Steven Carr

http://www.wushuathletic.com/~jason/christ/support.html

'New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger explains that "The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so." '

Oh, the irony of it. While explaining that people could not risk inaccuracies, a totally false quote is given. I doubt Bruce Metzger ever gave such a thing.

http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-...-bruce-ch4.htm is where the quote comes from. But the Christian Cadre are apologists, and are no more scholarly than Freke and Gandry.

If even today, in the Internet age, people can give quotes and attribute them to the totally wrong person, does anybody believe the Christian Cadre's assertion that 'The apostles had to be very careful that they reported these accounts accurately or else those opposed to Christianity would have rebutted any false or exaggerated stories/claims/information.'

Gosh, even Paul complained about false stories about Jesus and false letters being circulated in his name.

I thought the ancient world stamped out falsehoods and forgeries?!?

Toto

google "17 secular sources"

Steven Carr

The Talmud is a secular source?

Steven Carr

The Christian Cadre article that is linked to , also includes some of Holding's apologetics, and links to this article of Holding's

http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html
'So now the skeptic has another conundrum. In a society where nothing escaped notice, there was indeed every reason to suppose that people hearing the Gospel message would check against the facts -- especially where a movement with a radical message like Christianity was concerned. The empty tomb would be checked. Matthew's story of resurrected saints would be checked out.'

Of course, JP (No Link) Holding, of the Christian Cadre, has no hesitation about saying the exact opposite whenever it suits him.

http://www.tektonics.org/miller02.html
'Not one word is said about any of the factors we lay out; Miller simply plays the usual "gee golly" card that surely the earthquake, resurrected saints ("large numbers" of them -- how "large" and why? how and where would historians of the day notice it?'

Gosh, this story would have been checked out, yet no historians would have noticed it.

Surprising that Jewish Pharisee historians like Josephus never noticed these many resurrected saints.

Of course, Holding happily scorns the Jesus Seminar for saying that Matthew says there were large numbers of resurrected saints.

This does not stop Holding claiming that there were 'many', whenever it suits him.

http://www.tektonics.org/danman.html

This leaves Daniel 12:1-3:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The last resurrection? No, for what is referred to is many being raised -- and this matches Matthew's resurrected saints. Indeed Matthew's use of "many" implies a hearkening back to Daniel (though he does not mention those resurrected to shame and contempt, who would probably not be eligible to walk around anyway).

CARR
Gosh, who would have thought that those resurrected saints of Matthew's were the people raised to everlasting life in Daniel 12?

Such is the scholarship of Christian Cadre members, and such is the apologetics that is practiced nowadays, in the 21st century.

ichabod crane

Good stuff on conservative Christian apologetics - my experience of it is that it leaves a lot to be desired also.

Also, thanks for those who posted links - some of these are fascinating.

A question - is there a succinct article rebutting the "17 sources" point by point (each source in turn)?

Toto

I haven't seen a list of the 17 on-line, but they appear to be the usual suspects.

The Jury is In - Evidence for Jesus discusses "Non-Christian" Sources:

• Josephus (although this discussion has probably been superceded by Peter Kirby's)
• The Talmud
• Pliny the Younger
• Tacitus
• Suetonius
• Thallus
• Phlegon
• Mara Bar-Serapion
• Lucian
• Hadrian

That leaves Flagon and 6 more.

There is a more comprehensive look at Thallus by Richard Carrier.

Christian apologists ofter cite R.T. France The Evidence for Jesus; ironically, R.T. France examines all of the non-Christian sources and finds them all inadequate, and rests his case for the historical Jesus on finding some historical core in the gospels. (See this old thread here: France on Jesus).

Sauron

Turkel's claim here just strikes me as being obviously, patently false.

1. Do we today run out and verify every story about "Woman gives birth to alien" or "Bat Boy runs for President" in the Weekly World News? If we don't do that kind of follow-up today, then why would 1st century Roman world do that?

2. Do we have "truth squads" that follow up on every internet rumor, to see if it's true or not? If we don't have that today, then why would 1st century Roman world do that with rumors that came floating in from various parts of the empire? The ancient world had many such tales that were never followed up; had they been, the number of inaccuracies and superstitions would not be as high as it was.

3. Even Herodotus quoted such nonsense as though it were fact. From my rebuttal to Turkel's Jury response:

Speaking himself of these winged serpents, Herodotus says:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.

Since it is fairly certain that winged serpents do not exist, what conclusions can we draw from the above passages?

It is quite safe to say that Herodotus is not a deliberate liar, trying to deceive his readers. Such was not his character, nor would it be consistent with his mission behind writing The Histories. That being the case, Herodotus can be assumed to be faithfully repeating what was told to him and not filtering the content of it (in the interest of objectivity for his readers). However, another explanation comes to mind. Perhaps an unscientific belief in fantastical creatures was common in his age, and Herodotus saw no reason to question what was "common knowledge" at that time.

Herodotus obviously did not do direct follow-up; we know that since no skeletons of winged serpents could possibly exist, since no such animal exists. Therefore, Herodotus must be repeating what he has been told - which was considered accurate and reliable form of investigatory reporting at that time in history. So not even follow-up would have been a safeguard against reporting nonsense, since any investigator might simply have repeated what he/she was told by someone else. But the chain of transmission is of unknown provenance, and the original artifacts associated with the miracle wouldn't necessarily be examined at all. That wasn't bad investigation; it was simply how things were done at that time in history. This undercuts Turkel's claim severely.

4. And in an age such as 1st century Rome, when magic, wonders, etc. were far more readily accepted as being true, why bother to follow up at all? If people were more accepting of miracles, then it's likely that they might simply just accept at face value upon first hearing it, thus (in their minds) making actual forensic, investigatory follow-up an unnecessary action. The net result being that no one bothered to do the actual investigation at all.

5. Turkel suggests that because the movement was "radical" that there might be follow-up. But the movement didn't *become* radical, until years (or decades) after these miraculous events would have allegedly occurred. Even if someone wanted to do followup, the challenge is far worse at that point.

Amaleq13

In addition to the good points you make, Turkel/Holding appears to be ignoring the existing evidence of early Roman opinion regarding Christians. They are repeatedly denounced as an ignorant and superstitious bunch.

If we assume that early Christian claims would have been investigated, this multiply attested opinion suggests no support was found for their claims.

If we don't make that assumption, this multiply attested opinion suggests nobody took them seriously enough to investigate their claims.