Need some help this Argument. . .

User avatar
_Christopher
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
Location: Gladstone, Oregon

Post by _Christopher » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:43 pm

Hi Jackal,

It’s obvious that the gospel is foolishness to you. However, in your claims you have proven nothing except a prejudice that you have against the credibility of the gospels. The difference comes down to this:

Are they innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent?

You have presented two rather inconsequential geographical problems (actually, I only see one of them as a problem, the Gadarene demoniac) and you immediately blame the author of the gospel of Mark, even though the earliest manuscripts extant are still not the original autographs. Steve has presented in his rebuttal some very logical possible solutions to these problems.

You have attempted to debunk Paul’s credibility by claiming he knew little or nothing of the historical Jesus. But even you must admit that it’s an argument from silence, and again, not one that has much significance since recounting the history of Jesus was not the focus of Paul’s ministry :

1 Cor 2:2-5
2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
NKJV



You have asserted that Paul’s neglect to recount the virgin birth is evidence that he didn’t know about it. However, again, the virgin birth is not the basis of his message to his audience. He obviously knew about the death and resurrection of Christ and purposed to preach its significance as his primary message.

Since I can see that many of your statements were already debunked by Steve and others, I just want to throw in a few more:

You wrote:
From what I've seen, Eta not only converted to christianity, but to evangelical, fundamentalist christianity. As such, her new-found objection to the historical critical method is of little surprise.
Yeah, amazing how the Holy Spirit can “renew your mind” isn’t it?


You wrote:
Book-burning is often a characteristic of ideological fanaticism.
It’s also often a sign of repentance, especially when it’s your own blasphemous books you’re burning.


You wrote:
But with the high coincidence in wording, in order, in language, and in content, of Matthew and Luke with Mark makes it statistically nearly impossible to have been separate, independently written accounts.
Amazing how divine inspiration can get us the exact message God intends for us to have, isn’t it? Unless of course you have prejudicial presuppositions that will not allow you to consider that possibility.


You wrote:
I was giving Paul the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he made it up.
False dichotomy violation. The other alternative is that Jesus revealed it to Him supernaturally, just as Paul claimed.


You wrote:
Conveniently for Paul, we have only his word for his revelations, and no way of confirming his "revelations". Even Jesus in the gospel stories doesn't fortell Paul's apostleship.
I don’t know, if you performed miracles in my presence to get your point across, you might gain a little credibility with me also. But that’s just me.


You wrote:
And Paul's other statements all emphasize how he received his knowledge of Jesus by "revelation", and explicitly not from any man. That is what Paul says. It is only through your unfounded and unsupported eisegesis that you can mold Paul's statements to fit your orthodox dogma. But, if you know anything from Paul that says, or even reasonably infers, that he learned anything of Jesus from the apostles, without resorting to closed-mined eisegesis, I'd appreciate being enlightened.


How about just plain common sense? Paul’s entire life was committed to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. It would be completely absurd to suggest that he wasn’t interested in additional insight into His earthly life by those who were His close companions and disciples for 3+ years.

As I said before, the only thing you have demonstrated thus far is an irrational bias against the validity of the gospels and a cavalier dismissal of the supernatural. Do we “fundy’s” also have a bias? Sure we do. You would too if you were "enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come" (Heb 6:4-5) as Eta Linnemann apparently was.

Paul said:

1 Cor 1:18
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
NKJV


This sound remarkably similar to Jesus’ statements:

Matt 11:25
"I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.
NKJV


After all the evidence is examined and critiqued, it still comes down to faith doesn’t it?

“For those who have no faith, no proof is enough. For those who have faith, no proof is necessary.”

Lord bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:30 pm

And of course Jackel i'm sure you know Paul often used the phrase "according to the scriptures" and the scripture he used was the Septuagint. The Septuagint translates Isaiah 7.14 "born of a virgin" which without doubt Paul knew for in order for him to recognize Christ as Messiah , Paul would know that Jesus first and foremost would have had to meet that requirement "according to the scriptures."
Of course Jackel this is all entertainment to you like a little jousting contest for your amusement.
Of course for an intellectual giant like yourself you could'nt conceive of us poor ignorant Christians being correct could you but just on the remote chance that we are correct, consider what Jesus said.
"Woe unto you that laugh now ,for ye shall mourn and weep." Luke 6.25
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:53 pm

To totally shatter the idea based on ignorance, that Paul was ignorant of the life of Jesus, which would include His sayings and teachings, Glenn Miller wrote:
But, let's consider something else. Let's consider Paul's usage of Jesus' words or teachings. Is there indeed no evidence that Paul knew and/or used the words of Jesus?

What we are looking for here are allusions to, or echos of, Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. We are NOT looking for quotes (with chapter and verse, before they appeared half a millenium later!), but echos and word-choices and similarities of teaching that make sense as having come from Jesus (ultimately). Are there any in Paul?

Tons.

On one scholarly extreme is Alfred Resch, the German author who early in this century found 1, 158 Pauline allusions to Jesus (this is in slightly over 2,000 verses of Pauline writings!). On the other end of the spectrum is Victor Furnish who can only find eight air-tight cases (Rom 12.14, 17; 13.7; 14.13-14; 14.14; 1 Thess 5.2, 13, 15)--although his search was focused on the ethical teaching of Paul only. This wide disparity between the extremes shows how speculative this search for direct dependence can be, but at the same time, shows how close in teaching content Paul and Jesus are!!! Dunn sums this in "Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans, eds. Brill: 1994"

"Nevertheless, the very fact of the debate and the range of opinion arising from it are of significance. For the character of the debate is itself a reflection of the character of the evidence; the inconclusiveness of the debate reflects the inconclusiveness of the evidence. All are agreed that Paul does cite or refer to dominical tradition at two points at least (1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14). All are agreed that there is a further group of passages in Paul which look very much as though they contain allusions to or echoes of Jesus tradition. And all are agreed that there is a further group of passages of indeterminate dimensions where there is at least some similarity of them or wording with elements of the Jesus tradition. In other words, there is a degree of consensus--on the character of the evidence within the Pauline letters."

Consider just a few of these parallels and/or allusions [I can only scratch the surface of these!], with a wide range of obviousness, many from skeptical authors in the field, and the clearest in the original Greek (Jesus first, then Paul's reference):

(JESUS) Luke 6.27-28: "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you"
(JESUS) Matt 5.24: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(PAUL) Romans 12.14: "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse"

(JESUS) Mark 7:15: "there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
(PAUL) Romans 14:14: " I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself"

(JESUS) Matt 17:20: "if you have faith...you will say to this mountain, 'Move'..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.2: "if I have all faith so as to move mountains..."

(JESUS) Matt 19.21: "If you would be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.3: "if I give away all my possessions..." (contra Rabbinical advice! Cf. b. Ketubot 50a and Mishnah Arakin 8.4)

(JESUS) Matt 24.43: "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
(PAUL) I Thess 5:2,4: "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief;

(JESUS) Mark 9.50: "live at peace with one another" (verb forms are absolutely identical)
(PAUL) I Thess 5.13: "live at peace among yourselves"

(JESUS) Mark 4.22: "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it should come to light.
(PAUL) I Cor 4.5: "who will bring to light the secrets of darkness and will make public the purposes of the heart"
(PAUL) Rom 2.16: "God judges the secrets of people, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ"
(PAUL) I Cor 14.25: "The secrets of his heart are made public"

(JESUS) Mark 14:36: "And He was saying, "Abba! Father" (very uncommon usage)
(PAUL) Gal 4.6: "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!""
(PAUL) Rom 8.15: "you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

(JESUS) Luke 10.21f: ""I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.
(PAUL) I Cor 1-2 (various verses): "hidden things" (2.7), "the wise" (1.19), "the understanding" (1.19), "God has revealed" (2.10), "to infants" (3.1), "God was pleased" (1.21)

(JESUS) ark 14:22-23: "And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
(PAUL) I Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [the whole thing!]

(JESUS) Luke 10.7: "And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
(PAUL) I Cor 9.14: "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. "
(PAUL) I Tim 5.18: "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

[Overall, there are significant amounts of allusion material in Paul to this synoptic mission discourse, some of which are as follows:

*the sending of the apostles on itinerant mission (Matt 10:2, 5/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:2/10:1; so 1 Cor 9:1, 5, etc.),
*their authority (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.),
*to preach the gospel (Matt 10:7/Luke 9:2; 10:9; so 1 Cor 9:14-16, etc.)
*and to cast out devils and heal (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1/Luke 10:9; so 2 Cor 12:12),
*their mission to Israel (Matt 10:5; so Gal 2:8, 9),
*"you received without payment; give without payment" (Matt 10:8; so 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Cor 9:18, etc.),
*"eating and drinking . . ." (Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.),
*"the laborer deserves to be paid" (Matt 10:10/Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:14, etc.),
*"eat what is set before you" (Luke 10:8; so 1 Cor 10:27),
*"be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16; so Rom 16:19),
*"whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16; so 1 Thes 4:8 ).

(JESUS) Matt 16.16-20: "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
(PAUL) Gal 1.15,16: "But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,

(JESUS) Mark 10.9f: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
(PAUL) I Cor 7.10-11: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away

(JESUS) Matt 22.21: "Then He *said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (reference to taxes and tribute)
(PAUL) Romans 13.7: "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor" [linguistic forms are identical]

(JESUS) Matt 20.26: "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
(PAUL) Romans 15.7: "For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision

(JESUS) Mark 10.44: "and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
(PAUL) I Cor 9.19: "I have made myself a slave to all..."
(PAUL) I Cor 10.33: "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

(JESUS) Matt 5.33f: "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil."
(PAUL) 2 Cor 1.17-18: "Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no."

To this list above could be added scores and scores (and probably hundreds and hundreds) of other examples, but that will have to wait for a different piece.

But not only did Paul know (and repeat) Jesus' teaching--often almost verbatim!--he constantly pointed his readers to the life of Christ as an example to follow.

Rom 15.1ff: "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me."
Philp 2.5: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,"
I Cor 11.1: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Eph 5.1f: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us"

Now, so far we have looked at a lot of data that seems to suggest a large amount of verbal and thematic overlap between Jesus and Paul. Just for reference, though, let's see if James manifests the same character of allusion in his book. [These are the parallels given by Dunn in SHJ:177.]

(JESUS) Matt 7.7,11: Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. 8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened. 9 "Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10 "Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
(JAMES) Jas 1.5,17: "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him...Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights"

(JESUS) Matt 21.21: "And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it shall happen. 22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive."
(JAMES) Jas 1.6: "But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord

(JESUS) Matt 7.21f: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'
(JAMES) Jas 1.22-23: "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;

(JESUS) Matt 7.1: "Do not judge lest you be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
(JAMES) Jas 4.12: "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

(JESUS) Matt 5.34-37: "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil.
(JAMES) Jas 5.12: "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment.

These examples from James are at the same level (or even somewhat less) precision and obviousness, when compared to Paul's examples.

Under this point, then, we see that Paul:

1) Did preach the same/similar 'gospel' of Jesus;
2) Manifests the same "lack of interest" in the pre-Passion Jesus as did the other NT literature;
3) Manifests a tremendous amount of common verbal forms and teaching content with Jesus.
4)Refers his readers to the example of Jesus' life and character.
Accordingly, the data above is QUITE STRONG--
Paul was miles away from ignorance concering the life of Jesus.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:56 pm

For the full article by Glenn Miller, see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/muslix.html
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_jackal
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:06 pm

Post by _jackal » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:37 pm

Steve wrote: First, I think you know too little about my positions to comment on my motives. For reasons inexplicable to me, you characterize me as

"someone who is locked into one and only one interpretation of the books of the bible, who can read them only with spectacles having the correct shade of lens congruent with his orthodox dogma... You can only read them as the inerrant word of god, consistent and congruent with the orthodox dogma formulated centuries after these books were written..."

Apparenty, you have not read much of my positions at this forum.
And you know less about me, my position and my background, yet in your first post to me, you felt at liberty to refer to me as dishonest, irresponsible, research too narrow, twisting words, biased and that "I might want to salvage my integrity." I respond in kind.

I have not read Origin's actual comments on this (though I will). However, it does not seem obvious that his being aware of the geographical problems in the existing text of Mark 5:1 would necessarily translate into his concluding that Mark had not written the second gospel. If I am mistaken, I will be pleased to be corrected about this.
Origen did not conclude that Mark was inauthentic. Since he believed the gospels to be inerrant, he believed that his copy must be in error and that the author originally wrote Gergesene, which did exist in his day in the 3rd century. This is where the person you referenced, Edersheim, very likely got the idea for the same theory. When the author of Matthew wrote his gospel in the late 1st century, Gergesene did not yet exist. The closest town to Lake Tiberias that he could use in his time to correct Mark's mistake was Gadara. However, from textual analysis and archaelogical evidence, we now can better conclude that the author wrote Gerasene, again displaying his ignorance of the local geography.

Namaste
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_jackal
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:06 pm

Post by _jackal » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:45 pm

SoaringEagle wrote:To totally shatter the idea based on ignorance, that Paul was ignorant of the life of Jesus, which would include His sayings and teachings, Glenn Miller wrote:
Does it strike you the least bit odd that, in view of these many parallels, that Paul never attributes them to the Lord? He not once says, " As Jesus said,..." or "As the Lord taught us..." Would Paul be so arrogant to try to take credit for Jesus's ideas? (But I suppose everyone already knew which sayings and ideas were original to Jesus, and giving credit would be superfluous.)

Actually, I appreciate this list of parallels. I have been aware of some of them, enough that it struck me that many of the gospels stories of Jesus may have borrowed from Paul's letters to create the dialogues put into the Jesus character's mouth (sorry if you're gagging on this now). This reinforces that theory.

Namaste
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_jackal
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:06 pm

Post by _jackal » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:18 am

STEVE7150 wrote:And of course Jackel i'm sure you know Paul often used the phrase "according to the scriptures" and the scripture he used was the Septuagint. The Septuagint translates Isaiah 7.14 "born of a virgin" which without doubt Paul knew for in order for him to recognize Christ as Messiah , Paul would know that Jesus first and foremost would have had to meet that requirement "according to the scriptures."
That is curious. Why did Paul use gune rather than parthenos as in Matt. 1:23?

Of course Jackel this is all entertainment to you like a little jousting contest for your amusement.
Of course for an intellectual giant like yourself you could'nt conceive of us poor ignorant Christians being correct could you but just on the remote chance that we are correct, consider what Jesus said.
"Woe unto you that laugh now ,for ye shall mourn and weep." Luke 6.25
No, I find it educational as well. And you shouldn't take yourself so seriously.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:43 am

Hello Jackal,

In assessing you from your writings (which are all that I have to go on), I am actually taking your words more justly at face value than you are doing with the words of the New Testament writers. You have accused them of fabrication—on the basis of nothing that an unbiased man would regard as evidence that they have fabricated anything at all. Your case would be thrown out of a court of law, since actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused is generally required.

My assessment of your honesty and your narrowness of research was drawn from your direct statements, in which an entirely gratuitous skepticism prevails, without objective warrant—a skepticism which, if applied to other areas of inquiry, would leave you incapable of knowing much of anything other than what you prefer to believe.

Your statements about my desire to harmonize all my positions with some late-dated orthodoxy—and even with the assumption that the New Testament writings are the inerrant word of God—was not referencing any intimation made on my part that the documents are inerrant—nor did I appeal to any orthodox authority. I have simply looked at the New Testament material and assessed it as I would assess any other. You have found nothing beyond this in in my correspondence.

I was able to point out the specific cases of irresponsible handling in your statements before accusing you. In contrast, you accuse me of taking an approach which I do not demonstrate in my correspondence, and with which I am not in sympathy. You seem to have jumped to conclusions about why I think the things I do (apparently based upon your previous experience with other evangelicals)...and happened to miss your guess.

Thus, your response was not "in kind."

If assessing our arguments thus far, an unbiased observer would, I think, say that I have not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the gospels are historically accurate (it has not been my task to do so, nor is it my responsibility to do so), and, likewise, that you certainly have provided no solid evidence that they are not reliable. Since the gospels profess to be honest accounts, and we do not generally call men liars without reason, it seems that, all other things being equal, the burden of proof rests upon those wishing to prove some reputable historical document to be false. If I have not carried the burden of proving the gospels to be correct (again, that is not my burden to carry, since the writers themselves carry that burden), you certainly have also failed to demonstrate that they are false—and that is the burden that attaches to your position.

The best you can say about your position is that the majority of critical scholars hold it. To this, anyone can retort that the majority of Christian scholars throughout history have held a view contrary to yours. Until someone can demonstrate that critical scholars are superior to Christian scholars (a proposition far from obvious), then we must remain at a stalemate (unless you've got something better than you have produced thus far to "break the tie").

Essentially, this means that an honest, intelligent person, without bias, would give you, at the most, a 50% chance of being right, but also a 50% chance of being wrong. Nothing but misplaced arrogance could convince a man in your position that he has better than a 50% chance of being correct. But suppose you had a 90% chance of being correct...that would mean there is still a 10% chance that you are wrong. The gospels could still be exactly what they profess to be, what the best minds of Europe and America for hundreds of years believed them to be—and Jesus could really be who they say He is. The chance of these things being the case, (so far as your arguments have proved) is clearly greater than 10%, but if the chances were only this great, what is the benefit to you in refusing to consider this possibility?

Accepting the proposition that Jesus is exactly who Christians say He is requires nothing more outlandish than the believing of the testimony of His followers, who wrote about Him in the early decades after His lifetime. Such a position allows one to take the evidence in the Roman historians and in Josephus and the Talmud at face value (omitting, for the sake of argument, the evidence from Josephus' disputed paragraph).

If we accept this, we can then accept the testimony of the church fathers, many of whom were martyred for believing that these things happened within living memory of people whom they knew personally. We can then present a simple and coherent explanation of the phenomenon of Christianity that had such pervasive influence throughout the Roman Empire at least as early as twenty years after the alleged time of "the Jesus character's" death.

We can give a sensible reason why so many of His local contemporaries either believed the written and preached accounts of His life—or at least never made any recorded protests that the records were inaccurate. We can make sense of the fact that secular research has again and again proven Luke's critics wrong in their earlier assertions that he had made things up, in which he was subsequently vindicated by fuller archaeological discoveries. In other words, we can just let the evidence speak without feeling we have to desperately find imaginary errors in every Christian document, or have to debunk every early reference in secular historians that seems to confirm what the Christian story claims.

The expenditure of the emotional energy required to keep up this constant resistance to all the available early evidence—to always be formulating new alternative theories that render it unnecessary for us to embrace the obvious, and to convince oneself that the testimonies of millions of otherwise sane and intelligent Christians, who claim to have a relationship with the risen Christ, is merely a naive delusion—must be so draining as to require strong motivation to keep up the game. What could motivate such stubbornness?

Is it the fear of being called a "fundy"? Or perhaps a distaste for the company of some of the more unattractive manifestations of religious zealotry? Is it the political incorrectness of conservative Christianity, or the embarrassing reputation of bombastic media evangelists, that makes certain people so determined to disbelieve in Christ at all costs? I honestly ask because I really can't understand what makes someone hide from the simplest conclusion to which the facts point.

To claim that Jesus never existed is, in my judgment, the most anti-intellectual position on the subject available. To say that He really did exist, but was not very much like what all the earliest Chrtistians believed Him to have been, is scarcely more intellectually respectable (except among determined idealogues, who simply have agreed to respect each other's theories without real proof).

To deny that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is to set oneself against all relevant historical records, whether Roman, Jewish or Christian. To suggest that He is still in His grave is a theory that allows no explanation for the belief of the early Christians that He was no longer in there—and for the inability of their opponents to prove them wrong.

To give any explanation of how His tomb was emptied, other than that found in the records of those who saw Him afterward, is to substitute an impossible explanation for a merely strange one. To say that the "resurrection explanation" simply cannot be admitted for consideration, because it is miraculous, only betrays a wholly unjustified bigotry about the non-existence of supernatural phenomena.

I guess my question to you, Jackal, is really, what if you are wrong? Do you ever consider this possibility? Does it even matter to you, or is this just an intellectual low-stakes game for you? If God (by the slightest chance) does exist and has visited His creation in the person of the man Jesus, and you have determined to reject this upon the flimsy arguments you have presented here, or upon the imaginary authority of some amorphous group called "the majority of critical scholars"—what have you gained, and what have you lost?

Since those upon whose authority you are staking everything are a relative minority of thinking academics (considering all those who have lived and held some informed opinion or other about these matters) you are hanging a great deal of weight on a very slender branch.

Do you realize that saying that "the majority of critical scholars" reject the Christian records is little else than saying "the majority of non-Christian scholars reject Christianity." No surprises there. It is as impressive as if I were to say, "The majority of Christian scholars accept the validity of Christianity" or "The majority of Muslim scholars believe in the Koran." Who is ahead after all such statements have been made? It's a draw.

That's why I would urge you to worry less about what one camp of "scholars" (or ideologues) believe, and put on your thinking cap—the same one you would wear if you were examining the evidence for a subject about which you were dispassionate—and look at the actual evidence without bias. If you can do this and come out still thinking that the arguments you have presented have merit, then I must leave you to your conclusions...and thank whatever Powers that be that I was given the grace of a greater objectivity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:41 pm

But, let's consider something else. Let's consider Paul's usage of Jesus' words or teachings. Is there indeed no evidence that Paul knew and/or used the words of Jesus?

What we are looking for here are allusions to, or echos of, Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. We are NOT looking for quotes (with chapter and verse, before they appeared half a millenium later!), but echos and word-choices and similarities of teaching that make sense as having come from Jesus (ultimately). Are there any in Paul?
There certainly are.

Paul, in the following passage, alludes to the Lord Jesus' teaching about marriage and separation , and also specifies what Jesus did NOT teach, but what Paul says on his own about marriage and separation.

I Corinthians 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.

I Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not leave her.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:52 am

Wow, I had no idea this thread had grown so much since I posted the original question. I'm glad Jakal came on here to give examples of what I was talking about with regard to criticism. What I'm encountering more and more are individuals like this who lean heavily on "scholarship" but do so at the expense of common sense. Steve summed it up pretty well by indicating that it is a presupposition against the supernatural that undergirds all of the liberal scholarship I've seen.

Who is more open minded, the person who believes supernatural events could occur or those who claim no such things are possible right from the outset? I'm often amazed how such well read individuals can make such basic mistakes in their thinking. Steve also brought up an interesting point that you don't hear much. If there's a 50% chance the gospel writers were telling the truth and a 50% chance they were not, what would cause someone to lean in one direction or the other? It seems that the heart of the individual comes into question here. How could it not? Skeptics can claim intellectual honesty all they like, but if equally compelling arguments can be demonstrated from both sides of an issue, only a person's preference could sway an undecided mind.

Personally, I think the skeptic has to be far less objective to reach his conclusions and the reason I think so is stated above. But I do feel there are a few decent arguments against our position (though they can be defended with equal veracity). Perhaps Jakal and others like him/her find their fulfillment in being labeled "intellectuals" by their peers but I don't want to be uncharitable by claiming to know their motives. What I do know is that a few decades from now every one of us will be dead. That's an objective fact that skeptics can agree with us on, which is why it baffles me that anyone would be so cavalier in their thinking as to consider this a light matter, or something of mere entertainment. If the gospel writers were telling the truth, then a time will come when each person will be judged by the creator of the universe by the one called Christ. If that POSSIBILITY doesn't at least put a stone in your shoe, then the psalmist was correct in declaring: "a fool says in his heart, there is no God."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”