sotzo

Can anyone give me a reference (book/article, etc.) which lays out a critique of the secular references as they are used by apologists to support Jesus' life?

cheers,

jkb

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Haran

Personally, I value John P. Meier's information on extrabiblical references to Jesus in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385264259/qid=1018880774/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-1097198-9126244" target="_blank">A Marginal Jew</a>. However, though he is an excellent scholar and not an apologist, he is a Christian, so you may not value his work...

Another good source which is relatively new and pretty good in my opinion is by Robert E. Van Voorst, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802843689/qid=1018880670/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-1097198-9126244" target="_blank">Jesus Outside the New Testament</a>. I don't believe Van Voorst is a Christian, so you may value his opinion more.

Perhaps others can provide more info.

haran

sotzo

Haran:

Thanks very much for those references.

As a Christian myself, I am trying to find out what the skeptics believe are, in their view, the best arguments against the Christain theist's view of Jesus.

My studies, thus far, have revealed that skeptics tend to lean on Wellsian hypotheses (especially, the Jesus myth camp). For instance, Michael Martin's Case Against Christianity is essentially a rehash of Wells theses.

So, I am coming straight to the horse's mouth to find out if I can get my hands on other sources for the skeptics position.

Thanks again!

Jkb

Toto

Skeptics do not necessarily follow the mythic view. Some believe that Jesus was a historic person, but not divine. Some think he was an admirable moral leader, some a fomenter of violent revolution. Some think he was a myth. There is no party line.

The arguments against references to Jesus in secular history are discussed in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html" target="_blank">Chapter 5 of The Jury in In</a>, Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus: Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder You might find that a good place to start. You can get a more skeptical, mythicist view from Earl Doherty in
<a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle</a>.

Godless Dave

Which Christian theist's view of Jesus? There's at least one for every denomination of Christianity.

madmax2976

Actually I think you'll find very few Christ mythicists around here.

Some of the strongest arguments against Christianity would be:

1. The evidence does not match the claim.

The claim is an extraordinary one, complete with people rising from the dead, people being miraculously healed, the sky turning dark all over the earth, etc.etc. The evidence to support all these things is of the weakest type.

2. The failure of supernaturalism.

For the past several hundred years we have seen supernaturalistic hypotheses fail to explain anything or otherwise fail to demonstrate they are actually true. This is unlike naturalistic hypotheses which are and have been demonstrably successful.

Thus with this impressive evidence against the supernatural, we are more than justified in being highly suspicious of any supernatural claims and concluding that the probability that supernatural entities or forces exist is extremely low.

3. It is nonsensical

The supreme creator of the universe supposedly picks a back water spot in ancient Palestine in order to reveal its Son and its all important message to all mankind and this at a time when: critical thinking regarding religious claims was practically non-existent, when religions and superstitions abounded, when an investigative press did not exist, when modern testing techniques did not exist, when the printing press hadn't been invented yet, when a good portion of the world hadn't been explored yet, and when it would have been exceedingly difficult for the common man to have checked out claims and facts.

It simply does not measure up to the standard of common sense.

Thats a start anyhow.

sotzo

There's at least one for every denomination of Christianity.

Is that right? In that case, what, for example, would be the difference between the Baptists and Presbyterians views?

Toto

It's more like there's a different one for every scholar who sets out to find the real Jesus.

sotzo

Hi Max!

1. The evidence does not match the claim.

The claim is an extraordinary one, complete with people rising from the dead, people being miraculously healed, the sky turning dark all over the earth, etc.etc. The evidence to support all these things is of the weakest type.

I grant you that the claims/acts of Jesus are extraordinary. That, however, does not rule their facticity/falsehood out a priori.

You say that the evidence is of the weakest type, yet that is a claim that must be, itself, evidenced.

2. The failure of supernaturalism.

For the past several hundred years we have seen supernaturalistic hypotheses fail to explain anything or otherwise fail to demonstrate they are actually true. This is unlike naturalistic hypotheses which are and have been demonstrably successful.

Since, by definition, naturalistic hypotheses can only be accounted for "naturalistically", one should not expect to obtain supernatural explanations. It is not the Christian claim that God is in the business of changing the laws of nature for the purpose of revealing himself to curious scientists.

Thus with this impressive evidence against the supernatural

It isn't evidence against the supernatural since, by defintion, the hyoptheses don't permit the detection of the supernatural in the first place.

we are more than justified in being highly suspicious of any supernatural claims and concluding that the probability that supernatural entities or forces exist is extremely low.

We may be justified to do so via some other argument, but not via these.

3. It is nonsensical

The supreme creator of the universe supposedly picks a back water spot in ancient Palestine in order to reveal its Son and its all important message to all mankind and this at a time when: critical thinking regarding religious claims was practically non-existent, when religions and superstitions abounded, when an investigative press did not exist, when modern testing techniques did not exist, when the printing press hadn't been invented yet, when a good portion of the world hadn't been explored yet, and when it would have been exceedingly difficult for the common man to have checked out claims and facts.

Your statement above grossly commits the genetic fallacy. Further, such an argument ends up destroying, not only supernatural claims, but natural as well. The only way out of your pickle is if you are going to argue that ancient people were unable to think critically when it came to supernatural claims, but they were able to think critically on naturalistic claims. But this would be quite arbitrary. If you wish to be consistent you will need to become skeptical of all ancient history.

It simply does not measure up to the standard of common sense.

1. The naturalists' universe consists of matter in motion. "Thinking"=My brain fires off chemical reactions and so does yours. In such a setting, how do you propose we determine a standard of common sense? It would seem to me there could be no standard.

2. There are some very bright people who think it is very common sense to be a theist. I'm sure you would agree that WL Craig, Alvin Plantinga, et al are quite respected even amongst your own atheistic/agnostic community.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Interesting point. What evidence of the resurrection would you consider worthy of consideration?