events when other events in Near Eastern history could account for them just as well or better. For the minimalists, the paradigm shift has left the Bible largely irrelevant and the fight over the Bible's historical value passé.

--> Of course, the problem with that is tat that sort of standard, guilty till ptroved innocent, is not workable as a general standard of historical or archaeological work. It is adopted for this specific case precisely because it yields the results desired by the radical critics; that is we see question-begging at work.

--> The use of the ad hominem abusive to block reasoned critique of such a gross intellectual blunder, in turn, aptly illustrates the underlying problem of the disintegration of objectivity and civility in discourse.

3] Credibility of NT accounts

--> It is a common tactic to sneer at the NT documents, as if they were known to be C2 forgeries or to otherwise be utterly unreliable; but in fact e.g. Lk-Ac is one of the best authenticated of all ancient documents, startring with the work of Sir William Ramsey and othe C19 Archaologiests, and continuing up to today. For instance, it is easily dated by the lack of resolution to the career of its major protagonists: Paul, Peter and James. That is, the document dates to approximately 62 AD, as Paul arrived as an appellate prisoner in Rome in 60 AD. Luke is the prequel [and probably part 1 of the background briefs to the Court in its original form]. At that time, most of the origial Apostolic circle and many thousands of early disciples of Jesus were very much alive and would have exposed rather than endorsed such a false document.

--> Geldenhuys' 1976 summary and FF Bruce's remarks are still apt:

". . . it is generally admitted by scholars today that the author's historical accuracy has been vindicated." [J. N. Geldenhuys, "Luke, Gospel of," New Bible Dictionary, IVP, 1976, p. 757.] F.F. Bruce adds: "The historical trustworthiness of Luke's account has been amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. While he has apologetic and theological interests [mostly, to commend the Christian faith to the Romans as not being a security threat and as being based on a true understanding of God’s intervention into human history in the person and work of Jesus], these do not detract from this detailed accuracy." ["Acts, Book of the," NBD, p. 11. Parenthetical summary added.]

--> When carefully examined, it turns out that the real problem is selective hyperskepticism: insisting on a standard of proof that is not used for other similar cases of historical documents, because one does not like the message in them. Montgomery's rebuke to such is stingingly apt:

As for the skepticism of the so-called higher critics (or redaction critics) in the liberal theological tradition, it stems from an outmoded methodology (almost universally discarded today by classical and literary scholars and by specialists in comparative Near Eastern studies), and from unjustified philosophical presuppositions (such as anti-supernaturalistic bias and bias in favor of religious evolution). A.N. Sherwin-White, a specialist in Roman law, countered such critics in his 1960-61 Sarum Lectures at the University of London.

It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from the no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism that the more advanced exponents of it apparently maintain-so far as an amateur can understand the matter-that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of His mission cannot be written. This seems very curious when one compares the case for the best-known contemporary of Christ, who like Christ is a well-documented figure-Tiberius Caesar. The story of his reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third century history of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events. Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius. But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius.

The conclusion is inescapable: if one compares the New Testament documents with universally accepted secular writings of antiquity, the New Testament is more than vindicated. Some years ago, when I debated philosophy professor Avrum Stroll of the University of British Columbia on this point, he responded: "All right. I'll throw out my knowledge of the classical world." At which the chairman of the classics department cried: "Good Lord, Avrum, not that!"

4] The unmet challenge

--> Note carefully on the above debate: at no point is there an attempt on the part of skeptics to rise to the challenge to put forward an alternative "superior" explanation that fits all the material and credible facts, is coherent and simple as opposed to ad hoc.

--> That brings us back to the Morison challenge [and the WLC challenge and the Montgomery challenge]:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecuter became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

--> If Jesus did not exist, did not do miracles that drew to him a following and did not rise from the dead, then why did a Christian Church arise in C1, and within a generation spread from Jerusalem [the centre of hostile opposition to him], to Rome [whree son Christians were being made into living torches for Nero's Garden parties]?

--> If the NT documents are late forgereies, why are they so often so nuancedly accurate on incidental details and on the gfeneral path of those complex and turbulent times? Why did a church which still had in it eyewitnesses accept such frauds? And much more, on the supposition of fraud at the foundation of the Christian Faith.

+++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

45

1. It has great explanatory scope. It explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw postmortem appearances of Jesus and why the Christian Faith came into being. 2. It has great explanatory power. It explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution [his death being certified by the executioner and accepted by the governor, who then released his body for honourable burial] . . .

3. It is plausible. Given . . . Jesus' own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation . . .

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. It requires only one additional hypothesis -- that God exists . . .

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis . . . does not in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise naturally from the dead . . .

This is just plain silly. And by this standard of "truth", every other religion in the world can also be validated. A myth with a well-worked out plot and internal logic is still a myth. Or a work of good fiction.

I still don't understand why some Christians are so hell-bent on "proving" the existence of Jesus rather than just beliving in him instead. So you believe in something that cannot be explained. So what. Its called faith. Don't treat it as a dirty word. And quit insisting that just because you think something is "true", that everyone else also has to think so too.

46

Larry... I think the scripture very clearly rebukes your statements concerning your "SNAP" belief.
1 John 2:18 &19.
Anyone who has ever stated belief in the Gospel and later denies these truths is apostate and antichrist and was never a true believer.
Beware my friend.

47

Gordon Mulling:

I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks and get straight to the points:

Since when is citing documents with sources cribbing? [That is, there is no foundation for the implied claim of plagiarism. Furhter to this, my synthesis in the linked notes is my own, though I have and acknowledge my intelectual debts. The unjust accusation should be withdrawn.]

Hardly unjust; otherwise, folks would be quoting you, as it happens, this connection is seems to be frequently attributed to William Lane Craig.

If you cite a reference through a reference, the proper thing to do is to actually use the reference as cited through the second reference.

On the second, I imply that not only must there be a logically valid structure, but the argument must postulate and account for forces initial conditions and inertial elements that lead to the material facts, and that one should be able to live consistent with the results of the system.

Lots of folks - you can find 'em for yourself- have dealt with the inherent illogic involved in a deity "dying" and being raised from the dead and the numerous contradictions therein.

...coroborated by the similar experience of millions...

And there is the experience of millions elsewhere. "Miracles" too. (I liked what Pascal said in this regard: (paraphrasing) miracles are an impediment to faith, not an aid.)

...infinite regress...

From your link I suspect the issue is better phrased a radical uncertainty, not so much radical skepticism.

But this position ignores - and denigrates - the experiential reality of human existence. And scripture too, actually (Paul's "through a glass darkly" bit, Thomas's "I believe, help me in my unbelief" thing).

Any uncertainty - doubt- is indeed absolute in that its existence is absolutely there; its existence permeates and coexists with any kind of faith we have.

The only meaningful answer that I know is to mindfully act in faith amidst doubt, to acknowledge doubt. Or, to paraphrase a Zen master: Great faith and great doubt lead to great enlightement. Lacking either great faith or great doubt leads to no enlightenment.

So to maintain your position is to attempt to subvert one's on appropriated subjective truth, which leads not only to an existential dishonesty (the "bad faith" of Sartre), but would be seen as such by any omniscent deity, and hence itself counter to one's stated intents. Kierkegaard as well as the Chinese masters would be unimpressed, to put it mildly. As am I. In short, though you've spent a good deal of time reading what other folks are arguing about on this, does it come from you?

Your experience argument was your closest approach on that front, and I respect that. But I would modestly request that you respect the experience of others.

I could go on, but this - and the rest of your reply relying on other people's quotes actually butresses my point.

48

(I liked what Pascal said in this regard: (paraphrasing) miracles are an impediment to faith, not an aid.)

...Thomas's "I believe, help me in my unbelief" thing).

(I cut out a lot, because these two things are linked in my mind and these are all I'm addressing right now.)

Miracles -> an aid or impediment to faith?

First point - the "I believe, help me in my unbelief" was not Thomas.

It was the father of the boy with a demon, asking Christ for a miracle.

Mark 9:23-24 "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."
Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

And Jesus drove out the demon, testifying to His message by performing the miracle. This miracle was not an impediment to the boy's father.

The Bible tells us the reason for miracles. For those who hear, "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." Hebrews 2:3-4

For those who believe, miracles are a testimony to the power of God. For those who do not, they are an impediment.

49

And quit insisting that just because you think something is "true", that everyone else also has to think so too.

This is an important issue for me.

I do not go to the blogs of unbelievers and attempt to refute what they believe. There are some who do - and a lot of them I would question the meaning of their faith, judging their actions according to the Scripture and many times they are found wanting, as we all are.

We cannot force anybody to think that anything is true or not true.

We can state our beliefs. And Patrick, even on a blog that is owned by Christians, you tell us to quit.

Unbelievers come to a Christian site and tell us to quit.

I still don't understand why some Christians are so hell-bent on "proving" the existence of Jesus rather than just beliving in him instead.

Believing in something that isn't true...well, Christ is not Santa Claus.

You can believe in the "Yule Cat", but he probably won't come along and eat the bad little children on Christmas Eve.

You can believe in the Easter Bunny, but he's not the one that brings chocolate on Resurrection Day.

I can believe that sound under the hood of my car is "nothing". (just kidding, I had it taken care of)

You can believe anything you want, but believing in a falsehood doesn't make it so.

50

This guy reminds me of a man who attended my church in the 80's and said "It was an insult to say Jesus had Jewish blood." I had defended the diety of Jesus and his humanity but never even thought some blockhead would say such a thing and then tell me he was not anti-semitic. Strangely enouph I defended Jesus's Jewishness from the book of Romans written now according to some by a man who was duped! Go figure

51

Ellen

I don't believe it's that simple.

That's nice. Of course, your personal religious beliefs about how difficult it is to become a believer in the resurrected Christ are just that: your personal religious beliefs.

You can believe whatever you want.

However, I know beyond any doubt that the membrane which separates Larry Lord the unbeliever from Larry Lord the believer is atomically thin. And crossing over is really really easy. So is crossing back again.

And it is impossible for you to know for certain whether my faith in Jesus at any given time is deeper than any other human's on earth, or just a ruse.

Such is the nature of beliefs.

52

Ellen

You can believe anything you want, but believing in a falsehood doesn't make it so.

Translation: non-Christian religions are crap.

53

Pilgram

Larry... I think the scripture very clearly rebukes your statements concerning your "SNAP" belief.

1 John 2:18 &19.
Anyone who has ever stated belief in the Gospel and later denies these truths is apostate and antichrist and was never a true believer.

Pilgram, that's an interesting verse. So if you SNAP out of it for some reason, you can never SNAP back in?

That seems a tad harsh.

54

Gordon: _If Jesus did not exist, did not do miracles that drew to him a following and did not rise from the dead, then why did a Christian Church arise in C1, and within a generation spread from Jerusalem [the centre of hostile opposition to him], to Rome [whree son Christians were being made into living torches for Nero's Garden parties]?_

Perhaps it was Jesus' messages of love and compassion, the reports of him throwing the money lenders out of the temple, his sermon on the mount.

I find in the historical Jesus an amazing social revolutionary and spiritual leader aside from the reports of miracles.

55

Gordon: If Jesus did not exist, did not do miracles that drew to him a following and did not rise from the dead, then why did a Christian Church arise in C1, and within a generation spread from Jerusalem [the centre of hostile opposition to him], to Rome [whree son Christians were being made into living torches for Nero's Garden parties]?

Perhaps it was Jesus' messages of love and compassion, the reports of him throwing the money lenders out of the temple, his sermon on the mount.

I find in the historical Jesus an amazing social revolutionary and spiritual leader aside from the reports of miracles.

56

And it is impossible for you to know for certain whether my faith in Jesus at any given time is deeper than any other human's on earth, or just a ruse.

True. I haven't actually asked you for a rundown on your faith. Except for your own testimony and behavior (out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks), I have no way of knowing.

I said, "You can believe anything you want, but believing in a falsehood doesn't make it so.

Translation: non-Christian religions are crap

Larry, a little context here, please.

I was speaking in terms of Christianity, not "non-Christian religions".

It's true for everybody who believes in anything.

If what you believe in is not true (no matter if it's Christianity or little green men from Mars), if it isn't true it isn't going to do you much good in the long run.

That's nice. Of course, your personal religious beliefs about how difficult it is to become a believer in the resurrected Christ are just that: your personal religious beliefs.

True. I believe the Bible.

And crossing over is really really easy. So is crossing back again.

Then here's a challenge. Do it. Come on...be intellectually honest. "snap".

No other identities here (honesty, remember?), just an honest conversion to Christianity.

Tell us how you do it and how it feels. Repentence is a part of conversion - tell us how you feel (after conversion) about all of the things you have said here.

"snap"

57

Ellen

Do it. Come on...be intellectually honest.

What does "intellectual honesty" have to do with a belief that a deity has caused plants to speak to people?

Answer: nothing.

It's not a question of intellectual honesty, Ellen. It's a question of desire. It's a question of need.

I don't feel the need.

I'm really quite happy with the way my consciousness is evolving without the maintenance of beliefs in mainstream (or any other) religious mythology.

But should the need arise, I am confident I can become a believer again without a great deal of difficulty. I mean, how hard can it be? Anyone can do it. Look around.

58

So, Larry, it sounds kind of like what you're saying is that it's easy - if you feel the "need" - which you don't.

Maybe it's not as easy as you think. How do you get the desire - the feeling of need?

59

All:

Several points require a remark or two:

1] Ex: Kindly read the linked articles, including the miller link especially, then come back to me. It would be wholly counter productive to try to reproduce dozens of pages of serious materials here.

2] Mumon:

--> I must thank you for supplying, albeit indirectly, an online link to a related paper, as I am working from an old fashioned book on the debate. I think I recall once having seen an online version of the debate proper, but failed to save the link.

--> I am not at all sure that the citation of a debate -- in a context where I gave the documentation for the book I used -- and my link to my notes on the general topic is fairly characterised as reasonably being inferred as giving the impression that I am speaking in my own voice, when I have used the thoughts and/or words of another. "Cribbing" carries that implication, and as a colloquialism for plagiarism, is a serious academic accusation that if substantiated carries serious implications. But it is false and unwarranted by even a cursory look at thge data:

1] Notice, especially, how I led the cite: I note a key excerpt from W L Craig, in his debate with Gerd Ludemann:

2] You plainly are NOT justified in the claim that I am "cribbing," which implies plagiarism. Not even the milder charge, laziness to give the full cite that I have, will work as can be seen from the foot of the cite.

3] Here it is, as again pulled out [cf end of block quote in my first post at the head of the comments]:

[Excerpted, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, Eds. Copan & Tacelli, IVP 2000, pp. 32 - 38. Links and parentheses added; italics in original. NB: Subsequent to this debate, Dr Ludemann became an atheist.]

4] In short, there is even a circumstantial note on this live debate and its aftermath! Your accusation is plainly wholly without merit, and mischievous in effect as it unjustifiably impugns my character in the teeth of direct evidence right there in the post. Further to that, I am simply quoting WLC in how he in turn cited McCullagh, which you can look up for yourself at say Amazon.

--> An apology and retraction are justified. (This also speaks to the subtext of contempt towards Chrstian thinkers that so many secularists seem to be guilty of today. Please, think about your own frame of mind that led you to such an unworthy attack on my character and academic integrity.) Now, assuming that such will be forthcoming, let us return to the substantial matter on this thread.

3] Lots of folks . . . have dealt with the inherent illogic involved in a deity "dying" and being raised from the dead and the numerous contradictions therein.

--> Not in the context of trinitarian, redemptive monotheism, where ultimate reality is a complex unity [answering powerfully to the problem of the one and the many, of which this is a case in point], and death is specifically separation/alienation: physical -- body/spirit, spiritual: spirit/Spirit. (In this regard, Jesus' citation of Ps 22 on the cross is highly significant: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabactani . . .")

--> In short, I am highlighting that the perceived contradiction is, as in the deductive form of the problem of evil, within the worldview of the critic; artificially and inadverytently imposed on the worldview being critiqued. [Cf Plantinga's Free Will Defense.]

--> To see the impact of the required gestalt shift, I have often challenged people to identify one and the same point on the face of the earth where one may be simultaneously north of Bridgetown Barbados, Kingston Jamaica and London England. [The answer requires a gestalt shift of implicit understanding of the geometry -- sense of space -- involved. The paradoxical nature of Quantum theory and relativity are similar. The weird relevance of the principle of least action as a constraint on the laws of physics is a similar casre in point, where brute reality cuts across our neat peceptions. I argue as well that a similar gestalt/paradigm challenge lurks in the issues of cosmological and biogenetic design thinking; but it would be pointless to get into yet another fruitless back-forth on that here. this is a case where I think the paradigm change will comne through a generational shift, over 30 years or so; we are 10 years into the process now.]

4] And there is the experience of millions elsewhere. "Miracles" too. (I liked what Pascal said in this regard: (paraphrasing) miracles are an impediment to faith, not an aid.)

--> The issue is the validation of the Christian worldview in a specific, documented historical context of miracles [with excellent cahin of custody to within living memory of the creation of the documents, noting here the clustrer of citations of 25 of 27 NT documents in the time frame, 96 - 110 AD that proved persuasive to Robinson in his Redating the NT]; kindly supply a case parallel to that in which there is an incompatible teaching at work, as is exemplified by a case in point I will shortly excerpt. [Hume was long on vague and circular claims, short on concrete specifics, for good reason.]

--> Then too, Pascal is being seriously misrepresented here, as a major point in his walk of faith was precisely a personal revelatory encounter with the Living God. Was it in Nov 1654?

--> Now, let us look at a concrete case in trhe Acts, which as is noted earlier, is habitually accurate even down to minor details; to see my point:

AC 4:5 The next day [after the healing at the hour of prayer at the Gsate beautiful and the arrest of the apostles] the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: "By what power or what name did you do this?"

AC 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is

" `the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. '

AC 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

AC 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say.

--> I have seen similar cases, and know of others in credible record across history. In short, when the power of the Risen Christ is manifest in front of one's eyes, it is a chalenge to worldviews that deny the possibility. Notice, this is in a specific setting, with specific amed individuals, in a Court Case.

5] From your link I suspect the issue is better phrased a radical uncertainty, not so much radical skepticism. But this position ignores - and denigrates - the experiential reality of human existence. And scripture too, actually (Paul's "through a glass darkly" bit, Thomas's "I believe, help me in my unbelief" thing). Any uncertainty - doubt- is indeed absolute in that its existence is absolutely there; its existence permeates and coexists with any kind of faith we have.

--> Actually, we may be closer than you think, once you see the force of the comparative difficuties argument. Further to this, the issue IS radical skepticism and its self-referential absurdities, from ancient times down to today.

--> First, Ellen: well said in correction! thomas dis not complain of mixed faith and doubt, but rather insisted that unless he were to insert his finger into the wounds he refused to believe, i.e. he demanded a level of proof by direct encounter that we have no right to, given the human predicament of finitude and fallibility. Thomas' sin -- note this, too, B --was to refuse to believe credible witnesses, and to fail to take into account the easily accessible evicence of the empty tomb. This is rather like the episode in the first Narnia book, where Lucy is being cruelly mocked with radical skeptical attacks for her report that she walked into the back of a closet and found herself in a different world, i.e. Narnia. The Professor -- who BTW knows full well that the account is probably true, as he knows that the closet is made from an apple tree from Narnian seed, and doubtless is aware of the prophecy of the fourfold kingship by descendants of Adam that will rescue the kingdom of Narnia [hope I am not ruining the fun of the movie with this] -- challenges the skepticism, by asking if there is specific reason to impeach the character or the substance of the testimony. No, but it does not fit in an assumed worldview. Then, there is no good reason to infer that Lucy is lying or deluded!

--> the point I have made, repeatedly -- and [given your propensity to a novel form of the genetic fallacy] I did it for myself 20+ years ago, with roots in my bein gof the last generation of British style Math students educated in Euclidean Geometry in the trraditonal axiomatic style; long before I saw others had done similar arguments [apart from say Schaeffer, who does not explicitly lay out the underlying chains that lead tot he inevitability of presuppositions] -- is that radical doubt leads to infinite regress of demands for proof if consistently applied, ending up in absurdity. [Note, the major link supplie dearlier was to a course I taught; a context in which I needed to provide brief links to major thinkers on the problem, to help students see the relevant history of ideas at least in outline.]

--> A review of my chain in current form would be helpful: why do we accept a claim A? Because it is entailed by B, which we already accept. But why should we take B? Well, there's C, D , . . .

--> Thus, we see three options: (1) infinite regress, impossible for finite andf fallible thinkers such as we arer, (2) circularity -- actually an undeveloped form of (3): first plausibles, F constituting a Faith-Point. [That terminology is so far as I know my own.] For instance, in an earlier mention of the issue of doubt in the course, I used Russell's five minute universe argument:

For instance, consider Bertrand Russell’s 5-minute universe argument. We could not come up with empirical evidence to disprove the idea that the cosmos was created in an instant five minutes ago, complete with records, artifacts, memories, breakfast in our tummies, etc. So, which hypothesis should we accept: our present one or the 5-minute universe? Why?

Answer: to accept the 5-minute universe theory would require overthrowing not only nearly all of our current beliefs, but our instinctive, intuitive common-sense trust in the general -- as opposed to absolute -- reliability of direct perception, experience and memory, etc. So, in the absence of, say, actually discovering utterly convincing evidence that we live in the modern equivalent of “Plato’s Cave” -- as is imagined in The Matrix -- it would make no sense to take such a radical hypothesis seriously. However, this leads us to three key lessons: [go here for details & links]

--> Plainly, there are alternative F-points, F1, F2, F3 etc, we end up facing the need to address comparative difficulties of these competing alternative EXPLANATIONS of the world [i.e. my thinking is explicitly abductive here]. That brings us to the force of asking about factual adequacy., coherence [logical, dynamic, existential], and elegance/ad hocness.

--> So, we have to exert faith in a context where our mental tools are on observation and experience, not absolutely effective; but we have a forced, momentous choice across live options, of which the more or less Reidian makes best sense. In that context, doubt is implicit in faith, but faith can have high conficence, indeed amounting to moral certaintly.

--> On balance, it seems credible that that is all we can have, but that is a lot: it is enough to live by, think by, decide by and hope by.

6] Your experience argument was your closest approach on that front, and I respect that. But I would modestly request that you respect the experience of others.

--> Again, on what objective grounds are you absolutely certain that your experience is not fundamentally deceptive, as in the Russell argument above, or the classic brains in vats, or the Matrix or -- far more fundamantally, originally and profoundly -- are we living in a Plato's Cave World, complete with the further issue Jesus highlights of vicious endarkenment masquerading as enlightenment?

MT 6:22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

--> By sharpest contrast, within the factually well-warranted, powerfully coherent and elegantly simple Christian worldview, I have high confidence that God has made us in a world in which our minds and senses were made to and so can and often do deliver veridical experiences, but that is undergirded by my confidence in the God who is there and is not silent, so that I can access thereby corrective truth that sets to rights my errors of inference from perception and experience, as well as associated sin-darkened reasoning. I believe, on highly warranted grounds, that the framework in its core is morally certain.

7] AndySPerhaps it was Jesus' messages of love and compassion, the reports of him throwing the money lenders out of the temple, his sermon on the mount. I find in the historical Jesus an amazing social revolutionary and spiritual leader aside from the reports of miracles.

--> The problem is, that the Jesus of the Sermon, or even of the two temple cleansings that I think are probable, would not have been enough of an irritant to get himself crucified; whipped maybe, as a later prophet would be for rebuking and pronouncing the judgement ont he temple thatr did come to pass.

--> What was critical, from the primary witness documents, and from the implications of the Talmudic discussion, was his claims about his Person and associated deeds and predictions. In the Sanhedrin, that raised th eaccusation of blasphemy [even after the suborned witnesses fell apart in mutual contradiction], and before Pilate, it was turned into sedition against Rome.

--> These too are part of the facts you have to account for; you cannot simply pick and choose texts that you like and brush aside those you don't.

--> And, BTW, I forgot to note in response tpo someone's dismissive remarks above; that there are TWO Josephus texts, one of which has not been accused of interpolation, and the other of which the possible interpolation can relatively easily be isolated; as is the general opinion of current scholarship, so far as I can see. [When that is done, it looks to me like marginalia -- e.g. He was Christ! -- that got copied into the main text, something that has been known to happen with such scribal work.]

--> I cite the shorter text now, which is on the death of James the Just in the interregnum between governors in 62 AD, but in identifying him, makes a telling side reference:

he [Ananias] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." [The Antiquities, 20.200. Cf. also, e.g. Yamauchi, "Josephus and the Scriptures," Fides et Historia, 13 [1980], 42 - 63. Y asserts that he knows of no scholar who has successfuly impugned this passage, as cited by Stroebel, The Case for Christ, p. 102. In particular, following L H Feldman, note the studious absence of a laudatory reference to Jesus, precisely what is used to impugn the alleged interpolations in the other text.]

8] LL: kindly come up to a serious level, if you wish to be taken seriously. We are not talking about talking plants here.

+++++++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

60

PS to AndyS:

Notice the issue at the head of the thread: rejection of the historicity of Jesus. In your response, you imply acceptance of his reality as an historic personage. If the records are credible enough for that, and we have the issue of the origin of the church on the table as discussed by Morison, what is an alternative hyp that appropriately and better explains the FULL range of material facts on secularist, functional atheist lines?

THAT is the challenge before those who would brush aside 20 centuries of Chgristian histo