sakrilege

Since Joel is going to be gone for the weekend I thought I would add a different view of the fig tree story to help pass the time. Enjoy.

<a href="http://www.godhatesfigs.com/" target="_blank">Fig trees</a>

Gregg

Good grief. You pulled all of this straight out of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" didn't you, Joel?

I suggest that you read Earl Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-examination of Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Christ'" for a thorough refutation of Strobel's "objective" arguments. But in the meantime, here's my two cents: [quote]<strong>Now, evidence concerning the Roman Government archives concerning the death.

(Snipped the medical evidence because I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. If you'll clarify, I'll address it.) [quote][qb]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tertullian,
"At the same time at noonday there was a great darkness. They thought it to be an eclipse, who did not know that it was also foretold concerning Christ. And some have denied it, not knowing the cause of such a darkness. And yet you have that remarkable event recorded in your archives...And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which his death was distinquished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioners work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives." (Tertullian, Apology, trans. Ante-Nicene Library, 10 vols.(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1987) vol.3, XXI)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</strong>[/quote}I need to interject here: You're really assuming a lot here about how much the Roman government cared about what Tertullian wrote. Were there government censors and fact-checkers poring over every word he wrote and threatening him with prison or beheading if he even slightly stretched the truth here and there? From "Challenging the Verdict, pgs. 57-58:

"Let's make it clear to the court, Dr. Yamauchi, that Julius Africanus was a Christian commentator. Does the possibility not occur to you that Africanus is putting his own spin on what Thallus actually wrote? That the historian was merely recording an eclipse of the sun which took place on November 24, 29 CE (as astronomers have calculated), and that the connection to the crucifixion was something Africanus imposed on it? It's true that there could not be a solar eclipse at the time of the Jewish Passover, but this would further indicate that Thallus did not have any tradition of Jesus' crucifixion in mind when he spoke of his eclipse...

"Tertullian: another Christian commentator, writing almost two centuries after the fact. How reliable is Tertullian's testimony? Has he, or those he relies on, put a spin on Phlegon's words as well? Eusebius was of the opinion that Phlegon had gotten his information about the eclipse from Thallus. In any case, if this was a world-wide event, as Tertullian says...where is the widespread witness of something this unusual? Are Thallus and Phlegon, both now lost and known to us only through Christian commentators, the only ones to testify to it? Several historians whose works have survived--including Tacitus--wrote of the early first century period; none mentions such a phenomenon. Indeed, we should be finding reports of it all over the world, from Babylon to China.

"But staying closer to home, perhaps the greatest recorder of natural phenomena of his time was the elder Pliny...He collected reports of all sorts of astronomical portents and unusual happenings, even those which were belived in but which he himself may not have witnessed or subscribed to. He had nothing to say about an unusual darkness around the time of Jesus' death. Nor, for that matter, about a star of unusual behavior around the time of his birth." From "Challenging the Verdict," pg. 58:

"In fact, the report of this occurrence of universal darkness comes solely from the Gospels. Considering that they are all dependent on Mark, who probably took his cue from Amos 8:9 in which the prophet forecasts a darkness on the coming Day of the Lord, supplemented by a similar prophecy in Joel 2:10, we can put the whole thing down to a literary invention by the first evangelist. It's a dramatic example of Jewish midrash: taking scriptural passages and reworking them into a new story." Repeating from Challenging the Verdict, pg. 57:

"It's true that there could not be a solar eclipse at the time of the Jewish Passover, but this would further indicate that Thallus did not have any tradition of Jesus' crucifixion in mind when he spoke of his eclipse..." Help me understand, Joel: How does a Jewish Gospel writer's getting details about Jewish burials correct, prove that the specific burial in question actually took place? If you read, for example, a fictional story about a man in a German prison camp during WW2, and the author uses a real German prison camp as the setting and describes the camp and the details of camp living accurately, does this mean that his fictional POW really existed, and his story really took place? I don't think there's any corroboration outside of Christian writings for the martyrdoms of the 12 or for Stephen and Paul, but I'll let that go. What you really need to do is read your second statement above again and realize how ridiculous it is. People have been dying for unsubstantiated beliefs for centuries. In the 19th century, Latter-Day Saints willingly suffered martyrdom for their belief that Joseph Smith had discovered the Book of Mormon under a mountain somewhere. Can we be expecting you to convert to Mormonism anytime soon, Joel? Since you haven't provided any real evidence for the crucifixion or resurrection yet, this is pretty meaningless. And many Christians, famous and not, have abandoned Christianity after looking at the evidence and become atheists (including a close associate of Billy Graham!) or agnostics or Buddhists or Muslims. Cuts both ways, Joel.

Anyway, I don't understand how being a "legal expert" makes someone better able to examine the evidence for and against Christianity. Legal experts got OJ Simpson off even though his blood was found at the murder scene. Legal experts are great at emphasizing certain pieces of evidence, downplaying others, distorting facts, stacking the deck, etc. Lee Strobel does a lot of this in his book. Personally I don't subscribe to the above rational explanation. I don't even think Jesus existed as a historical person who was crucified.

The much more likely explanation is that Jesus Christ started out as Greco/Jewish version of the dying/rising savior gods of the mystery cults, such as Mithrais, Attis, and Horus. The "Annointed Savior," combining elements of the Greek Logos (Word) and Jewish Wisdom, along with aspects of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Paschal Lamb, and the Suffering/redeemed Innocent Righteous One (all themes from the Jewish scriptures), descended to the lowest level of heaven, between the Earth and Moon, where he took on the LIKENESS of flesh and was put to death by the demon rulers of that dimension. As with the mystery cults, the Christian believer, through a mystical union with Christ, could share in his death and rebirth. This dovetails neatly with the religious, philosophical, and cosmological currents of the time.

Jesus only became "historical" when some Gentile Christians in the second century began to take the Gospels--which were originally written as allegories--literally. Earlier Jewish and Greek Christians could never have believed that God could become actual flesh or that a flesh and blood man could become God--for them such a notion would have been sheer blasphemy. However, later Gentile Christians had no such compunction, especially since bringing their mythic savior god to historical life enabled them to enroll converts in droves.

If you're interested in studying this viewpoint more, Joel, just visit <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org." target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org.</a> Even if you don't agree with Earl Doherty's conclusions, you'll have to admit he presents a pretty strong case. Also, don't forget to pick up a copy of "Challenging the Verdict."

Cheers,
Gregg

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

case

Joel,

First off, let me welcome you to the boards. A belated welcome, no doubt, seeing as how this thread is now eleven pages long. Secondly, knowing how rare it is to engage anyone in the City of Churches in any sort of discussion on religion without invoking death threats, its nice to know that you are taking an interest in nonviolent discussion. Thirdly, slightly off subject, but whats with everyone and their mother from Ft. Wayne posting here lately? I mean, I know the town is boring, but jeez...

Anyway. To be honest, I'm a bit suprised. I wouldn't think Taylor University would allow you to post on these boards. Or does it count as witnessing? Seeing as how I have an advantage over the other members who post here by living in Ft. Wayne, and knowing the atmosphere, especially at Taylor University, my question is this: You stated that you wouldn't consider Christianity a religion. By what definition of the words "religion" and "Christian" do you come to this conclusion?

This is not a personal attack against you. I only ask because I have had conversations with students from Taylor U. before, and all that I have spoken with would consider Christianity a religion. I'm just curious as to why you do not feel it is.

By the way, you said that you went to Tri-State. Am I right in assuming that you are originally from the Angola area?

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: case ]</p>

Gregg

Troy was a real city. Does this mean the account of Helen of Troy and the Trojan Wars are accurate in every detail?

Also, do these references to "Ioannes" describe him as "he who was cast onto our shores from the belly of a great fish, as was witnessed by numerous fishermen, and who urged us to repent to the one true god, the Hebrew god, which we did, even though the reason we were impressed by Jonah was that he came from a fish, and we were worshipping the fish god Dagan at the time" ?

Isn't it possible that the writer of Jonah took a few facts about Nineveh and created a fanciful story out of them?

Gregg

Gregg

Helen,

But I've yet to see any Christian who, when pressed, continues to assert that he/she arrived at his/her beliefs through the use of critical, purely objective reasoning. Or, if he/she does continue to assert this, once he/she starts providing examples of his/her thinking, one quickly sees that his/her arguments are not objective and are filled with logical fallacies and circular reasoning. In other words, the person did not apply "critical thinking" by any meaningful definition of the term. It's kind of like someone who says, "Now, I'm a skeptical person, and I didn't just decide to accept astrology out of hand. I examined it critically first. I read a lot of books by famous astrologers, and found out that astrology has been around for centuries, so that right there tells you there must be something to it. Plus, millions of people read their horoscopes.

"Then I asked a few of my friends about it. You should see how many times, when Susan's horoscope said she was going to have a bad day, sure enough she had a bad day! And then I checked it out for myself for a while, and sure enough, practically every time my horoscope told me to be 'open to new possibilities,' I met some new person or had a new experience.

"Oh, and I did read a couple of books by people who said they didn't understand how planets millions of miles away and stars light-years away, coupled with the month and day you were born, can have any effect on your personality or your daily life or on the way your life works out. But I was like, you know, the Chinese believed in this stuff and they had a really advanced civilization. And there's just all these stories. Hey, the scientists admit they can't be 100% sure that something's not true!"

This may seem like an oversimplification, but frankly, all the Christian apologetics I've heard sound much like the above. They're longer and cover more subjects (mainly because there's more material to work with) and often sound more serious, scholarly, and intelligent, but in terms of the depth of actual critical thinking they evince, very thin. Since this happens 100% of the time in my experience, I think a skeptic is justified in assuming that the average Christian debater has not applied anything close to rigorous critical thinking in reaching his/her beliefs. He or she may feel that he/she has, because after all he/she read a lot of books and did a lot of thinking...but just STUDYING and THINKING, even studying and thinking long and hard, about a topic does not mean one is thinking about it critically and objectively.

Cheers,
Gregg

DigitalDruid

sakrilege, seems to me those guys are right on the 'Mark'! For, Mark 11:14 says:
I can see why they are pissed off by Chritians who eat fig!

This also further weakens Joel's assertion (without providing any reason so far) that this whole fig-tree episode happened only because Jesus wanted to make some points (and nothing else), implying he did not get pissed off with the tree because it bore no fruits. If that was so, why would Jesus ask people never to eat figs again? Jesus had some major problem with that fig tree I think. So looks to me Joel is off-Mark here, just as his assertion is not supported by an untwisted straight-forward reading of Mathew.

I wonder why Joel solicited further questions before taking a break when he seems to have plenty of unasnwered and partially answered questions.

Cipher Girl

Gregg, <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> You said it better by far, than I could. Joel still has not really addressed my question "If god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, why is there evil in the world?". There have been lots of bible verses, not really relevant to the question, but no direct and simple answer.

Joel you said:
Numerology, bible codes (numerology?), you've got to be kidding right? Joel, I'm a mathematician, this is like a cargo cult follower asking an aerospace engineer to accept that airplanes are holy mysteries of the universe, that good things will happen to those who worship the airplane. Take your time kid, I would rather have a well thought out answer than mass quantities of bible verses or apologetics.

Oh and Joel, a hint , numerology to a mathematician is like astrology to an astronomer. It's pseudoscience. You're engaging in magical thinking, not critical thinking.

[edited 'cause my spellin sux]

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

Cipher Girl

Fig Trees.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Looks like Phelps got it wrong. I quess he can't spell.

Howay the Toon

I'll address this to the first sentence above since I have no idea at all what the second sentence is supposed to mean.

If there is nothing that would lead you to the conclusion that Christianity is incorrect, you are in effect saying that it is compatible with ANY conceivable observations or ANY conceivable state of affairs in the Universe.

But for a particular explanation to be of any use it must explain why something is one way rather than another, in other words why some states of affairs exist rather than their opposites.

But a purported explanation such as Christianity, which is apparently consistent with ANY state of affairs can't do this. It is of no use in telling us why something is one way rather than another and therefore fails as a useful explanation of anything.

Horia Plugaru

Greetings Joel,

I was wondering:

1. Why don't you kill yourself? (<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001266" target="_blank">This</a> might help)

2. Why don't you kill your children (of course, in case you have children and you didn't already do it. For more on this, see Richard Schoenig's article "The Idiot's Guide to Salvation", The humanist , jan/feb 2000.)

Horia.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Horia Plugaru ]</p>