Jesus: UL?

[HubZilla]

The question I hear a lot is "The tomb was empty, what's the best explanation?" They explain that the sleeping guards/disciples stealing scenarios aren't likely, and therefore, the resurrection is the only option left. I counter that to disbelieve in the resurrection, it is not necessary to come up with an alternative explanation. The sheer implausibility of such a claim, in conjunction with the lack of truly extraordinary evidence is quite sufficient to justify rational disbelief.

What do I personally believe happened? I like the "urban legend" theory. Seeing Jesus killed destroyed the apostle's faith in Jesus. The true Messiah would never be killed before he fulfilled the prophecies. And since Jesus didn't throw off the Roman yoke, establish Yahweh's kingdom, usher in a time of universal peace, make the lions sleep with the lambs, etc, he wasn't who he said he was. Everyone abandons Jesus but his most loyal followers, and even they sulk and go back to fishing.

Time passes, and enter our friend Paul: he saw Jesus in a vision, so Jesus didn't die after all! He gets together with the original apostles and revises the story of Jesus. Jesus did throw off a yoke, but that yoke was not Rome, but our sin. The kingdom he established was in heaven, not Jerusalem. His death, instead of a loss, was a gain: he died for us and he is now in heaven (I know, I saw the vision!) and we can all join him. All those other unfulfilled prophesies? Don't worry, he'll do all the rest when he returns!

Remember, those gospels and Acts were written nearly 50 years after Jesus died (and after most of Paul's letters). So there was plenty of time to enter in a virgin birth, healings, miracles, and, of course, a resurrection (facets of many concurrent pagan religions). Go to http://www.snopes.com, and I'll bet you could find a dozen urban legends you swore were true 5-10 years ago. Now, give an especially superstitious people 50 years, and viola!

But I’m told the Jews and/or Romans could've produced the body to quiet down those pesky Christians. Well, in the beginning, there weren't a lot of Christians to quiet down. The gospels list maybe a few dozen people who saw Jesus return. What happened to the rest, like the multitudes who were fed 5000 loaves and fish, listened to his sermons, and cheered the Triumphal Entry? Once Jesus died, it was the end of the story for most of Jesus' followers. It was hardly worth the Jews' or Romans' trouble to investigate the supernatural claims of so few. By the time Paul got the movement in full swing, there wouldn't be much left of Jesus' corpse to conclude anything.

Sometimes I get the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" tri-lemma. Jesus said he was Lord. Either he was wrong and knew it, which makes him a liar. Or he was wrong and didn't know it, which makes him a lunatic. Since our lord and savior isn't evil or a loony, he must be telling the truth. But the "urban legend" covers that, too: he was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. Or the stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early (or later) Christians.

Then I get told that the apostles were martyred and never recanted. No one would willingly be tortured and die to protect a lie. Only two people are martyred in the book of Acts: Stephen and James, but they were killed for blasphemy, not for believing Jesus rose from the dead. Since the Jews took blasphemy seriously, I doubt an 11th-hour recanting about Jesus would've saved them. The Christians who were persecuted by the Romans (thrown to the lions, etc), were not eyewitnesses, but later converts who believed the story (hmm, like an urban legend?). Other than that, there is zero historical evidence any other apostles (the only eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection) were martyred. A popular story has Peter being crucified upside-down, but that is from a non-canonical (read: rejected by Christians) "Gnostic Gospel of Peter".

[Zenster]

Please watch the Frontline program, "From Jesus to Christ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/)". Your mind will be altered.

[SPOOFE]

Please watch the Frontline program, "From Jesus to Christ". Your mind will be altered.
I can do that with beer. Don't need no stinkin' TV show.

[themoon]

First off, I would dispute the claim that there was an empty tomb. Who says there was an empty tomb? The Bible? But, then, if you accept that the bible is authoritative, then you are already conceding that the resurection story is true.

First of all, we must examine how reliable the books that make up the bible are. And, in fact, they are completely unreliable.

The gospel stories were written many years after the events supposedly took place. The first gospel, Mark, was written at least 30 years after Jesus' supposedly died, at the earliest in the mid-60's C.E. The remaining gospels were written decades after that. John, the last gospel, is thought to have been written in the middle of the second century.

So, these are 4th and 5th hand accounts, written decades after the event, by people who had an agenda. And these are supposed to be reliable as history? Please.

[Liberal]

This is my favorite site on the topic: Jesus, a historical reconstruction (http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml). No fluff. Just the facts.

[tracer]

That's a fascinating site, Libertarian! (No, really!)

I'm just starting to read it, so I don't know what-all historical sources the author uses and does not address. Obviously, he addresses the NT and the writings of Josephus and Origen. What I'm curious about is, does he address any of the writings of the early Christian church that didn't make it into the NT? If not, why not? (I can certainly understand that he might reject many non-NT Christian writings for the same reason that the compilers of the NT rejected them in the first place, namely that they seemed too fanciful. That would be a perfectly reasonable answer.)

[tracer]

I meant to write:

"I don't know what-all historical sources the author addresses and does not address."

[Liberal]

I've never seen a more broad consideration given to every possible source than he gives, including these:

All about "Q" . . Gospel of Thomas
Arguments for late dating

The great omission in Luke's gospel
The missing block from Mark's gospel

Paul and the Corinthians during the third journey
Also the entry point to his reconstructed letters

Beliefs of "Nazarene"/Christian communities in 58
Table

Daniel and Revelation
Historical & critical study

In my worthless opinion, his is the most scholarly treatment I've ever seen.

[Guinastasia]

Probably a hijack, but wasn't there also a site explaining the medical analysis of Jesus's death by crucifixion?

[Mean Girl]

I found this pretty interesting:

http://www.salvationbygrace.org/SermonResurrectionProof.htm

[themoon]

Here are a few more sites on Jesus:

Timeline and history of the gospels (http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html)

One that makes the case that Jesus never existed (http://www.truthbeknown.com/)

The Jesus Puzzle (http://infoweb.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm) Another case for Jesus' non-existence

A good site on the history of the bible and christianity (http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm)

[tracer]

Guinastasia wrote:

wasn't there also a site explaining the medical analysis of Jesus's death by crucifixion?
Not only a site, but the second half of a Cecil Adams column deals with the subject -- at least as far as which parts of his body Jesus would have had to have been nailed through:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_237.html

[Liberal]

Thanks, Tracer! I hereby cite Cecil to settle this debate and thus effectively end this thread. From the article you linked:

In short, we have no idea how Jesus was crucified, other than the fact that they nailed him somewhere.

Emphasis mine.

Okay folks, please keep the left lane clear for emergency traffic as you exit. Where's Astroboy?

[tracer]

Uh ...

[tomndebb]

John, the last gospel, is thought to have been written in the middle of the second century.[ nitpick ] The oldest fragment of parchment or papyrus that we have with any NT writing on it is a fragment of John 18 that appears to date to around 127. This makes a "middle of the second century" timeline a bit too late.
[ /nitpick ]
The majority of scholars date John to the 90s, with a few holding out for a bit later.

[themoon]

tomndebb,

Could you give me a reference to the material on the fragment from John dated to 127? That sounds very interesting, I had not heard about that.

I am no biblical scholar, but I had the idea that the consensus among the top scholars was that John was written in the 2nd century. I think Crossan, for one, thinks John was written well into the 2nd century. What leads you to believe that the consensus is mid '90s?

Thanks.

[JThunder]

I have several problems with your scenario, Hubzilla, although I do think it's an imaginative effor. I'd like to focus on the following problems, since I think they're the ones that stand out the most.

Originally posted by HubZilla
Other than [the Book of Acts], there is zero historical evidence any other apostles (the only eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection) were martyred.

Not true. Ancient historian Schumacher recorded that Matthew was killed in Ethiopia by a sword blow, that Mark was dragged through the streets of Alexandria until he was dead, that Matthias was stoned and beheaded, and so forth. He records the martyrdom of all the other Apostles (except the exiled John), plus those or Mark, Luke, Jude, Barnabas and Paul the Just.

"But wait!" one might say. "Schumacher was a Christian, so we HAVE TO discount his testimony!" I have several problems with that approach. First, your claim was that there is "zero historical evidence" for that claim, and this example alone demonstrates that to be false. (There are other accounts of their martyrdom as well, such as the writings of Eusebius, but that's another story.) Second, somebody who knew the lives of these martyrs would obviously have convincing reasons to believe in Christianity. And third, no responsible historian would automatically discount these claims simply because they hail from a Christian source. That would be like rejecting any claims made about the Democratic Party, simply because they were made by a Democratic official.

Also, is there any early evidence countering these claims? If these accounts of martyrdom were mere fabrication, one might expect that at least someone would speak up and say, "Hey, wait a minute! That's not how Matthew died!" In fact, while the Roman government was in power, there was probably no shortage of people who could refute these claims -- and yet where's the counter-evidence? (Yes, I know that the lack of counter-evidence does not by itself mean that we should accept Schumacher's accounts. However, if one is to refute a historian's claims, one should provide a better argument than saying, "Well, he might have been wrong.")

But I’m told the Jews and/or Romans could've produced the body to quiet down those pesky Christians. Well, in the beginning, there weren't a lot of Christians to quiet down. ... It was hardly worth the Jews' or Romans' trouble to investigate the supernatural claims of so few.

INITIALLY, it might not have been worth their time. However, as the multitudes grew, it clearly would have become worthwhile. Seutonius records that Emperor Claudius was compelled to banish the Christians because of the disturbances created by their conversions. Caius Plinius Secundus (aka Pliny the Younger) records that Emperor Trajan was executing Christians who would not recant their testimonies, even under extreme torture. Cornelius Tacitus likewise records the church's explosive growth and the fury that this invoked in the Roman leaders.

I find it hard to believe that the Roman authorities considered it a waste of time to produce the body, yet were willing to embark on long, systematic programs of torture, execution and banishment.

[themoon]

When Jesus supposedly was executed, he did not have a big following, therefore the Romans would not have given him and his cult much thought.

And, you know, if you have all of these historical references for the apostles being martyred, would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus? Because there is not one single mention of him outside of the bible until 96 C.E., when Josephus made a passing reference to him in his history.

All of the "evidence" for Jesus is 3rd and 4th hand accounts, written by people who had the agenda of propagating his mythology. To believe any of the stuff about his resurrection is absurd.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
The gospel stories were written many years after the events supposedly took place. The first gospel, Mark, was written at least 30 years after Jesus' supposedly died, at the earliest in the mid-60's C.E. The remaining gospels were written decades after that. John, the last gospel, is thought to have been written in the middle of the second century.

So, these are 4th and 5th hand accounts, written decades after the event, by people who had an agenda. And these are supposed to be reliable as history? Please.

First of all, as we've seen, John was clearly written much earlier than that.

And second, how does one leap from saying "Mark was written in the mid-60's" to saying it is was a "4th and 5th hand account"? Even if we grant that it was penned 30 years after Christ's death, that does not mean that it was not written by Mark -- and it certainly does not necessarily make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account.

Third, Paul's letters are typically dated much earlier than that. So even if you grant a late date for the gospel accounts, there's still the issue of Paul's writings.

Fourth, having an "agenda" does not automatically disqualify a historical account. By that token, we would aso have to disregard anything the Roman authorities said against Jesus, since they had an agenda as well! More importantly, if the gospel accounts are true, then it would be inconceivable for the authors to NOT believe in Christianity!

And fifth, are you seriously suggesting that only an eyewitness account can be regarded as history? Such a view of history is rather naive and, as Dr. William Lane Craig says, "positively medieval." Do you have any idea how much of history we would have to reject, simply because the historians recording these events were not eyewitnesses?

In fact, noted historian Sir William Ramsey testifies to the reliability of Luke's gospel. Ramsey spent 15 years trying to refute the Gospel of Luke, but in the end, he was forced to conclude that it was reliable. In his own words, "Luke is a historian of first rank, not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, but this author should be placed alongwith the very greatest historians. Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness."

Note that this testimony comes from one of the world's foremost archaeologists -- and one who initially set out to destroy Luke's credibility! Unlike many laymen, Sir William Ramsey understood how history is written, and that a historian's role is to evaluate the balance of the evidence, and to discern reliable testimony from the unreliable.

Additional info can be found at

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ514.HTM

and at Dr. William Lane Craig's virtual office. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html)

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
When Jesus supposedly was executed, he did not have a big following, therefore the Romans would not have given him and his cult much thought.

Perhaps, but as the Christian church grew, they Romans clearly gave him PLENTY of thought. So much so that they felt obligated to banish, torture and murder the Christian throngs.

Originally posted by themoon
And, you know, if you have all of these historical references for the apostles being martyred, would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus? Because there is not one single mention of him outside of the bible until 96 C.E., when Josephus made a passing reference to him in his history.

First of all, the New Testament writings ARE historical evidence for Jesus. One might choose to reject this evidence, as you clearly do, but such is the difference between evidence and proof positive.

Second, the mere fact that you mention Josephus shows that there IS historical evidence for Christ. Besides, in addition to Josephus, you have the writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and many others.

Third, Cecil already addressed your claim that there's no evidence for Jesus' existence (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html).

And fourth, are you really suggesting that we should disregard Josephus' testimony, simply because it was written a few decades after Christ's life? Do you realize that by that standard, we must reject virtually EVERYTHING that historians believe about ancient Rome? Can you name a single historian who believes that this date of 96 C.E. renders Josephus unreliable?

[Mighty Maximino]

I dunno, JThunder. The Roman authorities probably didn't figure it was possible to solve anything by producing a body, assuming it even existed and they knew where it was. This was before genetic testing, remember? If they presented some corpse, and said, "Hey guys, got your Messiah right here," I assume the Christian community would have discounted it as a trick, just as would happen to me today if I tried to hawk Christ's femur on the 700 Club.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Probably a hijack, but wasn't there also a site explaining the medical analysis of Jesus's death by crucifixion?

There are several such sites, but you may be thinking of the Mayo Clinic analysis of his suffering and death (http://www.cleancarpets.com/jesus/).
(© Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 1986, Volume 225.)

Also, there's

http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html

[JThunder]

Originally posted by Mighty Maximino
I dunno, JThunder. The Roman authorities probably didn't figure it was possible to solve anything by producing a body, assuming it even existed and they knew where it was. This was before genetic testing, remember?

They posted a guard at the tomb, so they knew where it was. Besides, even if they didn't know, all they had to do was ask around.

Besides, why wouldn't they at least try this tactic? It would be far, FAR easier to convince people that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, than to convince them that he did. In other words, the weight of the evidence would have been on their side -- yet the Roman authorities didn't even try this gambit.

At the very least, it would have been a way to keep the Christian growth down -- and tt would have certainly been MUCH, MUCH easier than mobilizing their military forces to exile or execute the Christian believers. Heck, one would at least expect to find some writings that say, "These foolish Christians! The tomb isn't even empty!" Yet interestingly enough, there is an absence of writings to that effect.

[tomndebb]

From Introduction to the New Testament rev. ed. by Werner Georg Kümmel, translated by Howard Clark Kee (the current version of the work begun by P. Feine and carried on by J. Behm, now in its 17th edition), §38.1.b, 247:
B52 is the oldest fragment of the NT (early second century).12 A fragment the size of the palm of the hand, it contains in fragmentary form Jn 18:31-33, 37f in agreement with the Nestle text.
. . .
12 Papyrus Rylands Greek 457 (Manchester). Ed. C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library, 1935. Cf. J. Jeremias, Theologische Blätter 15, 1936, 97 ff.
(The B in the papyrus catalog number should be in Gothic font to match the actual catalog entry.)
(The Nestle text is the Novum Testamentum Graece originally edited by Eberhard Nestle (and updated by Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland) that produces the entire New Testament in Greek, using the text that the majority of scholars believe is accurate, while providing footnotes of all discrepancies and the texts in which they appear.)

In discussing the date of John, Kümmel says The assumption that Jn was written probably in the last decade of the first century is today almost universally accepted.

(Feine==>Behm==>Kümmel's Introduction is a compendium of all serious scholarship on the New Testament in which they do champion various decisions/interpretations, but in which they give acknowledgement to all serious discordant voices. They note seven persons who argue earlier dates, and no one who argues a later date.)

- - -
I am not sure where I got the "127" date. Kümmel mentions nothing so precise. I was typing from memory, but do not remember where I picked up that (possibly erroneous) factoid.

[Opus1]

Not true. Ancient historian Schumacher recorded that Matthew was killed in Ethiopia by a sword blow, that Mark was dragged through the streets of Alexandria until he was dead, that Matthias was stoned and beheaded, and so forth. He records the martyrdom of all the other Apostles (except the exiled John), plus those or Mark, Luke, Jude, Barnabas and Paul the Just.

And where does Schumacher go for this evidence? The best source I can find is the Perfetto Legendario which relates that:

after the dispersion of the apostles, he traveled into Egypt and Ethiopia, preaching the Gospel; and having arrived in the capital of Ethiopia, he lodged in the house of the eunuch who had been baptized by Philip, and who entertained him with great honor. There were two terrible magicians at that time in Ethiopia, who by their diabolical spells and incantations kept all the people in subjection, afflicting them at the same time with strange and terrible diseases ; but St. Matthew overcame them, and having baptized the people, they were delivered for ever from the malignant influence of these enchanters. And further it is related that St. Matthew raised tile Son of the King of Egypt from the dead, and healed his daughter of the leprosy. Tile princess, whose name wits Iphigenia, he placed at the head of a community of virgins dedicated to the service of God; and a certain wicked heathen king, having threatened to tear her from her asylum, was struck by leprosy, and his palace destroyed by fire. St. Matthew remained twenty-three years in Egypt and Ethiopia, and it is said that he perished in the ninetieth year of our era, under Domitian; but the manner of his death is uncertain; according to the Greek legend, he died in peace, but according, to the tradition of the Western Church, he suffered martyrdom either by the sword or the spear.
(From http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/texts/saints/Jameson/AJ-SLA-Matthew.html)

I have no idea when the PL was written, but it appears to be a very obscure apocryphal text. And as we can see, even church traditions, which I already hold in great suspect, can't agree on whether Matthew was martyred or not. Color me unconvinced unless you can produce a contemporary or at least near contemporary source relating Matthew's martyrdom in Ethiopia that isn't full of clearly imaginary fairy tales about wicked kings and diabolical magicians keeping the population in subjection with wicked spells.

The same goes for everyone else. Here's what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say about Mark:

As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we have no evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint was martyred. This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. (From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm)

The fourth century! That's three hundred years after the events. Tell me, how seriously would you take a story about the Salem Witch Trials that didn't start circulating until, say, today?

How about Matthias?
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm)

All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle.


I'm not going to waste my time looking up everyone else when it should be your job to provide me good evidence in the first place.

"But wait!" one might say. "Schumacher was a Christian, so we HAVE TO discount his testimony!" I have several problems with that approach.


Me too. I don't dismiss Schumacher's testimony because he is a Christian, but because the evidence sucks.


Also, is there any early evidence countering these claims? If these accounts of martyrdom were mere fabrication, one might expect that at least someone would speak up and say, "Hey, wait a minute! That's not how Matthew died!" In fact, while the Roman government was in power, there was probably no shortage of people who could refute these claims -- and yet where's the counter-evidence?


Well, much of the "counter-evidence" is in the contradicting traditions about the various disciples. Your argument about "no refuters" is extremely weak. I can tell you a thousand things that are not contradicted by any ancient witness, but which modern scholars believe to be nonsense. The ten thousand year reigns of Babylonian Kings, Herodotus's giant ants in India, Josephus' cow giving birth to a goat (or maybe vice versa), Paul baptizing a talking lion, etc.

INITIALLY, it might not have been worth their time. However, as the multitudes grew, it clearly would have become worthwhile. Seutonius records that Emperor Claudius was compelled to banish the Christians because of the disturbances created by their conversions. Caius Plinius Secundus (aka Pliny the Younger) records that Emperor Trajan was executing Christians who would not recant their testimonies, even under extreme torture. Cornelius Tacitus likewise records the church's explosive growth and the fury that this invoked in the Roman leaders.

I find it hard to believe that the Roman authorities considered it a waste of time to produce the body, yet were willing to embark on long, systematic programs of torture, execution and banishment.

Sigh. Tell me, how long do you think a body would have lasted before embalming? Probably a couple of months before it's completely unrecognizable. By the time we get to Claudius, Jesus has been dead for around a decade! What is producing a set of bones going to prove to anyone?

In fact, noted historian Sir William Ramsey testifies to the reliability of Luke's gospel. Ramsey spent 15 years trying to refute the Gospel of Luke, but in the end, he was forced to conclude that it was reliable. In his own words, "Luke is a historian of first rank, not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, but this author should be placed alongwith the very greatest historians. Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness."


Nonsense. Utter nonsense. In addition to containing numerous errors (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/resurrection.html), and being primarily a theological, rather than an historical work, Luke fails to cite a single source that he uses. Josephus quotes his sources throughout, as do most ancient authors.

They posted a guard at the tomb, so they knew where it was. Besides, even if they didn't know, all they had to do was ask around.

No, the gospel of Matthew says they posted guards at the tomb. None of the other three gospels say this. Matthew is fond of making up other facts (Herod's slaughter of the innocents, zombies roaming Jerusalem), so I'm not inclined to believe this when the other three gospel authors don't report it.


Besides, why wouldn't they at least try this tactic? It would be far, FAR easier to convince people that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, than to convince them that he did. In other words, the weight of the evidence would have been on their side -- yet the Roman authorities didn't even try this gambit.


Please. You really think people are convinced by evidence? Look at Galatians. Does Paul present evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? No, he argues how the doctrine makes sense and why it's a good thing to believe. This is how things worked in the ancient world. People believed things based upon the sincerity of the person telling them the message and how much they wanted to believe it. Richard Carrier has written an excellent essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html) on this topic. If the Romans spent time trying to debunk every miracle claimant, they'd have no time to run the government. Even the claim of a resurrected God was commonplace in those times.

At the very least, it would have been a way to keep the Christian growth down -- and tt would have certainly been MUCH, MUCH easier than mobilizing their military forces to exile or execute the Christian believers. Heck, one would at least expect to find some writings that say, "These foolish Christians! The tomb isn't even empty!" Yet interestingly enough, there is an absence of writings to that effect.

Hmm. Do you know where Jesus' tomb is? Thought not. Nobody does! This whole argument about the Romans digging up the body assumes that everyone knew where Jesus' tomb was and that they could have waltzed in there anytime, pulled out a skeleton, and quashed the entire Christian movement in a heartbeat. But the real evidence presents a much more complex situation, in which even the notion of a tomb may not have developed until decades after Jesus' death, or in which the disciples had no idea where Jesus' body had been buried by the Romans, and picked a random tomb to act as a symbolic locale.

The idea that the entire post-crucifixion story of Jesus in the gospels is a later development is a common one in scholarly circles. An excellent summary of the position can be found in Russell Shorto's short book Gospel Truth. Given the fact that the resurrection is a supernatural claim, I find the evidence sorely lacking.

[themoon]

Originally posted by JThunder
And fourth, are you really suggesting that we should disregard Josephus' testimony, simply because it was written a few decades after Christ's life? Do you realize that by that standard, we must reject virtually EVERYTHING that historians believe about ancient Rome? Can you name a single historian who believes that this date of 96 C.E. renders Josephus unreliable?
Uh, no, you missed the point entirely.

The point is that all of the information we have about Jesus is unreliable.

That's all. I'm not claiming he didn't exist, although that is an open question. All I am saying is that the best information we have about the man is highly dubious, to say the least.

It is idiotic to state that it is a fact that there was an empty tomb. There just is not enough evidence to raise this supposition to the level of a fact. It is even more ludicrous to say that there is enough evidence to warrant the belief that he rose from the dead.

An extraordinary claim like that requires an extraordinary amount of evidence. And not only is there not any extraordinary evidence, there is no reliable evidence whatsoever.

Don't try to make it seem like the skeptics are the ones making the outrageous claims. It is the followers of Christianity who must defend their claims. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical about extraordinary claims. It IS unreasonable to expect people to believe them, without offering an extraordinary amount of evidence.

[Super Gnat]

Please. You really think people are convinced by evidence? Look at Galatians. Does Paul present evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? No, he argues how the doctrine makes sense and why it's a good thing to believe. This is how things worked in the ancient world. People believed things based upon the sincerity of the person telling them the message and how much they wanted to believe it.

You forget that every letter Paul wrote (except Romans) was to churches that he himself started. There would be no point in him talking about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to people who already knew about it and believed it. And in Romans, a lot of doctrine was laid out to make sure that the Roman Christians were believing correctly. Therefore, in all of these, the death, burial, resurrection is pretty much considered a given..

And as far as the disciples/apostles, wasn't Peter crucified rather publicly in Rome?

[JubilationTCornpone]

With all due respect, themoon, I think you're displaying your naivete when it comes to matters of history. This is clearly idnicated by your insistence that there is NO evidence for Jesus Christ, or that there is ZERO historical evidence for the apostle's martyrdom. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professional historians do believe that Jesus existed -- and Cecil Adams himself said that this was a safe claim to make.

I think you're really jumping the gun on most of your points. Let's look at some of the points which stand out the most.

Originally posted by themoon
The point is that all of the information we have about Jesus is unreliable.

And it's clear that you're speaking from enthusiastic naivete.

I'm not claiming he didn't exist, although that is an open question.

Yet earlier, you insinuated that there was NO evidence for Jesus Christ. In fact, your exact words were "Would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus?" Now you're clearly backpedalling.

Originally posted by themoon
It is idiotic to state that it is a fact that there was an empty tomb. There just is not enough evidence to raise this supposition to the level of a fact.

There was enough to convince Sir William Ramsey, a prominent archaeologist. There was also enough evidence to convince Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the world's foremonst authority on admissible testimony and legal evidence. Ditto for attorney Frank Morison, author of Who Moved the Stone. All of these men set out to discredit the Biblical accounts, yet the weight of the evidence forced them to change their minds.

World-class authorities such as Ramsey and Greenleaf were forced to admit -- despite all their preconceptions -- that the Biblical accounts were trustworthy. In that light, might you not be too hasty in stating that NONE of the historical evidence is reliable?


Don't try to make it seem like the skeptics are the ones making the outrageous claims.

When you insinuate that there isn't a "single shred of historical evidence for Jesus," it's clear that you're the one who's making the extraordinary claim.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Opus1
Please. You really think people are convinced by evidence? Look at Galatians. Does Paul present evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? No, he argues how the doctrine makes sense and why it's a good thing to believe. This is how things worked in the ancient world. People believed things based upon the sincerity of the person telling them the message and how much they wanted to believe it.

Perhaps some people felt that way, but the same can be said of modern man as well. Moreover, we see that Matthew's gospel consistently appealed to fulfilled prophecy to support his claim. Acts 17:17 says that Paul "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and with those that happened to be there." And Peter told believers to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

Obviously, not everyone was willing to believe something, based merely on the sincerity of the speaker. Sure, there were gullible people in those days -- but the same can be said of any era.

Remember, these were civilized men, and many of them were literate. It would take some serious revisionism to ahow that an entire culture was so mentally incompetent that they'd believe anything, based merely on the speaker's sincerity.

[themoon]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
With all due respect, themoon, I think you're displaying your naivete when it comes to matters of history. This is clearly idnicated by your insistence that there is NO evidence for Jesus Christ, or that there is ZERO historical evidence for the apostle's martyrdom. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professional historians do believe that Jesus existed -- and Cecil Adams himself said that this was a safe claim to make.
Allow me to quote from the Logical Fallacies reference page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html):
Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Allow me to suggest that you have committed this very fallacy.

I am not saying that there is NO evidence for Jesus' existence. I am saying that there is no historical evidence for his life and works, outside of the bible. This is simply a fact. The earliest mention of Jesus in secular history was in 96 C.E.
I think you're really jumping the gun on most of your points. Let's look at some of the points which stand out the most.

Originally posted by themoon
<<The point is that all of the information we have about Jesus is unreliable.>>

And it's clear that you're speaking from enthusiastic naivete.
It is naive to say that the information we have about Jesus is unreliable????

<<I'm not claiming he didn't exist, although that is an open question.>>

Yet earlier, you insinuated that there was NO evidence for Jesus Christ. In fact, your exact words were "Would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus?" Now you're clearly backpedalling.
No, I am not. There is simply nothing outside of the Bible, until 96 C.E. If you have something, I would love to see it.

Originally posted by themoon
<<It is idiotic to state that it is a fact that there was an empty tomb. There just is not enough evidence to raise this supposition to the level of a fact.>>

There was enough to convince Sir William Ramsey, a prominent archaeologist. There was also enough evidence to convince Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the world's foremonst authority on admissible testimony and legal evidence. Ditto for attorney Frank Morison, author of Who Moved the Stone. All of these men set out to discredit the Biblical accounts, yet the weight of the evidence forced them to change their minds.

World-class authorities such as Ramsey and Greenleaf were forced to admit -- despite all their preconceptions -- that the Biblical accounts were trustworthy. In that light, might you not be too hasty in stating that NONE of the historical evidence is reliable?
From the logical fallacies site again:
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
I really don't care what authority X has to say about it. I want to see the evidence for myself.

<<Don't try to make it seem like the skeptics are the ones making the outrageous claims. >>

When you insinuate that there isn't a "single shred of historical evidence for Jesus," it's clear that you're the one who's making the extraordinary claim.
No, I am not. It is a fact that, outside of the bible, there is not one shred of evidence, not one mention of Jesus, until 96 C.E.

And again, I am not claiming that he did not exist. I am just saying that what we know of Jesus the man is at best hearsay, and unreliable hearsay at that.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Opus1
As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we have no evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint was martyred. This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. (From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm)

The fourth century! That's three hundred years after the events. Tell me, how seriously would you take a story about the Salem Witch Trials that didn't start circulating until, say, today?

A naive layman might say no -- just as naive layman also often think that only eyewitnesses can write reliable history. Professional historians know that this isn't sufficient reason to dismiss an historical account. Heck, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Plutarch and Arrian FOUR HUNDRED years after his death, yet historians consider these accounts to be trustworthy.

I find it hard to believe that the Roman authorities considered it a waste of time to produce the body, yet were willing to embark on long, systematic programs of torture, execution and banishment.

Sigh. Tell me, how long do you think a body would have lasted before embalming?

Dude, embalming was already practiced at the time! That's one of the things myrrh was used for. In fact, John 19:39 explicitly says that Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. Verse 40 says that they wrapped Jesus' body in strips of linen that were soaked in this mixture. Embalming was most certainly practiced at the time!


Hmm. Do you know where Jesus' tomb is? Thought not. Nobody does!

Oh, come on. The fact that we don't know -- after the passage of two millenia -- doesn't mean that THEY didn't know, or that they couldn't find out.

The gospel record is that he was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and prominent member of the Sanhedrin! Moreover, even in the unlikely event that the Roman authorities could not determine its location, one would still have to postulate that Christ's followers did not know, or that they never bothered to check if the tomb was empty.

Heck, the Romans could have just said "Let's ALL look at the tomb! This should shut you up, you rabble-rousers." It would have been a perfect opportunity to humiliate and discredit these gullible church leaders, yet there is no record of such an attempt -- nor even any insinuation in the Jewish polemic that the tomb wasn't empty.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
With all due respect, themoon, I think you're displaying your naivete when it comes to matters of history. This is clearly idnicated by your insistence that there is NO evidence for Jesus Christ, or that there is ZERO historical evidence for the apostle's martyrdom. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professional historians do believe that Jesus existed -- and Cecil Adams himself said that this was a safe claim to make.
Allow me to quote from the Logical Fallacies reference page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html):
Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man
//Snipped for brevity

Allow me to suggest that you have committed this very fallacy.

I am not saying that there is NO evidence for Jesus' existence. I am saying that there is no historical evidence for his life and works, outside of the bible. This is simply a fact.

Not true. First of all, you explicitly asked for a "single shred of historical evidence for Jesus" (your exact words). Your statement said nothing about demanding EXTRABIBLICAL sources. This was an addition that you made long after the fact.

Moreover, there IS extrabiblical evidence for Jesus Christ, as Cecil's article showed. You have historical records from Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon and others -- many of whom were HOSTILE to Christianity!

Besides, a real historian wouldn't reject an account, simply because it came from a Christian. That's not how professional scholars work. As JThunder said, that would be tantamount to rejcting EVERYTHING that a Democratic official says about the Democratic Party.

No, professional historians consider the balance of the evidence, which is why the overwhelming consensus is that Jesus Christ REALLY EXISTED.

Originally posted by themoon
The earliest mention of Jesus in secular history was in 96 C.E.

And Alexander the Great's biographies were all written more than four centuries after his death. That does not automatically invalidate their testimony.

And it's clear that you're speaking from enthusiastic naivete.
It is naive to say that the information we have about Jesus is unreliable????.

Based on the arguments that you're using? Certainly.


Yet earlier, you insinuated that there was NO evidence for Jesus Christ. In fact, your exact words were "Would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus?" Now you're clearly backpedalling.
No, I am not. There is simply nothing outside of the Bible, until 96 C.E.

Moving the bar yet again, I see.

Your original challenge -- which I quoted exactly -- said nothing about extrabiblical sources, and it said nothing aobut 96 C.E. We've already seen that extrabiblical sources exist, so now you've tacked on the "96 C.E." requirement. There's a term for that -- backpedalling.


Originally posted by themoon
<<It is idiotic to state that it is a fact that there was an empty tomb. There just is not enough evidence to raise this supposition to the level of a fact.>>

There was enough to convince Sir William Ramsey, a prominent archaeologist. There was also enough evidence to convince Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the world's foremonst authority on admissible testimony and legal evidence. Ditto for attorney Frank Morison, author of Who Moved the Stone. All of these men set out to discredit the Biblical accounts, yet the weight of the evidence forced them to change their minds.

World-class authorities such as Ramsey and Greenleaf were forced to admit -- despite all their preconceptions -- that the Biblical accounts were trustworthy. In that light, might you not be too hasty in stating that NONE of the historical evidence is reliable?
From the logical fallacies site again:
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
[/B]

Sigh. It's only a fallacy if the person quoted is not an authority in the field in question. As you youself quoted, "This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert."

Sir William Ramsey is an archaeological authority, and Dr. Greenleaf was one of the foremost authorities on evidence and admissible testimony. Hence, your claim of fallacy is demonstrably wrong.
Merely citing an authority is NOT fallacious. If it were, then trial courts would have to disgregard ALL expert testimony and forensic evidence. Schools everywhere would have to throw away their textbooks, and YOU would have to disregard all the sources for your "historical" claims.

See? In fact, your statement is another example of the "enthusiastic naivete" of which I spoke.

[themoon]

*sigh*

Again, I am not claiming that Jesus the man never existed. It is a Straw Man attack to argue that he did, because I am not disputing this claim. I never said Jesus did not exist!

I think that he probably did, but not because of the evidence you cite. You are citing people who wrote about him long after he died. IMO, this is not compelling. The time that passed between when he supposedly died, and when people started writing about him is more than long enough for a mythology to grow up around him that had very little relation to the actual events.

HOWEVER, what I do find compelling is the evidence for a source, 'Q' document, which the authors of the gospels used as their primary source. The evidence for this document IS strong, and the existence of this document would make Jesus' existence a near certainty.

The reason I say that there is no historical evidence for Jesus is that I discount completely the gospels and the epistles, in and of themselves, as history. These books were written by zealots with an agenda, and hence are completely unreliable as history. Since these are the only documents we have about Jesus that were written before 96 C.E. (well, two of the gospels, maybe, and the fanatics' letters), there is no reliable evidence dating to before 96 C.E. that Jesus existed.

Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755725/qid=1004339244/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_7_1/107-1100446-4685310) is one of my favorite books on the gospels, and their fictional nature. Helms argues that the gospels were not intended to be history, and to take them in that light is to miss the point. It is clear that the authors embellished and changed the stories that had been passed down to them, in order to suit their purposes. This does not mean that the works are worthless, just that they are not history. They are theological fictions, intended to communicate religious ideas.

So, what I am arguing is simply that whatever we think we know about Jesus the man is highly dubious. Most of it is conjecture, and conjecture based on accounts written by men who never met the man, and who were relying on verbal tradition, and probably the 'Q' document containing some of Jesus' sayings.

[themoon]

One other thing, about the appeal to authority.

It is a fallacy to say, X believes Y, and X is an authority, therefore Y must be true. If X has compelling evidence, then let him present it, and we will examine it on its merits.

You compare this to using an expert witness in a trial. But, there is a difference between an expert witness and an authority. An expert witness presents evidence, and the jury deliberates on this evidence to make their decision. The judge doesn't just say, "believe whatever this authority has to say!"

You did not provide any of the evidence your authorities thought was so compelling, you simply said they were authorities, and that therefore we should accept what they had to say. If you think their views are compelling, then give some of the evidence for these views, or at least give the outlines of the evidence.

I will never believe anything just because some authority says it is true. Even if it is Richard Dawkins. ;)

[themoon]

tomndebb,

Thanks very much for the references! Very interesting stuff!

[themoon]

Originally posted by JThunder
And second, how does one leap from saying "Mark was written in the mid-60's" to saying it is was a "4th and 5th hand account"? Even if we grant that it was penned 30 years after Christ's death, that does not mean that it was not written by Mark -- and it certainly does not necessarily make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account.
Mark was not written by Mark. No serious biblical scholar believes that any of the gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them. None of the authors of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Third, Paul's letters are typically dated much earlier than that. So even if you grant a late date for the gospel accounts, there's still the issue of Paul's writings.
So? Paul never met Jesus. Thus, whatever he wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.

Fourth, having an "agenda" does not automatically disqualify a historical account.
No, but religious zealots are hardly reliable historians, especially when they are writing about the very thing they are trying to propagate.
By that token, we would aso have to disregard anything the Roman authorities said against Jesus, since they had an agenda as well!
Well, since the Roman authorities were mute on the subject of Jesus, it's really a moot point. In fact, if any of the Roman authorities HAD said anything about Jesus, your case would be much stronger.
More importantly, if the gospel accounts are true, then it would be inconceivable for the authors to NOT believe in Christianity!
It is impossible for the gospel accounts to be true, for the simple fact that they contradict each other, and give mutually exclusive accounts of events. For example, what were Jesus' last words? Who was his grandfather?

And fifth, are you seriously suggesting that only an eyewitness account can be regarded as history? Such a view of history is rather naive and, as Dr. William Lane Craig says, "positively medieval." Do you have any idea how much of history we would have to reject, simply because the historians recording these events were not eyewitnesses?
Not saying that. This is a Straw Man attack.

And, btw, the fact that you would refer to William Lane Craig doesn't say much for your critical thinking skills. That guy is a liar, and a moron.
In fact, noted historian Sir William Ramsey testifies to the reliability of Luke's gospel. Ramsey spent 15 years trying to refute the Gospel of Luke, but in the end, he was forced to conclude that it was reliable. In his own words, "Luke is a historian of first rank, not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, but this author should be placed alongwith the very greatest historians. Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness."
Ahh, the old argument from authority. Care to present any evidence that Luke is reliable history?

Note that this testimony comes from one of the world's foremost archaeologists -- and one who initially set out to destroy Luke's credibility! Unlike many laymen, Sir William Ramsey understood how history is written, and that a historian's role is to evaluate the balance of the evidence, and to discern reliable testimony from the unreliable.
I don't really care what Ramsey has to say. If the evidence IS compelling, then let's hear it, and let us be persuaded by the evidence ourselves.

Additional info can be found at

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ514.HTM

and at Dr. William Lane Craig's virtual office. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html)
I've had enough of fundy sites. They are good for a laugh every once in a while, but they get old real quick.

[Liberal]

themoon,

As do skeptic sites. Other than a single, rather egregious error (dealing with translating "within" as "among"), have you found anything wrong with the link I provided you? Not all parts of Mark were written at the same time, and it is likely that some parts of Mark were written by Mark.

I'd like to see you address some of Muller's points.

[Polycarp]

I think the argument going on here is largely derailed on the basis of people hearing others arguing points they are not making. The questions to be analyzed are:

1. Did a man known as Jesus of Nazareth live? General consensus is that while it cannot be conclusively proven, evidence points to it.

2. Did the guy become some sort of religious leader with teachings that survive in some form to the present? Same answer.

3. How much evidence can be given to the writings about him? Mileage varies, but I think everyone would agree that the Evangelists (gospel writers in this use, not hellfire preachers) wrote slanted accounts aimed at proving their concepts of who He was.

4. Was He in fact what the Gospels say He claimed to be? And in particular, was He in fact what the 4th Century Creeds claim Him to be? Mileage varies all over the place, and this question does not admit of a factual answer, being based on faith. (No non-theist can admit that He was the earthly manifestation of an active God, since the latter is not part of his worldview. No dogmatic Christian can examine the question other than with reference to his faith.)

I'd recommend Spong's book on the Resurrection, entitled something like "Resurrection: Fact or Myth," for a non-faith-based conclusion (by a Christian theologian!) as to how the change from Mohammed/Moses-like religious leader to divine avatar came about.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
Originally posted by JThunder
And second, how does one leap from saying "Mark was written in the mid-60's" to saying it is was a "4th and 5th hand account"? Even if we grant that it was penned 30 years after Christ's death, that does not mean that it was not written by Mark -- and it certainly does not necessarily make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account.
Mark was not written by Mark. No serious biblical scholar believes that any of the gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them. None of the authors of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

A gross exaggeration, at best. While many scholars do contest their scholarship, many others do not.

Third, Paul's letters are typically dated much earlier than that. So even if you grant a late date for the gospel accounts, there's still the issue of Paul's writings.
So? Paul never met Jesus. Thus, whatever he wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.

Paul claimed to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, so me most certainly did claim to be an eyewitness. He was also a close associate of the other Apostles, and was therefore in a prime position to report what they taught.


Fourth, having an "agenda" does not automatically disqualify a historical account.
No, but religious zealots are hardly reliable historians, especially when they are writing about the very thing they are trying to propagate.

Ah, but here, you are handily dismissing them as being "zealots," which is an unscholarly approach to history.


More importantly, if the gospel accounts are true, then it would be inconceivable for the authors to NOT believe in Christianity!
It is impossible for the gospel accounts to be true, for the simple fact that they contradict each other, and give mutually exclusive accounts of events. For example, what were Jesus' last words? Who was his grandfather?

Volumes have been written on these alleged contradictions, which are typically rooted in careless scholarship. (Example: None of the gospels say "These were Jesus' final words," or purport to record everything he said on the cross.)

But even if we grant that such contradictions occur, no serious historian would throw out a historical record simply because of some contradictions -- whether perceived or real. Once again, you are clearly speaking as a zealous but naive layman, unaware of how history is truly researched.


And fifth, are you seriously suggesting that only an eyewitness account can be regarded as history? Such a view of history is rather naive and, as Dr. William Lane Craig says, "positively medieval." Do you have any idea how much of history we would have to reject, simply because the historians recording these events were not eyewitnesses?
Not saying that. This is a Straw Man attack.

Oh, really? Earlier, you said, "Paul never met Jesus. Thus, whatever he wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay." (Emphasis yours.) If it's not a direct eyewitness account, then it is hearsay -- and so is the vast majority of recorded history.

Moreover, you still haven't substantiated your claim that Mark's gospel is a fourth- or fifth-hand account. Even if we grant that Mark wasn't the actual author, how did you jump to the conclusion that these were merely fourth- or fifth-hand accounts?

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon

And, btw, the fact that you would refer to William Lane Craig doesn't say much for your critical thinking skills. That guy is a liar, and a moron.


I see. So now you're resorting to abusive ad hominem attacks. Okay.

BTW, a confident debater does not typically resort to calling someone "a moron" -- and he does not call someone a liar without first defending this accusation thoroughly.



In fact, noted historian Sir William Ramsey testifies to the reliability of Luke's gospel. Ramsey spent 15 years trying to refute the Gospel of Luke, but in the end, he was forced to conclude that it was reliable. In his own words, "Luke is a historian of first rank, not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, but this author should be placed alongwith the very greatest historians. Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness."
Ahh, the old argument from authority. Care to present any evidence that Luke is reliable history?

For that, I refer you to William Ramsey's own writings in The Bearing of Recent Evidence on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1953).

Moreover, you were insinuating that there isn't "a single shred of historical evidence" for Jesus (a claim which you later amended twice -- first to demand extra-biblical evidence, and then to demand evidence prior to 96 C.E.). Once again, if a noted archaeologist was forced to admit that the NT documents are reliable (despite his previous attempt to destroy their credibility), does this not suggest that your claim was a tad hasty?

And finally, there's nothing wrong with appealing to authority -- in fact, it's usually a necessity. Scientists, engineers, attorneys, detectives, and trial judges do it all the time. If you wish to refute his claims, that's fine -- but I suggest that you do so cautiously, lest you be trapped by hastiness and excessive zeal.


[quote][b]Note that this testimony comes from one of the world's foremost archaeologists -- and one who initially set out to destroy Luke's credibility! Unlike many laymen, Sir William Ramsey understood how history is written, and that a historian's role is to evaluate the balance of the evidence, and to discern reliable testimony from the unreliable.
I don't really care what Ramsey has to say. If the evidence IS compelling, then let's hear it, and let us be persuaded by the evidence ourselves.


Once again, I refer you to The Bearing of Recent Evidence on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. A well-stocked public or university library can probably get it for you.

Don't forget that this book was written by someone who was formally trained in history and archaeology, and whose goal was to utterly destroy the credibility of Luke's gospel. He spent fifteen years striving toward that goal, and was forced to recant his position. Surely such a story deserves some audience.

[themoon]

JThunder,

Please provide me with a list of the serious biblical scholars who believe that the gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them, and the references where they back up this claim.

And, really, if you accept that Paul really met Jesus on the road to Damascus, then there is no point in having a rational discussion.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
*sigh*

Again, I am not claiming that Jesus the man never existed. It is a Straw Man attack to argue that he did, because I am not disputing this claim. I never said Jesus did not exist!
...
So, what I am arguing is simply that whatever we think we know about Jesus the man is highly dubious.

Once again though, that's not what you said earlier. You specifically asked for "even a single shred of historical evidence" for Jesus. That is a far, far cry from merely stating that whatever we know about him is dubious.

Revision 2.0 of your claim was "I am saying that there is no historical evidence for his life and works, outside of the bible." Even if we grant that, that's hardly the same as saying that none of the evidence is historically reliable.

Nor can the same be said of Revision 3.0, which demanded evidence prior to 96 C.E. As emphasized earlier, a layman might consider that to be a fatal blow, but that's not how historians operate.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
JThunder,

Please provide me with a list of the serious biblical scholars who believe that the gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them, and the references where they back up this claim.

If I do so, will you provide direct substantiation for your claim that Mark was a "fourth- or fifth-hand account"? (Remember, this is a far cry from stating that Mark was not the actual author.)

As for the biblical scholars in question, we've already mentioned William Lane Craig (who addresses this very point in his copious writings) and Sir William Ramsey. Then there's William F. Albright, one of the world's leading Biblical archaeologists. Others include the likes of Fyvie Bruce, Gary Habermas and Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum. Others authors are mentioned in various articles at http://www.tektonics.org. While this list is by no means comprehensive, it does demonstrate the folly of stating that NO serious scholars believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels.

BTW, I failed to mention the text, Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House reprint), which also presents Ramsey's arguments for the reliability of Luke's gospel.

And, really, if you accept that Paul really met Jesus on the road to Damascus, then there is no point in having a rational discussion.

It seems to me that you're dismissing this account outright, which is not the mark of good scholarship.

Remember, we're investigating the question of whether a miraculous event occured (e.g. the Resurrection). In that light, it is poor scholarship to dismiss Paul's account outright, and betrays an obvious predisposition against weighing the evidence.

[themoon]

tektonics ...uggh

When I say "serious biblical scholars" I mean serious biblical scholars, not fundy apologists. How about quoting some of the people on the Jesus Seminar, or somebody who actually has some credibility. William Lane Craig and his ilk are hardly credible scholars.

And, yes, I dismiss Paul's account. Since even his fellow travellers did not see it, clearly there is no evidence whatsoever, the deluded fantasies of a vile man notwithstanding.

[Mars Horizon]

As a former-fundie-turned-freethinking-nontheist, I have seen this on both sides of the argument:

Definitions

Serious Biblical Scholar - One who agrees with my position

Heretic - Anyone who disagrees with my theology


It's all a matter of perspective, you know?

[Opus1]

A naive layman might say no -- just as naive layman also often think that only eyewitnesses can write reliable history. Professional historians know that this isn't sufficient reason to dismiss an historical account. Heck, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Plutarch and Arrian FOUR HUNDRED years after his death, yet historians consider these accounts to be trustworthy.

You are stretching the facts here. Arrian's famous biography of Alexander the Great, while written in the 2nd century AD, was based upon material from Ptolemy I and Aristobulus, generals who served directly under Alexander! OTOH, virtually no Christian works name any of their sources.

And elapsed time is not the only factor that must be considered. As I've stated earlier, many early Christian works are clearly fanciful, even ones written only a century after Jesus' death. Or do you believe that Jesus killed his classmates as a child and frequently frenched Mary Magdalene?

I pointed out one flaw with the information that most of Jesus' disciples died martyr's deaths: elapsed time. Other flaws include contradictory material, lack of cited sources, and over all non-believability of the accounts. In fact, you haven't even provided me the original sources for your claims; I've had to dig them up myself, and even then I've only been able to find secondary information (the Catholic encyclopedia) not the primary sources for these legends. If you could provide me with the originals, I'd be very interested in evaluating them. I'll take a wild guess that they are held in low regard in the scholarly community, and are little more than hagiographies full of fanciful miracle tales.

[Super Gnat]

How about quoting some of the people on the Jesus Seminar, or somebody who actually has some credibility. William Lane Craig and his ilk are hardly credible scholars.

And, yes, I dismiss Paul's account. Since even his fellow travellers did not see it, clearly there is no evidence whatsoever, the deluded fantasies of a vile man notwithstanding.

First off, you dismiss famed archaeologists with a wave of the hand while elevating the Jesus Seminar. It would be nice to see on what basis you dismiss them.

In addition, in the Biblical account, the people with Paul did hear a voice. Paul, being the only one who saw the light, was the only one blinded.

many early Christian works are clearly fanciful, even ones written only a century after Jesus' death. Or do you believe that Jesus killed his classmates as a child and frequently frenched Mary Magdalene?

Only the truly important get unauthorized biographies. Besides, there's a reason that these fanciful stories *at least the ones you quote* are not in the Bible.

[themoon]

JThunder,

Would you please provide references where Sir William Ramsey, William F. Albright, Fyvie Bruce, Gary Habermas and Sir Frederic Kenyon believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and why?

As for William Lane Craig, no need to bother. Everything he says is a lie. The same goes for the Tektonics website. There is hardly a truthful sentence in the entire site.

[Opus1]

Only the truly important get unauthorized biographies. Besides, there's a reason that these fanciful stories *at least the ones you quote* are not in the Bible.

There's also a reason that the stories of the martyrdom of all of Jesus' family and disciples aren't in the Bible. I wager that it's the same reason.

[tomndebb]

The same goes for the Tektonics website. There is hardly a truthful sentence in the entire site.Sorry. Now you are forsaking credibility.

The Tektonics site certainly has a perspective from which I would not conclude that it was an "objetive" site. However, I wandered over to read it and found that they do, indeed, present both the pro and con positions to theirs in a generally respectful tone. Since it presented in the tradition of popularizing, not pure scholarship, they are not held to exactly the same rigor and they make their biases pretty evident, so they are not trying to sneak their interpretation past a careful reader.

I disagree with many of their conclusions (and several of their arguments) but they have a great many "truthful sentence"s and your hyperbole reflects more poorly on you than them.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Opus1
A naive layman might say no -- just as naive layman also often think that only eyewitnesses can write reliable history. Professional historians know that this isn't sufficient reason to dismiss an historical account. Heck, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Plutarch and Arrian FOUR HUNDRED years after his death, yet historians consider these accounts to be trustworthy.

You are stretching the facts here. Arrian's famous biography of Alexander the Great, while written in the 2nd century AD, was based upon material from Ptolemy I and Aristobulus, generals who served directly under Alexander! OTOH, virtually no Christian works name any of their sources.


The point is that the mere lapse of time does not disqualify an historical source -- a point which you yourself later conceded. Remember, the specific posting to which I responded dismissed Schumacher's account by saying "The fourth century! That's three hundred years after the events. " Clearly, this is an insufficient objection. Historians consider a wealth of other factors as well, e.g. the historian's general credibility, the attentiveness to detail, the style of writing, its corroboration with other sources, the relative lack of any conflicting accounts, and so forth. Historians do not dismiss an account simply because it was written significantly after the event.


Originally posted by Opus1
And elapsed time is not the only factor that must be considered. As I've stated earlier, many early Christian works are clearly fanciful, even ones written only a century after Jesus' death. Or do you believe that Jesus killed his classmates as a child and frequently frenched Mary Magdalene?

That's not a valid objection. None of those fanciful accounts are comparable to saying "Jesus killed his classmates as a child" or that he "frequently frenched Mary Magdalene." Rather, they took the form of miraculous events -- and if we're to investigate the validity of Christ's life, it's obviously circular reasoning to dismiss all the miraculous accounts.

Moreover, if an historical record did exist which claimed that Jesus killed his classmates, an honest historian would not dismiss this simply because it's fanciful. Rather, an honest historian would only dismiss this after considering the balance of evidence at hand.

[tracer]

JubilationTCornpone wrote:

None of those fanciful accounts are comparable to saying "Jesus killed his classmates as a child" or that he "frequently frenched Mary Magdalene."
Um, at least one of those fanciful accounts was of the young Jesus commanding some of his peers to die, and of them subsequently dropping dead.

And as far as the second account goes, well, we all know that French-kissing wasn't invented until the 20th century, right? ;)

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
JThunder,

Would you please provide references where Sir William Ramsey, William F. Albright, Fyvie Bruce, Gary Habermas and Sir Frederic Kenyon believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and why?


If he does, will you document your claim that NO serious Biblical scholars believe that any of the Gospels were written by their traditional authors? From what I've read, the authorship of Luke is seldom contested -- and while uncertainty is expressed on the other gospels, the critics don't always say that they WEREN'T written by the traditional authors. (Mere room for doubt is not the same as denying their traditional authorship.)

William F. Albright, for the record, was initially convinced that the Bible was merely legendary. Like Ramsey, Morison and Greenleaf though, this eminent archaeologist was forced to change his stance, and now says "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

http://www.princeton.edu/~ccc/outline.html
http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/ev1.html

Albright is also recorded as saying, "Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective can spin such a web of speculation as that which critics have surrounded the Gospel tradition." (From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946, pp. 297-298).

Gary Habermas is certainly well-known for his conservative belief regarding the Bible in general (check out http://www.str.org and http://www.strradio.org for examples).

As for Sir Frederic Kenyon, a simple web search reveals the following. It contains excerpts from his book, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1912), p. 5).

http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/frederick_g_kenyon_1.html


As for William Lane Craig, no need to bother. Everything he says is a lie. The same goes for the Tektonics website. There is hardly a truthful sentence in the entire site.

Whoa. Sounds to me like you're not willing to support your assertions against Craig. Care to prove me wrong?

Interesting. At the start of this post, you demanded specific references documenting the views of Albright, F. F. Bruce, et al... yet now, you're dismissing both Bill Craig and the Tektonics organization without any substantiation whatsoever. Talk about a double standard!

Also, as tomndebb pointed out, it's clearly a gross exaggeration to say that there is hardly any truth in the Tektonics website. I often disagree with tomndebb's views on Biblical reliability, but we clearly agree on this point.

Finally, need I remind you that a credible debater does not dismiss his opponents by merely saying "He's a liar!" That's as good as saying, "I won't address his points, but I ask you to ignore everything he says." Clearly a poor debating tactic.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by tracer
JubilationTCornpone wrote:

None of those fanciful accounts are comparable to saying "Jesus killed his classmates as a child" or that he "frequently frenched Mary Magdalene."
Um, at least one of those fanciful accounts was of the young Jesus commanding some of his peers to die, and of them subsequently dropping dead.

Just so we're clear on this, which specific account are you referring to?

Moreover, that certainly falls under the category of miraculous claims. Also, as I explicitly pointed out, a true historian would not automatically dismiss such an account. In fact, if we're to investigate the claim that Jesus was the divine judge, it would be intellectual dishonesty to dimiss accounts where he actually EXERCISED divine judgment!

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by tracer

Um, at least one of those fanciful accounts was of the young Jesus commanding some of his peers to die, and of them subsequently dropping dead.

Just so we're clear on this, which specific account are you referring to?

Moreover, that certainly falls under the category of miraculous claims. Also, as I explicitly pointed out, a true historian would not automatically dismiss such an account. In fact, if we're to investigate the claim that Jesus was the divine judge, it would be intellectual dishonesty to dimiss accounts where he actually EXERCISED divine judgment!

I should also emphasize that (a) "peers" is not the same as "classmates," and (b) the term "peers" is exceedingly vague, and needs qualified here. Are you suggesting that he killed his traveling companions, the Apostles? Or are you saying that he voiced judgment on some people who were of roughly the same age or social standing as he was?

Either way, since Jesus is clearly not alleged to have killed his "classmates" or his disciples, such a claim is still not comparable to Opus1's hypothetical fanciful account -- and even if it were, such a claim should be explored in its context, rather than being summarily dismissed.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
One other thing, about the appeal to authority.

It is a fallacy to say, X believes Y, and X is an authority, therefore Y must be true. If X has compelling evidence, then let him present it, and we will examine it on its merits.

You compare this to using an expert witness in a trial. But, there is a difference between an expert witness and an authority. An expert witness presents evidence, and the jury deliberates on this evidence to make their decision. The judge doesn't just say, "believe whatever this authority has to say!"


Oh, good grief. I think you're really stretching here.

First of all, we've already seen that your understanding of the "appeal to authority" fallacy is incorrect. Saying "This authority says X" is not an example of such a fallacy. Rather, this fallacy only holds if the person cited is not an authority in that field. (Granted, these authorities aren't always right; however, it is entirely fair to accept their judgment unless an extremely compelling case can be built against them.)

Second, expert witnesses don't merely present evidence. They present evidence AND their judgment of that evidence. The judge and jury may choose to disagree with that judgment, but they should not dismiss such judgments as a mere "appeal to authority."

Third, Ramsey and Greenleaf present plenty of evidence for their claims. If you want to examine their evidence, that's fine. That's a legitimate decision to make, and we've already told you where you can find their works. However, the point remains -- citing their works is not itself fallacious.

And fourth, did you not claim that "no serious scholars" believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels? It seems to me that you're appealing to *their* authority. (As Even if we grant that claim (which is clearly erroneous), would this not be a statement where you yourself invoking their judgment as authorities?

Finally, remember that we were addressing your various claim that there is no reliable historical evidence for Christ. Even if you thoroughly disagree with Ramsey's conclusions, the fact remains that such a conclusion (arrived at despite many years of objection) strongly suggests that the lack of evidence is not as clear as you claim. One might contest its degree of reliability; however, if its enough to convince several eminent skeptics, then it's fair to conclude that the evidence is not as utterly unreliable as you claim.

[tracer]

JubilationTCornpone wrote:

Originally posted by tracer
Um, at least one of those fanciful accounts was of the young Jesus commanding some of his peers to die, and of them subsequently dropping dead.

Just so we're clear on this, which specific account are you referring to?

The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ (sometimes abbreviated "I. Infancy"). First translated into English in 1697. Portions of this Gospel were cited by the Gnostics, Eusebius, Athanasius, et al.. My source for this text is The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, World Bible Publishers, 1962 (ISBN 0-529-02061-0).

In Chapter XIX of I. Infancy, the young (age 11) Jesus had made a little tidal-pool to keep fish in. One of the mean boys from the neighborhood wanted to tear it down. The account of what happened next is described in verses 20-24:

"20. At length the son of Hanani coming to the fish-pool of Jesus to destroy it, the water vanished away, and the Lord Jesus said to him,
21. 'In like manner as this water has vanished, so shall thy life vanish'; and presently the boy died.
22. Another time, when the Lord Jesus was coming home in the evening with Joseph, he met a boy, who ran so hard against him, that he threw him down;
23. To whom the Lord Jesus said, 'As thou hast thrown me down, so shalt thou fall, nor ever rise.'
24. At that moment the boy fell down and died."


And if that ain't enough to convince you, consider this little exchange from Chapter XX, verse 16 of the same book, in which Jesus's parents discuss Jesus as a "problem child":

"16. Then said Joseph to St. Mary, 'Henceforth we will not allow him to go out of the house; for every one who displeases him is killed.'"

[Liberal]

Oh, Tracer. Calling that a "book of the Bible" — lost or otherwise — is like calling The Genesis Flood a text on hydrology.

[tomndebb]

The stories of Jesus killing associates as a child comes from the "other" Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus is portrayed as not much more than an all-powerful, capricious guttersnipe with a wide streak of meanness. We have a few references condeming it that are actually older than the oldest quote we can find from it. It is definitely an apocryphal work. Although known by quotations taken from it, the first copy of the complete work was discovered, I believe, only in the 20th century.

For some reason, people who discuss the more familiar (purportedly Gnostic) "sayings" Gospel of Thomas (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html) and the people who discuss the "childhood" or Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/inftoma.htm) never spend any energy to delineate the work they are discussing from the work of the same name that they are not. (The first of the two sites to which I have linked does make the distinction, although you have to look for it.)

[tracer]

Libertarian wrote:

Oh, Tracer. Calling that a "book of the Bible" — lost or otherwise — is like calling The Genesis Flood a text on hydrology.
You can blame World Bible Publishers, Inc., for calling that anthology "The Lost Books of the Bible." (Although I suppose calling it "The Books of the Gnostics et al. Which Are Kinda-Sorta Written Like New Testament Books but Weren't Actually Incorporated Into the New Testament" just wouldn't sing as a catchy book title. ;) )

[tracer]

tomndebb wrote:

For some reason, people who discuss the more familiar (purportedly Gnostic) "sayings" Gospel of Thomas (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html) and the people who discuss the "childhood" or Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/inftoma.htm) never spend any energy to delineate the work they are discussing from the work of the same name that they are not.
Including, apparently, this webpage:

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

... which is part of the Historical Jesus website Libertarian linked to back on page 1 of this thread.

[FriendRob]

As far as "Luke"s reliability as a historian, some of his statements about Paul in the book of Acts can be directly compared to Paul's letters - and Luke doesn't come off too well. Don't have a reference in front of me at the moment - perhaps someone else does?

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon

And, btw, the fact that you would refer to William Lane Craig doesn't say much for your critical thinking skills. That guy is a liar, and a moron.

Dear themoon,

I noticed that you've made several requests for specific cites and detailed information regarding the evidence that compelled Simon Greenleaf and Sir William Ramsey to change their views regarding the New Testament accounts.

I hereby invite you to defend your specific claims that (a) William Lane Craig is a liar and (b) that he is a moron. Remember, I'm not talking about whether he has made any factual errors, or whether you disagree with his evaluations. Rather, I'm asking if there is any reason why we should believe your claim that he is both habitually dishonest and mentally incompetent.

FTR, Craig's credentials can be found here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vitae.html) and here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html). These include two doctorates and two masters degrees, along with numerous honors. He graduated summa cum laude twice. Now I'm not claiming that this is reason enough to believe whatever he says (for it isn't), but it is certainly reason enough to doubt that he is "a moron."

BTW, if you haven't listened to the 1993 debate between Craig and Frank Zindler (then-president of American Atheists), then I recommend it highly. Even if you don't agree with the debate's outcome, it does demonstrably prove that Craig is no moron. Video and audiotapes are available at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/resources.html and you might be able to obtain a copy from American Atheists as well.

[tomndebb]

Ah HA! Craig hung out at the Université Catholique de Louvain instead of the Katholieke Universiteit van Leuven! He's obviously a fraud.

[Dinsdale]

Is there any extra-bible source of info for the disposition of the body? Why believe there was necessarily a tomb? Crossan if fond of screeching that the body was eaten by dogs.

[themoon]

All of you who are so impressed with Craig's getting himself a few degrees are really rather easily impressed. It isn't all that hard to get degrees, you simply have to jump through all of the right hoops. There are plenty of Ph.D.'s who are idiots.

Browsing through William Lane Craig's website (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html), I came to this piece of tripe, on origins:
The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.
No, it doesn't. There is no contradiction by saying that the Big Bang occurred 15 billion years ago, and the universe has always existed. Just because Craig does not understand the physics does not mean it is contradictory.
One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning.
Imaginary time is hardly unintelligible or dubious. It is, much like Quantum Theory, a way of describing and explaining a physical phenomenon using mathematics. The fact that you cannot see or experience imaginary time does not mean it has no relevance. Nobody has ever seen a wave-function either, but that doesn't mean that wave functions have no relevance.

Also, the Vacuum Fluctuation model has hardly come and gone. This idea is still considered by many physicists to be a viable hypothesis. It hasn't been disproven, and does explain quite a bit. It will, of course, by a while before anybody can say with conviction that this is the way the Big Bang happened, but this idea is still quite a vital one.

The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time.
Why? What does "beyond space and time" mean? I see no logical necessity for a transcendent cause. And, of course, the universe did not have an absolute beginning ex nihilo. The very concept is meaningless. What does it mean for there to be nothing? If there was nothing, then there was no god, either.
Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.
Only to the fundy who is intent on maintaining his dogma.


What we see here is Craig using lots of big words, and referencing lots of impressive sounding scientific ideas and jargon. But, once you examine these ideas you see that he is full of shit, and has no idea what he is talking about. (Either that, or he is a liar.)

Of course, the intention here is not to convert the skeptic. Nobody who knows anything about modern cosmology is going to buy into this crap. It is for the purpose of strengthening the believer in his belief. Thus, Craig feels free to dissemble, because his lying and misleading are only going to bother the skeptic, and they don't matter to him anyway.

[McStain]

Originally posted by themoon
Browsing through William Lane Craig's website (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html), I came to this piece of tripe, on origins:
The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.
No, it doesn't. There is no contradiction by saying that the Big Bang occurred 15 billion years ago, and the universe has always existed. Just because Craig does not understand the physics does not mean it is contradictory.


I don't see what this (and the following) objection has to do with Craig's qualifications about the Gospels. Yes, he appears to be weak on his physics. However, commentary on the Big Bang and commentary on the Gospels, in my mind, have nothing to do with each other.

Allow me to quote from your Logical Fallacies reference page:
Fallacy: Red Herring
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Allow me to suggest that you have committed this very fallacy.

Proof that Dr. Craig does not understand his physics has nothing to do with Dr. Craig's Biblical competency. I'm sure that, being the liar and idiot that he is, there's plenty of relevant stupidity to be found in his Biblical commentary. I don't think this is much to ask.

[tracer]

Dinsdale wrote:

Crossan if fond of screeching that the body was eaten by dogs.
Huh? The banjo grows angry at midnight? Green ideas sleep furiously? :confused:

[JThunder]

Originally posted by themoon
All of you who are so impressed with Craig's getting himself a few degrees are really rather easily impressed. It isn't all that hard to get degrees, you simply have to jump through all of the right hoops.

Moon,

*Surely* you can see the hyperbole of saying that in order to get a degree, all one must do is just through hoops. You're making it sound as though any simpleton can get a Ph.D., which is clearly a gross exaggeration.

Moreover, the question of whether people are "impressed" with Craig's degrees is irrelevant. The point is that in light of his background, it would be most extraordinary to assert that he is nothing more than a moron. Clearly, the burden of extraordinary proof must rest on the accuser.

As for his interpretation of advanced physics, I think you're greatly overstating the case against Craig. For example, nowhere did he claim that imaginary time was invalid because "you cannot see or experience [it]." In fact, as a philosopher, Craig doubtlessly knows that something does not have to be visible or directly experienced in order to be valid -- and if he believes otherwise, the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

What he said is that the concept is "physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious." The meaning of such terms is subject to a great degree of interpretation; for example, I think it would be fair enough to describe quantum oddities as being "physically unintelligible," insofar as they run counter to everyday experience and our ingrained concepts of causality. Even Einstein railed against QM, before it became accepted dogma. To lambast Craig based on his use of such terms -- well, that strikes me as akin to straining out a gnat.

Besides, let's assume that his grasp of advanced physics is indeed flawed. Is it really fair to say that this makes him a moron? Or a liar? Is it?

[Opus1]

Just want to add that the story of Jesus frenching Mary Magdalene is in the Gospel of Philip:
And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him Why do you love her more than all of us?
(from http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/gosphil.htm)

I think my point stands strong: the evidence for the martyrdom of most of the disciples is very, very weak. Consider Matthew:

Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria. According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century. There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est".

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm)

or Matthias:

All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7).
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm)

If one is attempting to use the martyrdom of the disciples as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, then one's position is very weak indeed.

[g8rguy]

What we see here is Craig using lots of big words, and referencing lots of impressive sounding scientific ideas and jargon. But, once you examine these ideas you see that he is full of shit, and has no idea what he is talking about. (Either that, or he is a liar.)

Of course, the intention here is not to convert the skeptic. Nobody who knows anything about modern cosmology is going to buy into this crap. It is for the purpose of strengthening the believer in his belief. Thus, Craig feels free to dissemble, because his lying and misleading are only going to bother the skeptic, and they don't matter to him anyway. [/B]

Might I humbly suggest that you get thee to a good text on cosmology, where it will explain that if the Big Bang happened 15 billion years ago, that was when the universe started? Once you have done so, read, and thoroughly comprehended, come back and explain WHY Craig is full of it rather than simply asserting that this is so.

Might I also suggest that your disagreement with his philosophy in no way implies that Craig is either a liar or an idiot, and hence in no way suggests that he is, in fact, untrustworthy?

Finally, as others have said, attacking his grasp of cosmology in order to refute his command of other disciplines is intellectually dishonesty at its finest. As such, I find your entire characterization of someone else as intellectually dishonest to be truly impressive irony. Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle...

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning.
Imaginary time is hardly unintelligible or dubious. It is, much like Quantum Theory, a way of describing and explaining a physical phenomenon using mathematics.

I suggest that you read his comment more closely. He didn't say that imaginary time was irrelevant or *merely* unintelligible. He said that it was physically unintelligible, which seems reasonable to me. Imaginary time is certainly useful in simplifying relativistic mathematics (which is why time is often called "the fourth dimension"), but the phsyical meaning of imaginary time is still far from clear. This, in turn, explains why one might say that it's "metaphysically dubious" as well.

[themoon]

Oh brother.

If Craig does not understand physics, then it is intellectually dishonest for him to use his superficial understanding to support his arguments. Either way, he is being dishonest.

Clearly, his statements about Big Bang cosmology are fallacious, to put it mildly. So either he has not bothered to put the effort into understanding the subject before jumping to conclusions based on his superficial understanding, or he is deliberately misleading. Either way, he is being dishonest. Which is worse?

As for the Big Bang, and the creation of the universe ex nihilo, this is not at all a necessity. It could be that our universe is embedded in a meta-universe, and that the Big Bang was the result of a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. I am not saying that this IS the way it happened, but it is ONE hypothesis among many that do not involve "creation from nothing." Thus, the universe always existing and the Big Bang event are not mutually exclusive.

[Stoid]

I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I hear in my head: "Jesus: Uploaded?"

Thanks for letting me share that.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
Oh brother.

If Craig does not understand physics, then it is intellectually dishonest for him to use his superficial understanding to support his arguments. Either way, he is being dishonest.

If he doesn't understand physics, then that merely makes him mistaken. It doesn't make him a liar, and it certainly doesn't make him a moron. (Moreover, the objections which you raised pertain to fine, subtle points of advanced physics. Even if we assume your objections to be valid, that doesn't make him as hopelessly ignorant as you claim him to be.)

As for the Big Bang, and the creation of the universe ex nihilo, this is not at all a necessity. It could be that our universe is embedded in a meta-universe, and that the Big Bang was the result of a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum.

And Craig explicitly addressed the whole "quantum fluctuation" approach -- from multiple viewpoints, in fact. He does not consider it to be a reasonable hypothesis, for reasons which he already articulated. (For example, Craig objects to Hawking's "imaginary time" as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical convenience. Frankly, I don't blame him.)

One might disagree with Craig's philosophical objections to these theories, and that's fine. This still doesn't make him an idiot, even if his arguments prove to be erroneous.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
I am not saying that this IS the way it happened, but it is ONE hypothesis among many that do not involve "creation from nothing."

Merely having a hypothesis does not constitute a valid argument. I could postulate that we are all disembodied brains, floating in a nutrient-filled VR tank. Without any empirical evidence, such an argument clearly does us no good.

Could our universe have sprung from a larger, meta-universe? Strictly speaking, maybe... but in the absence of any empirical evidence, that's a tenuous position to take. One might as well postulate that we're living in a gigantic version of The Truman Show, where aliens fashion scripted lives for us all.

Don't forget that you're reading an op ed piece. Such pieces typically attempt to be thorough, while also attempting to follow common-sense rules of logical inference. Hence, fanciful theories which are bereft of empirical evidence are typically ignored (e.g. the VR tank theory, or the meta-universe theory). In fact, Craig goes one step further than that, as he addresses fanciful quantum-mech-based theories which are little more than fanciful conjecture at this point.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by JThunder
Originally posted by themoon
Originally posted by JThunder
And second, how does one leap from saying "Mark was written in the mid-60's" to saying it is was a "4th and 5th hand account"? Even if we grant that it was penned 30 years after Christ's death, that does not mean that it was not written by Mark -- and it certainly does not necessarily make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account.
Mark was not written by Mark. No serious biblical scholar believes that any of the gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them. None of the authors of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

A gross exaggeration, at best. While many scholars do contest their scholarship, many others do not.

And even if they did all contest Mark's traditional authorship, that still doesn't make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account. So once again, I ask... how do we jump from saying "The Gospel of Mark wasn't actually written by Mark" to saying "It was a fourth- or fifth-hand account."

And while we're on that matter....

themoon, you say that Craig is either a liar or an idiot, based on some perceived errors in his grasp of cosmological physics. Well then, what does that say about someone who makes factual errors on matter of history, or who makes an inaccurate claims about what "serious biblical scholars" say regarding the gospels' authorship?

Before you respond... I'm sure those were honest mistakes on your part. I merely want to emphasize that we shouldn't be quick to call someone a moron when he (supposedly) makes errors on some esoteric matter.

[themoon]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
If he doesn't understand physics, then that merely makes him mistaken. It doesn't make him a liar, and it certainly doesn't make him a moron. (Moreover, the objections which you raised pertain to fine, subtle points of advanced physics. Even if we assume your objections to be valid, that doesn't make him as hopelessly ignorant as you claim him to be.)
Bullshit. You are merely trying to cover for Craig's obvious dishonesty. The points distorted by Craig are hardly fine, subtle points. They are the very crux of the argument!

But, if you are claiming that Craig is simply mistaken (which is a big "if," as it seems fairly clear that Craig is intentionally misleading), then you still have to admit that he is being dishonest in using his half-assed understanding of physics to bolster his claim that the universe had a creator. This sort of sloppiness would be unacceptable in academia.

I was asked to show where Craig had lied. I followed the first link provided to his site, and clicked one time to get to an article full of distortions and lies.

And Craig explicitly addressed the whole "quantum fluctuation" approach -- from multiple viewpoints, in fact. He does not consider it to be a reasonable hypothesis, for reasons which he already articulated.
He doesn't consider it reasonable because it does not fit his argument. He offered no serious objections to the hypothesis. But, by all means, if he really has some fatal dagger for the hypothesis, why doesn't he publish it in Physical Review Letters, or Nature, and get himself some notoriety and respect in the physics community? I will be waiting with baited breath.
(For example, Craig objects to Hawking's "imaginary time" as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical convenience. Frankly, I don't blame him.)
Really? So, if you can't see it, it has no physical relevance? I suppose, then, that Craig would toss out all of Quantum Theory, because wave functions have no physical reality.

One might disagree with Craig's philosophical objections to these theories, and that's fine. This still doesn't make him an idiot, even if his arguments prove to be erroneous.
He is either an idiot or a liar. (And probably both.) Either he is mistaken, as you would like to claim, in his understanding of physics, or he is intentionally misleading.

[themoon]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by themoon
I am not saying that this IS the way it happened, but it is ONE hypothesis among many that do not involve "creation from nothing."

Merely having a hypothesis does not constitute a valid argument. I could postulate that we are all disembodied brains, floating in a nutrient-filled VR tank. Without any empirical evidence, such an argument clearly does us no good.
No shit.

The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.

Craig argues that since there was a Big Bang, the universe had to have been created. This assumption is clearly wrong.

[McStain]

Originally posted by themoon
Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by themoon
I am not saying that this IS the way it happened, but it is ONE hypothesis among many that do not involve "creation from nothing."

Merely having a hypothesis does not constitute a valid argument. I could postulate that we are all disembodied brains, floating in a nutrient-filled VR tank. Without any empirical evidence, such an argument clearly does us no good.
No shit.

The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.

Craig argues that since there was a Big Bang, the universe had to have been created. This assumption is clearly wrong.

Yeah, OK. From now on, anyone on this board who bolsters their astophysical claims will be quickly, thorougly refuted. I don't really care. Would you please, now, return to the subject of discrediting Craig the Biblical Scholar, which you have handily ignored?

Thanks.

Chris

[g8rguy]

Originally posted by themoon
The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.


No, I would say that the point is that Craig seems to have philosophical objections to a highly speculative branch of physics (after all, even if there is a before the Big Bang, you'd never be able to see it, so how on earth would you prove or disprove your hypotheses?). You, in turn, state by fiat that he's misunderstanding things and that because he, in your (thus far unsubstantiated, IMO) view, has a misconception (of which he may not even be aware), he's dishonest and unreliable in all else as well.

Though I give you kudos for at least attempting a cite, it is not one that, on the face of it, helps your argument one bit. Were you to find a cite that shows that Craig is unreliable as a philosopher or theologian or historian, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Alleging that his philosophical objections to physics are ignorant has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.



Bullshit. You are merely trying to cover for Craig's obvious dishonesty. The points distorted by Craig are hardly fine, subtle points. They are the very crux of the argument!


:rolleyes: Let me repeat this again: just because you feel he is dishonest does not make him so. In fact, the vast majority of us seem to feel that you've shown nothing of the case. And you're really stretching to claim that being mistaken is being dishonest (especially as you haven't yet demonstrated his being mistaken: he's not objecting to the science per se, but to the philosophy). And of course, while ascertaining what caused the Big Bang is a crucial point, it also lies outside the realm of experiment at present, and can hence hardly be called real scientific inquiry.



But, if you are claiming that Craig is simply mistaken (which is a big "if," as it seems fairly clear that Craig is intentionally misleading), then you still have to admit that he is being dishonest in using his half-assed understanding of physics to bolster his claim that the universe had a creator. This sort of sloppiness would be unacceptable in academia.


Ahem. "It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer upon initial inspection" is nothing more than code for "I think it's true and I can't demonstrate it." If you wish to claim that Craig is intentionally misleading, you need to support that claim, not merely assert it and expect it to stand on its own. Further, if a person has an honest misconception of something and builds an argument upon that misconception, he's only dishonest if he realizes said misconception. Otherwise, he's merely mistaken. And if you don't think that people in academia ever have misconceptions, you obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the history of science. People thought the earth was at the center of the universe. People thought that there was an ether. People had no conception of relativity or quantum mechanics, and yet they based arguments upon their current understanding of the world. Would you then claim that they, too, were being dishonest?



He is either an idiot or a liar. (And probably both.) Either he is mistaken, as you would like to claim, in his understanding of physics, or he is intentionally misleading.


Really, this grows tiresome. If he is intentionally misleading, then he is of course a liar. Otherwise, being mistaken (if he is mistaken) about physics is irrelevant. I, for example, do quantum field theory calculations all day long. Were you to ask me about, say, chemistry, I could tell you what I remember about it, but I might, in fact, be mistaken. Does this then make me an idiot or a liar?

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon

Bullshit. You are merely trying to cover for Craig's obvious dishonesty. The points distorted by Craig are hardly fine, subtle points. They are the very crux of the argument!

Even if we grant these points are the crux of his argument (which I don't), you've obviously missed the point. We are talking about a highly esoteric branch of physics here -- one which is extremely speculative in nature, and presently beyond verification. If Craig happens to err on some of these points, does that necessarily make him an idiot? Or a liar?


I was asked to show where Craig had lied. I followed the first link provided to his site, and clicked one time to get to an article full of distortions and lies.

No, you merely found a page full of perceived errors, not necessarily lies. (I say "perceived" because various posters have already pointed out some of the errors in your attack on Craig.)


And Craig explicitly addressed the whole "quantum fluctuation" approach -- from multiple viewpoints, in fact. He does not consider it to be a reasonable hypothesis, for reasons which he already articulated.

He doesn't consider it reasonable because it does not fit his argument. He offered no serious objections to the hypothesis. But, by all means, if he really has some fatal dagger for the hypothesis, why doesn't he publish it in Physical Review Letters, or Nature, and get himself some notoriety and respect in the physics community? I will be waiting with baited breath.

Come on. You keep asserting such things, and you appear to be vastly outnumbered in your assessment.

Besides which, you seem awfully quick to assert that Craig never got his objections published. In reality, he has -- multiple times, in fact. Check out the "publications" section of his web page, which includes the following (among others):

* "The Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Infinite Temporal Regression." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 59 (1977): 261-279.
* "A Further Critique of Reichenbach?s Cosmological Argument." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (1978): 53-60.
* The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan & Co., 1979; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979, 208 pp.
* P- The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino: Here?s Life, 1979, 107 pp.
* "God, Time, and Eternity." Religious Studies 14 (1979): 497-503.
* "Whitrow and Popper on the impossibility of an Infinite Past." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (1979): 165-170.
* "Wallace Matson and the Crude Cosmological Argument." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1979): 163-170.
* "Dilley?s Misunderstandings of the Cosmological Argument." New Scholasticism 53 (1979): 388-392.
* "Kant?s First Antinmony and the Beginning of the Universe." Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 33 (1979): 553-567.
* The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, London: Macmillan & Co., 1980; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1980, 305 pp.
* P - "Philosophic and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 32 (1980): 5-13.
* "God, Creation, and Mr. Davies." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 168-175.


(For example, Craig objects to Hawking's "imaginary time" as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical convenience. Frankly, I don't blame him.)
Really? So, if you can't see it, it has no physical relevance?

Not the same thing, and you know it. Nowhere did he claim that something must be *seen* in order to have physical relevance. This is a classic example of the Straw Man Fallacy, of which you purport to be familiar.


He is either an idiot or a liar. (And probably both.) Either he is mistaken, as you would like to claim, in his understanding of physics, or he is intentionally misleading.

So those are the only two options? Absolutely no other options are available?

I suggest that you read about the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. I'm sure that teh web site which you cited will explain it in sufficient detail.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon

The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.

And when these hypothesis are not supported by empirical evidence (e.g the "universe within a meta-universe" idea), they are essentially useless and can be reasonably discarded. Unless, of course, you think we should give serious credence to the possibility that we are nothing but brains floating in a Matrix-like VR simulation.

In fact, Craig explicitly acknowledged several of these hyopthesis -- including the quantum fluctuation theory of which you spoke. Rather than ignoring these ideas (as you seem eager to believe), he acknowledged them and presented philosophical arguments against these claims.

[themoon]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by themoon
The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.

And when these hypothesis are not supported by empirical evidence (e.g the "universe within a meta-universe" idea), they are essentially useless and can be reasonably discarded. Unless, of course, you think we should give serious credence to the possibility that we are nothing but brains floating in a Matrix-like VR simulation.
No, they can't. The idea of the quantum fluctuation in a vacuum is a very promising idea. It cannot be discarded just because you don't like the implications.

The difference between your Matrix simulation idea and the quantum fluctuation idea is that the quantum fluctuation idea has great explanatory power, and leads to new avenues of research. This is the process called science: a phenomenon is poorly understood; a hypothesis is offered which explains the phenomenon; the hypothesis is then tested against the data; predictions of the hypothesis are then tested. If the hypothesis passes through all of these stages, it becomes a theory.

The quantum fluctation hypothesis is currently in the testing of predictions stage. This is quite difficult, though, as you can imagine. Better technology will most likely be needed before the hypothesis can be tested with any rigour.

Of course, if you have no interest in science, or in understanding the universe you inhabit, you are free to discard whatever ideas you wish.
In fact, Craig explicitly acknowledged several of these hyopthesis -- including the quantum fluctuation theory of which you spoke. Rather than ignoring these ideas (as you seem eager to believe), he acknowledged them and presented philosophical arguments against these claims.
He only mentions them to sound smart, and to fool people into thinking that he actually cares about science. In this way, he bamboozles people into thinking that he actually has some credibility.

But, as I have pointed out, Craig is wrong on nearly every point. Either he is mistaken, and hence intellectually dishonest and sloppy, or he is a liar.

Would you like door #1, or door #2?

[themoon]

Jubilation,

Which of the articles you listed deals with the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. You know, the one where Craig lays this hypothesis to rest.

When I asked why he hadn't published his objections, it was in reference to this idea.

I would be very interested to see his objections to this idea.

[themoon]

Originally posted by g8rguy
Originally posted by themoon
The point is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. There are many hypotheses for how the Big Bang occurred that do not involve creation ex nihilo.


No, I would say that the point is that Craig seems to have philosophical objections to a highly speculative branch of physics (after all, even if there is a before the Big Bang, you'd never be able to see it, so how on earth would you prove or disprove your hypotheses?). You, in turn, state by fiat that he's misunderstanding things and that because he, in your (thus far unsubstantiated, IMO) view, has a misconception (of which he may not even be aware), he's dishonest and unreliable in all else as well.
I would dispute that Craig has philosophical objections. He has theological objections, that he cloaks in philosophical language to give them an appearance of credibility.

And, I am not stating anything by fiat. My main objection, which I think can hardly be disputed, is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. And Craig's dismissal of all ideas which belie his wish that this was so points out his dishonesty.

Though I give you kudos for at least attempting a cite, it is not one that, on the face of it, helps your argument one bit. Were you to find a cite that shows that Craig is unreliable as a philosopher or theologian or historian, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Alleging that his philosophical objections to physics are ignorant has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.
Craig is wrong on several points, the most important of which is his insistence that the Big Bang implies by logical necessity that the universe had a beginning. This is plainly not true. Here is one article, picked basically at random, on the quantum fluctuation idea:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

I want to emphasiz here that I am NOT saying that this is how the Big Bang happened. I am just saying that it is a possibility, and the fact that it is a possibility shows that there is no logical necessity that the universe began at the Big Bang.

Call that a philosophical, theological, or scientific objection. Whatever you call it, Craig is clearly wrong. And the fact that he would be so lacking in skepticism, and so willing to jump to unwarranted conclusions on something so momentous as the beginning of the universe shows that he is at best intellectually sloppy, and at worst a liar.



Bullshit. You are merely trying to cover for Craig's obvious dishonesty. The points distorted by Craig are hardly fine, subtle points. They are the very crux of the argument!

Let me repeat this again: just because you feel he is dishonest does not make him so. In fact, the vast majority of us seem to feel that you've shown nothing of the case. And you're really stretching to claim that being mistaken is being dishonest (especially as you haven't yet demonstrated his being mistaken: he's not objecting to the science per se, but to the philosophy).
Perhaps I haven't been explaining this very well.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume for the moment that Craig is merely mistaken. Let's say that he is merely misunderstanding the implications of quantum theory. What does this say about him? Well, clearly he is not shy about using the Big Bang theory to bolster his claims. So, he is willing to incorporate science into his ouvre. Now, what are the implications of this?

If one is willing to accept certain claims of science, one is bound to accept, at least in part, the scientific method. To not do so would be to discredit the very ideas you have accepted already, for it would say that the ideas that were correct were correct basically by random luck. You must accept the skepticism which is intrinsic to the scientific enterprise.

Thus, if one uses an idea of science, and discards another, in order to claim some scientific validity, this can only be done after a rigorous examination of these ideas. And clearly Craig has not done this.

Craig has by no means been able to dismiss the quantum fluctuation idea. (If he has, please point me to the article.) He merely sweeps this under the rug with a wave of the hand.

This, my friend, is dishonest.

It is dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because it does not suit one's wishes. And this Craig has done repeatedly.


Further, if a person has an honest misconception of something and builds an argument upon that misconception, he's only dishonest if he realizes said misconception.
That is not true. There is another possibility. Oftentimes people will intentionally avoid trying to clear up their misconceptions. And this is dishonest.

Craig knows about the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. He knows it is taken seriously by numerous scientists. Thus, it is his obligation to understand it thoroughly before he dismisses it. To not do so is intellectually dishonest.
And if you don't think that people in academia ever have misconceptions, you obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the history of science.
No kidding? You mean people have had misconceptions before? Well I'll be damned, I thought scientists always only believed the truth! :rolleyes:


He is either an idiot or a liar. (And probably both.) Either he is mistaken, as you would like to claim, in his understanding of physics, or he is intentionally misleading.

Really, this grows tiresome. If he is intentionally misleading, then he is of course a liar. Otherwise, being mistaken (if he is mistaken) about physics is irrelevant. I, for example, do quantum field theory calculations all day long. Were you to ask me about, say, chemistry, I could tell you what I remember about it, but I might, in fact, be mistaken. Does this then make me an idiot or a liar?
It would, if you found an idea in chemistry that you did not fully understand, and dismissed it without fully exploring it.

BTW, what is the ground state energy of the helium-2 atom?

[Eutychus]

Just passing through, but I just wanted to point out the irony of discrediting the gospels because they possibly were written 40-100 years after the fact and thus not by eye-witnesses but having no problem with the Big Bang which we didn't start seeing the evidence of until a few billion years afterwards.

[tomndebb]

themoon, I'm not sure what you think you're trying to express here, but it looks as though your attempts to discredit Craig in the realm of scriptural exigesis are utter failures.

You jump from "he shoulda knowed better" to "he's dishonest" with the implication that if he is less than perfect in his exposition of dogma-used-to-view-science, then he must be equally flawed in any other area.

First off, your leap to "dishonesty" seems to be a deliberate and willful denial that people can make honest mistakes, even bad mistakes, given their beliefs and upbringing. Demanding that that situation be seen as dishonesty is, itself, less than completely honest.

Second, there are numerous examples of people who are quite learned, even brilliant, in one field, whose attempts to do serious thinking in another field fall flat on their face. (Or should we recognize that we really have no solid state electronic components in any of our modern devices because the man who got a Nobel prize for the transistor became a blithering idiot on the subject of race and intelligence?)

If you have specific evidence that Craig has falsified information or ignored genuine evidence when publishing on the subject of scripture, then present it. Otherwise, simply drop this fruitless attack on his person, because it is not doing anything to help your reputation. (This resembles your insupportable dismissal of the Tektonics site; I have found stuff there with which I disagree, but it is hardly in the same category as the utterly false sites found on Jack Chick's page.)

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
Jubilation,

Which of the articles you listed deals with the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. You know, the one where Craig lays this hypothesis to rest.

First of all, you're the one who asserted that Craig never published his ideas on this hypothesis. Since you're the one who made that claim, I invite you to substantiate it -- unless, of course, you hold Craig and your critics to a much higher standard than what you're williing to follow.

Second, I invite you to read his various publications on the Kalam cosmological argument. The following may prove particularly useful:

* Discussion by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 125-129, 148-157.

* "The Caused Beginning of the Universe: a Response to Quentin Smith," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993): 632-633, 635.

And third, even if Craig did NOT publish his ideas, does this mean he was unwilling to do so, or that they lack validity? Hardly. As any true scholar knows, there can be any number of reasons why someone doesn't get around to publishing a particular idea. Besides, one might as well ask why YOU don't get your objections to Craig published in a Philosophy journal, thereby earning credibilty for yourself.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon
The idea of the quantum fluctuation in a vacuum is a very promising idea. It cannot be discarded just because you don't like the implications.

You keep saying such things, which shows that you miss the point. It all depends on what you mean by "discarded."

If you mean that we can't say it's ABSOLUTELY not possible, then your statement would have merit. By the same token, we can not "discard" the notion that we are living in a vast VR simulation, or that we are living out a cosmic version of the Truman Show.

However, that doesn't appear to be the sense in which Craig is "discarding" the quantum hypothesis. Rather, he's arguing against the plausibility of this hypothesis, rather than its mere possibility. (Notice that he nowhere claims that "imaginary time" is meaningless or absolutely impossible. Rather, he merely says that the hypothesis based physicalizing "imaginary time" is physically implausible and "does not seem to be even physically intelligible."

It is perfectly reasonable to "discard" hypotheses which are bereft of empirical evidence (e.g. your meta-universe idea). Similarly, it is reasonable to "discard" hypothesis which appear to highly implausible, due to either scientific or philosophical grounds. (I, for example, would be inclined to discard any hypothesis which totally rejects the philosophical notion of causality, a fundamental basis for the scientific method.)

[tracer]

tomndebb wrote:

it looks as though your attempts to discredit Craig in the realm of scriptural exigesis are utter failures.
Huh huh, you said "exigesis"! ;)

[g8rguy]

I would dispute that Craig has philosophical objections. He has theological objections, that he cloaks in philosophical language to give them an appearance of credibility.


Are you just alleging that his stated philosophical objections are thinly disguised religious propaganda with no rational basis whatsoever? It seems to me like you're doing so, in which case I'd like to know how you know his stated philosophical objections aren't actually so?



And, I am not stating anything by fiat. My main objection, which I think can hardly be disputed, is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. And Craig's dismissal of all ideas which belie his wish that this was so points out his dishonesty.


No, you're missing my point entirely. I also see no logical necessity to conclude that there is no "before" the Big Bang. However, that Craig has a different view does not make him dishonest, and that you are stating by fiat.




Call that a philosophical, theological, or scientific objection. Whatever you call it, Craig is clearly wrong. And the fact that he would be so lacking in skepticism, and so willing to jump to unwarranted conclusions on something so momentous as the beginning of the universe shows that he is at best intellectually sloppy, and at worst a liar.


Then I guess you'll have to lump all the scientists who have ever reached unwarranted conclusions in with him.



Thus, if one uses an idea of science, and discards another, in order to claim some scientific validity, this can only be done after a rigorous examination of these ideas. And clearly Craig has not done this.

Craig has by no means been able to dismiss the quantum fluctuation idea. (If he has, please point me to the article.) He merely sweeps this under the rug with a wave of the hand.

This, my friend, is dishonest.

It is dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because it does not suit one's wishes. And this Craig has done repeatedly.


It would be dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because you don't like it and claim to have done so on scientific grounds. It would be dishonest to state that such a dismissal constitutes scientific proof. It is not dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea on philosophical grounds. How do you think science advances? It's hardly monolithic, and it's certainly conceivable that multiple scientific explanations can be offered on some observation. When this happens, philosophical objections are important in helping us to decide what we accept and what we reject.

For instance, I could propose that nuclei are held together by incredibly tiny invisible green guys, and develop a whole formalism about ITIGG forces. No sane scientist would accept my hypothesis, even if it happened to agree with current data, because they would have a philosophical objection to it (i.e. they'd apply Occam's Razor).



That is not true. There is another possibility. Oftentimes people will intentionally avoid trying to clear up their misconceptions. And this is dishonest.


:confused: Ermm... if you don't know you have a misconception, why would you try to clear it up? Should I go clarify my misconception that my login name is g8rguy? I could be wrong, after all. Maybe y'all see me logged in as Billy Bo Bob. You'll pardon me if I don't run off checking up on this, I trust.



No kidding? You mean people have had misconceptions before? Well I'll be damned, I thought scientists always only believed the truth! :rolleyes:


Just wanted to make sure. After all, you've already effectively asserted that in academia, no sloppy thinking would occur, and this is surely not the case.



It would, if you found an idea in chemistry that you did not fully understand, and dismissed it without fully exploring it.


*banging head against his desk* If I never stated a scientific objection to something that I knew I failed to completely understand, I'd never state any objections at all, and nothing would get done. If I stated a philosophical objection to a scientific idea, I've done what scientists have been doing for centuries. Einstein had philosophical objections to quantum mechanics; I suppose he was a liar (or an idiot, if you prefer).



BTW, what is the ground state energy of the helium-2 atom?

The ground state electronic energy of neutral helium is about -2.905 hartrees. Why? What does this prove?

[tracer]

Wait a minute -- a helium-2 atom?! There's no such isotope!

A "helium-2" nucleus would have to consist of 2 protons and no neutrons, which wouldn't be able to hold itself together. The lightest isotope of helium is helium-3.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by g8rguy
It would be dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because you don't like it and claim to have done so on scientific grounds. It would be dishonest to state that such a dismissal constitutes scientific proof. It is not dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea on philosophical grounds. How do you think science advances? It's hardly monolithic, and it's certainly conceivable that multiple scientific explanations can be offered on some observation. When this happens, philosophical objections are important in helping us to decide what we accept and what we reject.

For instance, I could propose that nuclei are held together by incredibly tiny invisible green guys, and develop a whole formalism about ITIGG forces. No sane scientist would accept my hypothesis, even if it happened to agree with current data, because they would have a philosophical objection to it (i.e. they'd apply Occam's Razor).

Excellent example!

Laymen (and misinformed non-laymen) often think that science has no need for philosophy. Quite the contrary is true. Science is predicated on philosophical tenets, such as causality and Occam's Razor. In fact, we can legitimately refer to science as The Philosophy of Nature, according to a philosopher-academic that I once studied under.

So it is perfectly reasonable to reject a hypothesis on philosophical grounds. Scientists do it all the time.



No kidding? You mean people have had misconceptions before? Well I'll be damned, I thought scientists always only believed the truth! :rolleyes:


Just wanted to make sure. After all, you've already effectively asserted that in academia, no sloppy thinking would occur, and this is surely not the case.


Moreover, what of themoon's statement that NO serious scholars believe that ANY of the gospels were written by their putative authors. Since this claim was shown to be false, is this not sloppy thinking? Should we automatically dismiss anything that you say, themoon, because of this error?



It would, if you found an idea in chemistry that you did not fully understand, and dismissed it without fully exploring it.


*banging head against his desk* If I never stated a scientific objection to something that I knew I failed to completely understand, I'd never state any objections at all, and nothing would get done.

Another excellent point! Laymen (and the occasional, misinformed non-layperson) also often think that scientists fully understand what they expound on. The most knowledgeable scientists, on the other hand, recognize that they seldom (if ever) fully understand what they are studying. This does not prevent them from presenting opinions and objections on the matter.

If I stated a philosophical objection to a scientific idea, I've done what scientists have been doing for centuries. Einstein had philosophical objections to quantum mechanics; I suppose he was a liar (or an idiot, if you prefer).

Blast it, gr8guy! I was going to use that example. Dang you! Dang you to heck!

[tracer]

Or did you mean helium II (with a Roman-numeral 2), which signifies the superfluid state of liquid helium?

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by g8rguy

[quote]
BTW, what is the ground state energy of the helium-2 atom?

The ground state electronic energy of neutral helium is about -2.905 hartrees. Why? What does this prove?

Well presumably, if you had provided the wrong answer, this would be conclusive proof that you are a liar and/or a moron -- and that your views on history, archaeology and Biblical exegisis are therefore incorrect. :rolleyes:

So, themoon, will you tell us which journal articles you have published, containing your thorough dissection of Craig's viewpoints? After all, if Craig's notions must be published (which they are) in order to have validity, surely we can hold you to the same standard. Right?

[g8rguy]

Well presumably, if you had provided the wrong answer, this would be conclusive proof that you are a liar and/or a moron -- and that your views on history, archaeology and Biblical exegisis are therefore incorrect. :rolleyes:


Oh yeah, right. I guess I must be a liar and/or a moron because I didn't know what he was getting at. :D

And JThunder, sorry I stole your example, and thanks for the kind words, man. what, you tryin' to make me blush?

[themoon]

Shouldn't it be "gr8guy"? Just wondering...

Anyhoo, I've been thinking about this thread, off and on today. It has me intringued. The thing that really interests me here is the divergent reaction people of different viewpoints have upon reading William Lane Craig. Of course, these same reactions would probably be observed if Craig was substituted with any random fundy. The phenomenon is an interesting one, nonetheless.

I think I have some insights to share with you all that you will find quite valuable. You will want to pay careful attention to these nuggets of wisdom I am about to impart unto you. My background is in mathematics, so some of what follows will use some concepts from maths to explain my thoughts. Hawking says that every equation you use reduces your readership by half, so I will not use any equations. Anyway ...

When I first came upon Craig’s article about the Big Bang, and his “philosophical” objections to explanations that do not involve Jeebus, it seemed obvious to me that Craig was being dishonest. It was obviously not so obvious to several other posters here. I have asked myself why this is the case.

The first question I asked of myself is, “could I be wrong about Craig?” Could it be that I have misjudged him, and that he really is an honest seeker after the truth? I then went back and re-read the article in question to see if my appraisal of him had been wrong. I honestly went through the article with an open mind, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

After reading the article, I was left pondering for a while. While there was no real glaring instance of him telling an outright lie, the article, taken as a whole, WAS dishonest. It lead in the direction away from the truth, and toward a pre-conceived notion that Craig had wanted to reach before embarking on his task. How, I asked myself, did he get to such a place without taking a huge misstep somewhere?

Then something dawned on me, and lead me to a revelation of sorts about the way apologists work.

This is where the mathematical bit comes in, and I think you will agree, it is quite clever. Bear with me for a moment.

Take out a pen, and draw a smooth curve on a piece of paper, with a big right turn, but one that does not have a sharp corner. Now, place the paper at a distance. If you look at it from a distance, you see a big turn. However, and this is the clever bit, if you “zoom in” on the curve, the curve will appear more straight. If you have drawn the curve smoothly enough, the further you zoom in, the more straight the curve will appear. Get close enough, and the curve will be indistinguishable from a straight line. In mathematical language, a smooth curve is homeomorphic to a straight line; for any tolerance, you can get close enough so that the difference between the curve and the straight line is less than the tolerance specified.

What does this have to do with William Lane Craig?

Well, what Craig has done here is make a big right turn away from the truth. But, he has done it using a succession of small untruths. At each step, he makes statements that seem plausible. They are close enough to the truth, that to the untrained, or uncritical, they seem like the truth. But, when you add them all up, they add up to a big lie.

This seems to be Craig’s strategy. If he wants to arrive at a conclusion, he does not go there by the direct, obviously dishonest, route. Rather, he “zooms in” on the problem, and makes his steps small enough so that he can appear to be traveling on an honest path to the truth. He does not just say, “Jesus created the universe,” he starts out by saying, “the quantum fluctuation idea has been discredited,” and then proceeds along these sorts of lines, until he gets to his goal, “Jesus created the universe.”

This sort of strategy is quite common among apologists, if you will reflect on the various apologists you have read. If they ever get to a sticking point, they “zoom in” on it, making the steps smaller and smaller, angling them in such a way that they arrive at the untruth they wished to reach in the first place.

This is why it is so important to be critical when examing these sorts of ideas. Even the smallest diversions from the truth can add up to a huge lie. And, indeed, isn’t this the point of the scientific method? We weed out all of the little untruths, however innocuous, because they might end up leading us into the valley of falseness.

Anyway, thanks for reading through this. It has been quite enlightening for me, and I hope it has been helpful for you also.

[Kaje]

Not to be a dick themoon, but I think you overestimate the originality of your idea. It is indeed a good analogy, but that explanation is quite common, minus the line-drawing and mathematical terminology.

[themoon]

Oh.

Well, I'm sorry if the idea is not original. I didn't mean to say that nobody else had thought of it before me. I'm sure somebody else has thought of it. I just thought it was a good idea, and I did think it up using my own brain. Sometimes I can do that.

[tomndebb]

themoon, however you perceive Craig's honesty or dishonesty regarding theological/philosophical approaches to physics, you have still failed to demonstrate that Craig's biblical research is flawed.

[Polycarp]

Stoid commented:
I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I hear in my head: "Jesus: Uploaded?"

Thanks for letting me share that.

Well, of course: Ascension Day! ;)

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by themoon

Well, what Craig has done here is make a big right turn away from the truth. But, he has done it using a succession of small untruths. At each step, he makes statements that seem plausible. They are close enough to the truth, that to the untrained, or uncritical, they seem like the truth. But, when you add them all up, they add up to a big lie.

This seems to be Craig?s strategy.

First of all, you have yet to demonstrate that he makes a "succession of small untruths." In fact, you've presented only a handful of objections to Craig's statements, which hardly qualifies as a presistent series of falsehoods. (Moreover, several posters have already shown that your objections are severely overstated.)

Second, some of your opponents are specifically trained in physics, and they clearly disagree with your evaluation. We saw g8rguy explain that he has a background in quantum mechanics, and other Straight Dope threads bear out that claim. As for myself, my education includes a Physics degree, and I used to be employed as a university Physics instructor. I don't know that we would agree with every nuance of Craig's claims, but we clearly dispute your claim that Craig has demonstrated abject ignorance of modern physics.

Third, should you really throw stones at Craig for (allegedly) stating these untruths? What of your deliberate claim that NO serious scholars believe that ANY of the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of your claim that they were ALL fourth- or fifth-hand accounts?

Fourth, even if Craig DID commit a series of small errors throughout his article (the only on which you've referenced so far!) does this really make him a deliberate liar? After all, even if we grant your claim that these were actual mistakes, you have yet to demonstrate that they were willful errors.

Fifth, even if everything he says about advanced cosmology is wrong, how does this invalidate his grasp of Biblical scholarship? As Chris said, please look up the "Red Herring" fallacy.

Sixth, I don't think you've grasped the nuances of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. It states that attacking someone's person (e.g. by calling him a moron) does not invalidate his statements. After all, being a moron doesn't necessarily make somebody incorrect on a particular matter. Similarly, being a liar doesn't mean that everything that a person says is incorrect. Namecalling is therefore a piss-poor substitute for directly addressing somebody's claims.

And finally, you specifically claimed that Dr. Craig was a liar and a moron. I know this is nitpicky, but... even if we grant the validity of your bizarre logic, it would merely show that he is either dishonest or mentally incompetent. It would still not prove that he is both, and so your claim would be incompletely proven at best.

[JubilationTCornpone]

What the heck. Just to be thorough...

themoon, let us assume that you have correctly evaluated Dr. Craig's alleged "errors." Let us also assume your mathematical analogy to be valid. (I say "assume" because it is clearly incomplete. A series of small, subtle turns will only build into a large, sharp one if (a) they are sufficient in number and magnitude, and (b) if they are made more-or-less consistently in the same direction. While you have vehemently asserted this to be the case, you have yet to present any evidence that it's so -- and in the process, have betrayed some serious misperceptions regarding the nature of science.)

Even if your assertions are valid, how does this amount to a willful deception? You assert that this was Craig's "strategy," which implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. Still, despite our frequent and persistent entreaties, you have yet to produce any evidence that this was so. (Remember: Impassioned assertions do not amount to evidence of any sort.)

If you do have any evidence that this was a deliberate strategy on his part, please produce it.

[tracer]

And while you're at it, tell me what the whole helium-2 thing is about, will ya?

[tracer]

Stoid wrote:

I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I hear in my head: "Jesus: Uploaded?"
I always hear: "Jesus: Underwriters Laboratories?"

After all, it's important to know whether Jesus meets the standards for a safe electrical appliance.

[buddy1]

Many critics of the NT have mentioned how the Gospels are likely to be altered or erroneous, based on the idea that the stories portrayed are third or fourth-hand word-of-mouth renditions of the original events. I have just finished reading an excellent book about the expedition to baffin Island (in Arctic canada), made by the elizabethan navigator Martin Frobisher, in 1577. The interesting thing was, Frobisher made 3 trips (looking for gold and the Northwest Passage); while doing so he encountered the native Inuit people. Almost 300 years later, the American explorer Hall travelled to the same islands, and found Inuit people who told him of the arrival of the English 300 years before!-and in almost exact detail! These Inuit had no writing system, so the memories of the encounter were passed from generation to generation, almost perfectly!
So, the fact that the Gospel accounts relied on oral transmission is no real bar to their truthfulnees!

[tracer]

And did the Inuit describe Frobisher as having walked on water, raised people from the dead, and caused a fig tree to wither by cursing at it?

[buddy1]

Many critics of the NT have mentioned how the Gospels are likely to be altered or erroneous, based on the idea that the stories portrayed are third or fourth-hand word-of-mouth renditions of the original events. I have just finished reading an excellent book about the expedition to baffin Island (in Arctic canada), made by the elizabethan navigator Martin Frobisher, in 1577. The interesting thing was, Frobisher made 3 trips (looking for gold and the Northwest Passage); while doing so he encountered the native Inuit people. Almost 300 years later, the American explorer Hall travelled to the same islands, and found Inuit people who told him of the arrival of the English 300 years before!-and in almost exact detail! These Inuit had no writing system, so the memories of the encounter were passed from generation to generation, almost perfectly!
So, the fact that the Gospel accounts relied on oral transmission is no real bar to their truthfulnees!

[tracer]

And did the Inuit describe Frobisher as having walked on water, raised people from the dead, and caused a fig tree to wither by cursing at it?


(whoa -- deja vu all over again!)

[buddy1]

my arguement stands. You cannot attack the veracity of the Bible, solely because it may be based on oral narrative.If 12 generations of Arctic Inuit were able to remember and preserve such an event (the expedition of Martin Frobisher), then I can accept that oral accounts of Jesus(written down sometime during the 1st century AD)could be highly accurate.When CF Hall questioned these people, they were able to recount a battle between frobisher's men and the inuit. They also described the loss of 5 of Frobisher's party IN PERFECT DETAIL-their oral account agreed completely with Frobisher's (and his companions) accounts!I daresy that this is nothing short of amazing!

[tracer]

You're right -- that is amazing.

It's certainly more amazing than the Gospels, which contradict one another on many, many points.