CJD

This, of course, doesn't rule out the notion that one idea is more plausible than another. That's all this is. Take that away, and this forum might as well close down.

I am surprised. I define it the same way, actually. Now, what makes you think you can apply such standards to things that can in no way provide the 'proof' you desire (listen up johnny skeptic)? How does this do away with anything except the smug satisfaction (albeit misguided) that you've done something meaningful? What in the world could you possibly be looking for?

Suit yourself.

Must we play this game? The ancient record is there — manuscript complexities and inconsistencies and all. Still, I think it's a viable record. Trustworthy even. Do we really need to go down the line of the characters involved and look for claims they've made regarding these things? Must we be that pedantic? Can we not agree that the claim is made from at least every author involved in what we now call the "New Testament"?

Unless of course those characters were real flesh-and-blood human beings with their own histories, their own actions, recorded for readers for biographical purposes (thinking of the Synoptics here). Disprove the historicity, and then maybe we'll get somewhere on this. As it is, I will tell you what the text means and you will agree or challenge. This is the problem, I'm not concerned with apologetics, or showing you something that can't be shown in the first place (the historical precision and scientific verifiability of those ancient writings); I am merely concerned that you understand what it is you are dealing with, namely, the text. Consider the historicity hogwash, but do not make the mistake of misunderstanding what you are reading (by ignoring the socio-grammatical context).


Yes, that's why I said it.

1. It is completely irrelevant if anyone made such claims about Jesus. Moreover, you're the one who needs to find these claims, since you're the one basing your idea on them (that "the miraculous claims about Jesus were in any way verifiable by the audience they were made to. They were not."). Understand?

2. Try Mark 3, 6, for starters.

It would seem that way until, of course, that aspiring messiah was raised, thus vindicating him and his life's work. Notably, once an aspiring messiah was murdered (as many of them were), his followers usually scattered and the movement was squelched. Not the case here, huh?

As if there was just a text, no social context, no expectations shaped by their reality as socially constructed, etc.

Again with the presumption. I suppose this is to be expected from a moderator on a forum such as this; I mean, you deal with poetasting apologizers all day long. I know of what you speak, only too well. Few things were indeed definitive, and you've described them just fine. Nobody expected the messiah to be more than human, to be sure. The thing about Jesus was not that he popped up on the scene and said, "Hey, folks, I'm god." No, it was what Jesus did, not what he said, that led people like Paul and other early Christians to identify him and his work with the work that was supposed to be reserved for YHWH. The messiah was to be an heir of David, and he was to bring restoration to the land — granted the land's repentence, that is. He also (and this is what was largely overlooked during the 2nd temple period) was to be a suffering-servant leader. One cannot read Isa. 53 without noting the servant's suffering and death therein. You must see that the people had no patience for this way. They wanted to be liberated by force, because they themselves saw themselves as God's chosen people and in need of his vindication. What they missed was they were part of the problem. This is definitive messianic expectations, according to the TNK.

By looking at many modern Christians, and certainly the ones that tend to fight a lot on the Internet, I'd have to agree. But it's not that we can't get to where historic Christianity has gotten with the Messiah via the TNK, it's just that the way they've gotten there has typically been removed from its Jewish roots. What I am saying is that despite this, the Christian orthodox view of the Christ is still largely compatible with the TNK. And with that, we are off-topic enough.

Of course they expected liberation. But you missed something completely fundamental to oppression/exile in the prophetic literature: that repentence must precede God's deliverance. I suggest you brush up on your understanding of the most basic themes of the TNK.

CJD

Johnny Skeptic

Message to CJD: Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, Christians still lose hands down. Consider my following revised arguments:

I have debated the topic of the nature of God with Christians on a number of occasions in public and private debates, and I have found that they have much more difficulty debating that topic than they have debating the Resurrection.

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn’t provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

If an evil God created the universe, it would be impossible for anyone to know what his motives are. He could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences. Even the delivery of a comfortable heaven would not be proof of God’s love since he could easily soon take it away and send everyone to hell.

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite “tangible� evidence of Jesus’ power.

More “tangible� evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.� Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

When confronted with difficulties like the ones that I mentioned, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8. The verse says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.� The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn’t. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah “How do you know that?� His response might have been “God told me so.�

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

Regarding the claims of 1) the feeding of the 5,000, 2) the feeding of the 4,000, 3) the numerous healings performed by Jesus, 4) the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter, 4) Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them," 5) 1st Corinthians 15:6, which says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," and 6) the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, if the claims were true there would have been no need for confirming “the message of his grace� with tangible signs and wonders.

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of “the message of his grace� that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

The question needs to be asked, "Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren,� reference 1 Corinthians 15:6, have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice is the best answer. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

Regarding miracles healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracles healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Dr. Gary Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. He wrote a book with Michael Licona titled ‘The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus.’ Following are some excerpts:

“But no matter how good the evidence, a saving belief still requires faith.�

That is not true. John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the [tangible] works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." The New International Version translates "works" as "miracles." The verses contradict Romans 10:17, which says "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The verses also contradict Hebrews 11:1, which says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." As I said previously, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who [tangibly] confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do signs and wonders. The New International Version of the Bible says “miraculous signs and wonders.�

“The story has been told of a high wire expert who walked over Niagara Falls. To the amazement of all, he walked a wheelbarrow filled with 150 pounds of potatoes over the rope to the other side. His 120-pound assistant removed the bags of potatoes and placed her foot in the wheelbarrow and he asked, ‘How many of you believe that I can place a human in the wheelbarrow and walk that person safely to the other side?’ Everybody yelled, ‘We believe!’ He then said, ‘Who will volunteer to get in the wheelbarrow?’ Believing the facts is one thing. Acting upon them is faith.�

The story is ridiculous. The high wire expert did not claim to have divine powers. If the high wire expert “had� revealed that he had divine powers, a number of people would likely have taken him up on his offer.

“People offer all sorts of reasons for not accepting Christ. May times they reject Christianity just because they don’t like it for some emotional reason. They may be offended by Jesus’ claim to be the only way to heaven….�

If Jesus is in fact the only way to heaven, I wouldn’t be offended at all.

“or the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual behavior.�

Well yes, that would be reason enough for rejecting the Bible. In my main essay I show that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Anthropological Association, all endorse homosexuality and/or same sex marriage.

“Others excuse themselves with intellectual objections, such as the impossibility of Jesus’ resurrection…..�

As I showed previously, I can concede that Jesus rose from the dead for the sake of argument and still adequately discredit Christianity.

“or the problem of evil.�

Yes, evil is a problem. God might in fact be evil.

“Whatever the superficial objection, it may only be a smoke screen for a deeper reason that the person simply does not want to believe. For someone with a hidden agenda, neither a personal testimony nor any evidence will make a difference.�

That is not true. While an appearance by a powerful being claiming to be Jesus would not be proof that he was Jesus, it would be a lot more proof than we have at this time. In addition, I would love to debate Habermas regarding his personal testimony, or any other Christian for that matter.

Habermas and Licona have an agenda, and it is by no means hidden. Revelation 21:4 says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.�

Historically, the vast majority of humans have always had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions in order to satisfy their desire for a comfortable eternal life. This desire has caused many people to defend religions that are much more unbelievable than Christianity is, clearly testifying to the human desire of obtaining eternal comfort.

No disrespect intended, but Christians are just like trained seals looking for a reward of fish from their trainers. Seals in the wild with abundant food supplies would never be interested in performing tricks for humans. If humans were able to achieve obtaining a completely comfortable life at this time that indicated to them that it would be eternally comfortable, I am quite certain that only a relative handful of people would be interested in religion.

Although Christians vigorously defend the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the claim is definitely incidental to their desire of obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Eternal comfort is the desired goal, not so much how it is obtained. Any of a number of means of obtaining it would be deemed equally acceptable.

Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.

We have only the Bible writers’ word for it that God is good. That simply will not do. Hearsay testimony has little credibility in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies claiming to speak for God?

Christians claim that at this time, God is not obligated to answer skeptics’ questions, but if Jesus does return to earth and judges mankind, would skeptics “then� have the right to question their accuser (Jesus), a right that defendants in court trials have today? I maintain that they would. It is most certainly fair that people who will spend eternity in hell know the reasons why God chooses to send them to hell in much greater detail than he has given so far.

Christians maintain that God is good, but what is their definition of good as it applies to God? They will have to agree that many of God’s actions and allowances “are not� compatible with current human legal standards and standards of social decency.

Regarding God’s actions, the Old Testament provides sufficient evidence that on many occasions, God’s actions were not in accordance with current legal standards and standards of social decency. Even in the New Testament it is implied that he killed Ananias and Sapphira, reference Acts chapter 5. At issue was money from the sale of a piece of land that Ananias and Sapphira had promised to give the church. They withheld part of the money and were killed because had broken their promise. As a result, Acts 5:11 says “And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.� Fear of what? Breaking a promise to give money to the church? It is much too much of a coincidence that money was involved.

In the NIV, 1 Corinthians 5:1 says “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.� There is no mention that God killed any of those people, or even that he threatened to kill them if they did not change their ways. Ananias and Sapphira were only two people, so their actions would not have discredited the church to any great extent. However, “Among you� in 1 Corinthians 5:1 indicates a good deal more than just two people. Surely “sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans� warranted equal punishment to the punishment received by Ananias and Saphira.

Regarding God’s allowances, how about the Bubonic Plague and the recent tsunami in Asia? Did the plague and the tsunami benefit anyone in any way? Of course not. Did the plague and the tsunami benefit God is any way? Of course not.

It seems to me that Christians must claim that whatever God does defines what is good as it applies to his conduct, even when his conduct is contrary to current legal standards and standards of social decency. Why do Christians not question God’s conduct? I gave the correct answer previously when I said “Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.�

Believe it or not, readers, some Christians claim that if God sends them to hell, it is his right to do so. That is easy for them to say now since they believe that they will go to heaven, but if it turns out that they are wrong and that God will send them to hell, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that if they believed that they had the ability to prevent God from sending them to hell, most if not all of them would attempt to do so. Perhaps help could come from the God of another dimension whose conduct “is� in accordance with current legal standards and standards of social decency. Scientists tell us that there are other dimensions.

In conclusion, I believe that I have provided sufficient reasons why people “should not� become Christians even if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not the one making assertions. You are. The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you're asking us to believe without proof, you're not only barking up the wrong tree, you're in the wrong forest.
What record are you talking about? What first hand documentation exists that anyone ever claimed to have witnessed Jesus perform a miracle or see him rise fromthe dead?
Yes, we must. I want to see proof that anyone ever really claimed to have witnessed these miracles, or whether other people, none of whom whom ever met Jesus or ever met an apostle, merely claimed that the apostles made these claims. If Matthew claims that Peter testified to a resurrection event, that is not evidence that Peter actually testified to such, only that Matthew (who never met Peter) says he did. Do you understand the distinction here?
First, none of the authors of the NT were witnesses to anything themselves, secondly, they are far from independent of each other and third, it's not true that every NT author makes that claim. Mark, most conspicuously, does not claim that Peter saw Jesus. As a matter of fact, Mark does not even claim that Jesus was physically resurrected. His gospel ends at the empty tomb. Peter is not present in this scene and Mark says that the women did not tell anybody about the empty tomb.
I don't have to disprove anything. Historicity is your own assertion and it is your burden to prove it. Ahistoricity is the logical, default assumption for claims of impossible events. The historicity of the Gospels is precisely what is being debated. You are the one who wants other people to believe they are historicity, so it is your own responsibility to show us why we should. "Prove it's NOT true" is hardly convincing.
I don't care what you think the text means. The meaning of the text is not currently under discussion, only the historicity of the text.
I'm not misunderstanding anything, I just don't think it's relevant to a discussion of historicity.This entire thread is about whether James Holding is correct in his argument that the earliest Christians had any ability to verify miraculous claims about Jesus. It sounds like you are admitting that they didn't. I am also going further and saying it can't even be proven that those claims were made at all by any direct followers of Jesus...or, for that matter, that Jesus and the apostles even existed.
No, I don't understand. I've read this paragraph several times and I still don't know what you're arguing with or what you're asking. I need to "find" what claims. What are you talking about?
Do you mean Mark 3:6?

And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Or do you mean something else? How does it pertain to this discussion?
No, coming back from the dead (and there is zero reason to believe that Jesus came back from the dead or even that anyone ever claimed to have seen Jesus come back from the dead) would not prove anyone was the Messiah because he still would not have fulfilled the requirements. Coming back from the dead might be extraordinary but it has nothing to do with being the heir to the throne of David.
Um...actually, that seems to have been pretty much exactly the case according to the gospels. Paul's movement had little or no relationship to whatever authentic Jesus movement may have provided the template for Paul's "Christ" mythos. Or there may have been no authentic Jesus movement at all. Not that a continued movement after the death of a religious leader is in any way remarkable
The text was itself a creation of that social context and that text defines the Messiah. There is no evidence anyway of any extra-Biblical, pre-Christian, Jewish expectation of the Messiah as God or as a redeemer of sins or as a "suffering servant" (please don't try to quote Isaiah at me) or as anyone who would not fulfill such basic expectations as liberating the Jews and restoring the Davidic kingdom.
What is your evidence that Jesus "did" anything miraculous and what does performing miracles have to do with fulfilling Messianic expectations?
No, he was just supposed to restore the kingdom. Repentance was not a prerequisite.
Isaiah's suffering servant was a poetic personification of Israel and had nothing to do with the Messiah.
Nor should they. It had no relationship to their expected Messiah.
Blame the victims much? They were "part of the problem" how? The Messiah was supposed to liberate them, yes. By force, presumedly, but a non-violent liberation would have dione just fine as well. Jesus failed to liberate them in anyway at all. Hence, he was not the Messiah because the Messiah was, by definition, the one who would liberate them.
[quoteThis is definitive messianic expectations, according to the TNK.[/quote]That "suffering servant" jazz? No. No it isn't.
This is not true at all. The Christian Messiah never existed in the Tanakh and cannot be found there now.
You're right. The discussion about Messianic expections in Hebrew scripture o is off topic but I can split it if you'd like. Let me know.
Even if this was the case, how would that make Jesus the Messiah? If he didn't liberate them, he wasn't the annointed. It doesn't matter WHY he didn't liberate them, and according to Jewish doctrines, the Messiah would have no ability to atone for other people's sins. In Judaism, everyone is responsible for his own atonement. The idea that someone else can do it for you is completely alien to Jewish thought and scripture and plays no part in Jewish Messianic expectations

Sauron

1. It is no game. Is it how the reliability of an (alleged) first-hand account can be established. Because of the historical circumstances, establishing the Cephas account just isn't possible. That's not a slam on the Cephas account in particular; it's just an accurate reading of the situation.

2. You think it's "viable" and "trustworthy" - based upon what? That sounds more like your assumptions and personal viewpoint. I'm sure you're aware of the old maxim: extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That can be paralleled to say "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary *quality* of supporting evidence."

Maybe it's not clear: Johnny is not contesting whether or not the claims appear in the *texts* of the NT or not. I'm sure he would agree that those claims (or variations) can be found in the pages of the NT.

No, he is contesting whether a real live person named Cephas ever

(a) had such experiences in the first place; and then
(b) wrote about them.

I wasn't sure if that point was clear; your question made it appear like there was some room for doubt.

1. It is not irrelevant if someone made those claims. That is the starting point for the theist position. So it's *very* relevant - both to the theist arguing it, and the skeptic who wants to debunk it.

2. No, Johnny does *not* have to find any such claims. You have it backwards.

a. The theist has stated that such claims were made about Jesus.
b. Since the theist made the statement, it is the theist who must prove that the claims were made.
c. Johnny is merely looking at the theist position and shooting holes in it. His aproach is to point out that if such (alleged) claims were indeed made, then the (alleged) audience would have no way to check the veracity of the claim.

Now you may disagree with Johnny on that point (i.e., could the audience check the veracity of the claim), but do not reverse the essentials of the argument or the location of burden of proof. Understand?

1. messiah was raised - vindicating, etc. Sounds like your personal religious viewpoint at work here.

2. Explanations for the rise of christianity abound. They do not require a person rising from the grave.

3. There were also other desert prophets besides Muhammad. Most of them went nowhere, amounted to nothing, and had their followings dispersed. By your logic, the fact that Muhammad succeeded so mightily proves Muhammad's work was vindicated and that Muhammad was sent from God.

Hm. Well, I think it's encumbent upon you to show:

1. that the Jews of that time viewed the prophetic literature as requiring repentance before deliverance - as opposed to believing (for example) that deliverance required undergoing a period of national testing, trial and punishment, which could be an apt description of their history under occupation by various ancient powers;

2. that the Jews of that time did not believe that repentance had already been achieved - which clearly they did, since they were ready and waiting for the appearance of messiah; a pointless action on their part, if they though there was some other necessary task to peform first, in order to make messiah's appearance possible

Items #1 and #2 are important for you to demonstrate, especially since you yourself have referred to the need to understand the "socio-grammatic context" on several different occasions. Items #1 and #2 clearly would be informed by said context.

How's the weather in Clarcona, by the way? :wave:

CJD

Hmm. There was. I didn't agree with what Holding had written from the beginning. But it seemed to me that the Cynic had morphed the argument into something else, namely, by assuming said claims and then debunking based on that assumption.

Florida is the most god-forsaken region in North America. Bloody hot. Seems to me there ought to be far more atheists here than there are.

More later, time permitting. As far as I can tell, my interests will only get us farther off topic.

[edited to add: ]

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not sure how you could have gotten this out of anything I've written but let me clarify as much as possible.

When I said "by the times the claims were made," and "by the people they were made to," I was talking about the gospels and the audiences they were written for. It is my position that there is no evidence that miraculous claims for Jesus, including a claim of a physical resurrection, were ever made before the gospel of Mark. JPH makes an assumption that the direct followers of Jesus were made these claims themselves. I am saying that there is no proof that they did and that the audience for the gospels had no way to verify the claims.

I also noted that those who were in the best position geographically and historically to investigate any hypothetical eyewitness claims do not seem to have taken any note of them at all. This would seem to indicate that they either never heard any such claims (most probable, IMO) or they found them to be false. I do not buy any argument that significant numbers of people could witness genuine miracles and make no note of them whatsoever, whether they believed it was the Messiah or whether they believed it was demons, somebody would have written about it.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm going to ask that any further discussion of the Jewish Messiah be taken up in a different thread. I've decided not to split this one because the posts with Messiah discussion also contain a lot of the exchanges relevant to this thread but I'm now requesting that everyone (including myself) please stay on topic. If anyone wants to pursue the Jewish Messiah discussion any further, please start another thread.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

seebs

Haven't we gone through this sentence before?

I think this standard is poor because it is quite reasonable to imagine it being impossible to do this even if there are good answers.

Johnny Skeptic

If a being claiming to be Jesus comes to earth, how do you suppose that Christians would be able to determine if he actually was Jesus? Whatever you answer will be, that will be my standard of proof. If a being claiming to be God made an appearance and told us only that his thoughts and ways are different from our own, reference the book of Isaiah, and demonstrated some of his powers, I would conclude that although that would not be 100% proof that he was God, it would make it much more probable that he was God than it is now. In other words, in such a case I would withdraw my arguments and concede defeat.

seebs

Conventionally, it's asserted that this would simply be obvious through discernment.