Toto

Nomad - I hesitate to extend this thread, but I need to ask why it is important to you that anyone here decides to believe that there was a 1st century person named Jesus who was crucified by Pilate and was somehow involved with starting the Christian religion?

If we, as atheists, admit that this is the correct view of history, but that Jesus was just a deluded Cynic wisdom teacher, or a confused nationalist sect leader - are we any less atheists and destined to burn in hell (or whatever you believe happens to atheists?)

There is no way to know what happened 2000 years ago with any real degree of certainly, so you are free to believe what you believe. I only object when you distort history and logic to try to prove that there is a firm historical basis for what you believe, or that those who follow a Christ myth theory are being completely illogical and unhistorical.

Nomad

Dennis, I have been posting quotes directly from historians, and deliberately using those that you have named yourself. Perhaps you have not gotten to those posts yet, but I would recommend that you read them. Further, it would help if you would read my posts to others on this thread, as you would see that I have remained consistent throughout this and other threads in my treatment of what constitutes evidence. I will offer some more in this post, but grow tired of typing more and more quotes, and having you simply ignore them (even after I have pointed out the fact that you have ignored them, see again my references to Akenson’s definition of what constitutes evidence, while the most you come up with is a lot of hand waving and repeated assertions).

You have failed to reply to my direct quotation from Grant in which he calls the Gospels evidence of what people thought about Jesus. I have not claimed any more than this, though you insist on misunderstanding me over and over again. I will offer that quotation again later in this post, and you can then address it (or not, if you so choose).

All eyewitnesses can only bear witness to what they believe they have experienced. As I have said this multiple times, I would hope that you would have understood my point by now.

Hmm… the evidence that was known about the Holocaust before the camps were liberated was pretty limited. This is why it came as such a shock to people. But I see again that you are just not getting this point, nor my explaining the fact that biased does not equal untrue, and as you will not even concede this much, I will drop it. One can only explain a thing so many times.

I have a number of commentaries on the New Testament, including one from Raymond Brown. I will quote from him, below, but I have yet to encounter a serious questioning of the very existence of the 500. Quite honestly, I do not understand your continued dogmatism Dennis, but I will not presume to understand your motives or claims beyond what you tell me here. What does Brown say about 1 Cor. 15?

”In the present form there are two groups of three by whom Jesus “was seen”: Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, and more than 500... We may list a number of issues:
(a) Paul places the appearance to himself, even if it was last, on the same level as the appearance to all the other listed witnesses…
(b) Paul employs the verbal sequence died/buried/raised/appeared in I Cor... Nevertheless, some have contended that Paul is not referring to seeing Jesus in a bodily form. Since in Paul’s understanding Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time, a purely internal vision seems to be ruled out...
(Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, [New York: Doubleday, 1996], pg. 534-5)

As we can see, Brown is treating the claim of the existence of the 500 as evidence, and uses it to draw a conclusion (namely that a “purely internal vision seems ruled out”). I grow tired of typing more and more quotes from scholars who say what I have also said in this thread, and using evidence much as I have. Now I await your admitting that I am not being inconsistent in my definition or use of evidence, and we can wrap this up. I must admit, however, given your dogged determination and refusal to back down on even the minor points, I am not optimistic that you will change soon.

As I have told others, this is a truism that is hardly interesting. Lots of people, religious or not have lied. Here I am only interested in evidence that Paul is actually lying, especially about the existence of the 500.

Could you at least make a specific charge of how I am outside of the mainstream? I have always tried to be cautious in what I am prepared to defend on the basis of historical evidence. I even quote from the scholars you cite yourself. I do not see why you are so obsessed with me specifically.

As you continue to link the claim of the mere existence of 500 people (non-extraordinary) with the claim that they witnessed the Resurrection (extraordinary), you are the one with the problem. Paul’s statement is evidence for both (and then only of his belief in both their existence and the Resurrection), but we need only seriously question the latter claim, as it alone is extraordinary.

One need not accept that Jesus rose from the dead in order to accept that 500 people claimed that they saw Him after he had risen from the dead.

Historians will not reject Paul’s claim that Cephas, James, the Twelve, and 500 people witnessed the Resurrection (see Brown’s quote above, as well as Grant’s regarding the reliability of the Gospels as evidence). They will accept that Paul believed in the Resurrection, and in the existence of the people he lists.

Oh dear, hand waving now. Is this how you learned how to debate serious issues? Akenson defined evidence as I have, and against what you claimed. Your failure to address his point is your problem, not mine.

Paul did not just list 500 anonymous people, but also the entire leadership of the early Church by name (Cephas and James) or title (the Twelve). If you think that he did not meet a single other claimed witness, then that is your opinion, but given that Paul tells us of John (another witness), the “brothers of the Lord” (more supposed witnesses), the apostles, and Barnabas (more witnesses), I would not be as hasty as you are here. Based on his letters he also appears to have known a great many other people, some of whom may well have been among the 500. We just cannot know. Quite simply, I do not know how many of these people Paul met personally, but it is a pretty safe bet that he met a few of them, and knew many more at least by reputation. As this is exactly how all of us come to know virtually every person we will ever “know”, what is the problem? Think of it this way perhaps: I can tell you that 900,000+ people live in Calgary, even if I have never met them all.

You must not have gotten to my last quotation from Grant, so I will repost the relevant statement again:

But to declare in consequence that they (the Gospels) have no claim to 'serious consideration as historical evidence' is to invite misunderstanding. On the contrary, they are extremely important historical evidence because they tell us how Jesus was regarded."
(Michael Grant, Jesus, [London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 1977], pg. 40)

The Gospels are historical evidence, and I am sure Grant feels the same way about Paul’s letters. I admit I have not read his book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684146827/qid=1010648213/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_14_2/102-8793054-2444952" target="_blank">Saint Paul</a>, however, so if I am in error, I apologize. Quite frankly, I see no reason for him to write a book about Paul if he rejects Paul’s testimonial evidence as worthless.

I do not think Grant would reject that Paul is testifying to what he believes to be true both about the Resurrection, and the early Church, including the number of early witnesses. That is all that I would claim as well.

I snipped the rest of your attacks and rationale for them Dennis. I will admit, I do not understand your continuing obsession with me, and what you see as my faults. I cannot help you with that however, and as I have become very busy, I am afraid I must wrap up here. I will give you the last word. If you have a charge to make against me, and can offer evidence to support it, then please do so in a new thread. So far as I am concerned, this thread has played itself out, I am content to let my posts stand on their own in my defense. I will offer a final thank you to both Layman, and to Michael. As for Dennis, he and I are done here.

Nomad

Nomad

Basically, you are asking me why I am interested in history (and in particular the history of Jesus), and without getting long winded (or excessively sentimental) about it, it is a passion of mine, and I look to converse with people that hopefully share some of that same passion. With luck I will learn more, and if nothing else, it keeps me reading more than I would otherwise, since I am often compelled to look up the answers to questions I had not considered before, or to which I do not know the answer.

I do not come here to convert anyone, as I lack the gift to do this, and this is not, in my opinion, the correct forum to preach, even if I was so gifted. As a Christian apologist I am a guest here, and must abide both by the rules of the board, and common etiquette. I see no reason that we cannot debate issues, discuss evidence, and even reach radically differing beliefs about the Jesus of history. If the argument is well made, and the evidence presented satisfactorily, then that is all that anyone should expect.

You have made two claims here. The first I agree with. We cannot be certain, based on historical enquiry methods alone, about what happened 2000 years ago. That said, there is a great deal about which we can be reasonably confident.

In your second claim, you think that I distort history in support of illogical and unhistorical myths, and that I even claim "firm" historical evidence for such things. Unfortunately, I cannot control what you or anyone else finds objectionable. I see the challenge of those who disagree with me to present their arguments and evidence, and let the readers decide who makes the better case. For myself, I hold no illusions as to how many of those readers will agree with me here. If they read what I write, and think about it, even if only to reject it, then I am content. Hopefully they will be encouraged to do more research on their own. I firmly believe that more knowledge is a good thing.

Happily, the Bible agrees with me on this point as well.

2 Peter 1:5-7 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

This is a truly noble wish.

Peace,

Nomad

Lonergan

Nomad, I believe you missed my post on page 6. I am
repeating it below. I think that you have conceded much
of what I say below, but do you wish to respond to the
need for consistency in using Michael Grant ?


Let me first thank Nomad for his willingness to respond to
multiple adversaries. Unfortunately, I don?t plan to lighten
his load with this post.

I wish to acknowledge that I hold no strong academic credentials
as a historian. I do believe, however, that I can use common sense
along with statements made by historians to put some perspective
on some of the statements in this thread regarding Christianity and
history.

Before getting into specifics regarding Christian history we need
to agree to the following guidelines:

(1) Under the best of circumstances, writing accurate history is
difficult. For example, how many shots were fired at
Kennedy and how many plotters were involved in his
assassination?

(2) Accurate history is more difficult to determine the further back
in time we go. There are multiple reasons for this, but
ascertaining facts for the first century is far more difficult than
doing so for the twentieth century.

(3) Historians have less confidence in finer details about people
than in the more general details. A historian may believe that a
real Jesus existed and that his tomb was empty a short time after
his crucifixion. The same historian would also probably have
much less confidence in the empty tomb than in Jesus?
existence.

(4) Known scientific laws are assumed to hold regardless of what
time in history is being considered. Yes, a certain world outlook
may allow that God acted in history to override scientific laws,
but please don?t claim that this is a valid way of writing history.

Michael Grant is probably the most referred to historian by Christian
apologists. His view that Jesus? tomb was empty shortly after the
Resurrection is probably one of the main reasons for his popularity
among these apologists. We need to understand, however, that some
other equally recognized historians would not make such an assertion.
Even Michael Grant, however, would not consider the empty tomb as
a highly confident historical fact. In addition, Christian apologists need
to explain why the empty tomb is to be accepted, but other Grant
claims about the Gospels are to be ignored. Christian fundamentalist
would disagree with most of what Grant wrote about the Gospels using
his same historical skills to declare the empty tomb as historical. For
example, Grant wrote that first century Gospel readers would not think to
ask whether the Gospel stories really happened since they didn?t assume
that they were reading history. Grant also stated that Jesus believed
that the Kingdom of God would occur during His own lifetime or
shortly thereafter. Grant wrote that Jesus did indeed tell his disciples
to at least ignore, if not hate, their parents. I don?t have Grant?s writings
in front of me, but I could go into more detail of Grant?s conclusions
Christians would rather not discuss.

Nomad

Given the nature of the only report offered to us on Paul's encounter with Jesus, the condition you place on my answer precludes my offering you one. In the future, if you are not open to an answer, it is my recommendation that you please not ask the question. At the same time, I would hope you would be willing to examine your own biases and a priori assumptions, and determine how they might colour your ability and willingness to gather and evaluate historical evidence.

Yes, all serious historians begin with the assumption that Jesus actually existed. This is not even a topic of debate any longer, as the evidence is overwelming.

This is merely an assertion that is unfounded in fact. Your question also stretches beyond the scope of this thread. If you wish to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then that is your right, but it is not a defensible position.

Do not make arguments from silence NOGO.

I <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000003" target="_blank">debated</a> Earl Doherty on these boards back in May. I assure you that he will no longer defend his position in a public forum (even a friendly one like the Secular Web's), and his ideas are, at best, merely wrong. Before you take him seriously, I would recommend that you read much more widely on this topic. You may wish to start with Jay Lowder, Michael Grant, Donald Akenson, or Robin Lane Fox, as all of these gentlemen are atheists or agnostics, and therefore cannot be accused of a Christian bias.

Nomad

Nomad

My apologies for not seeing your earlier post Lonergan. I have tried to respond to as many serious questions as I can, so here goes with yours:

Writing accurate history is difficult, though we can know some things with more certainty that others. In answer to your (rhetorical) questions here, the answers are "three" and "one".

Yes. I have said this before as well.

Yes again. We must always be conscious of levels of probability when evaluating historical evidence.

Yes. See again the quotation from Grant.

First, I use Grant because he is a self confessed atheist, as well as an eminently qualified classical historian. I also like to use Robin Lane Fox and Donald Akenson (atheists), Geza Vermes (Jewish), plus a number of Christian Biblical scholars.

Personally, I use Grant because most atheists I meet know of him, and a fair number have at least read him. This makes him a credible source for most people. I also believe that he is fair in his evaluation of the evidence. Needless to say, I do not agree with all of what he says, but I do not expect anyone to agree 100% with any source offered, including their own.

He does not assert the empty tomb. He simply accepts that evidence for it is fairly reliable. It is more probable than not. For that matter, Lane Fox comes to the same conclusion, and also accepts that an eye witness stands behind the Gospel of John, but that is another matter.

Nor do I.

I am happy to discuss most subjects that can be examined by historical means. And just for the record, an apologist does not need to do anything. In the case of historical debates, one need only demonstrate that one's belief is reasonable based on the evidence available to us, and an apologist can also engage in philosophical debates that will not be based on evidence, but logical argumentation.

Christian fundamentalists will reject virtually anything claimed about the Bible, unless it is that the Bible is 100% correct in all of its details. I do not know what this has to do with me, however, as I am not a fundamentalist.

I do have Grant's book on Jesus, and have read it, so I am perfectly aware of what he said. I am more than happy to discuss anything he brings up in that book.

You have not asked me a single question in this post Lonergan. Is there something you wanted to talk about with me?

Nomad

Vorkosigan

(b) Paul employs the verbal sequence died/buried/raised/appeared in I Cor... Nevertheless, some have contended that Paul is not referring to seeing Jesus in a bodily form. Since in Paul’s understanding Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time, a purely internal vision seems to be ruled out...
(Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, [New York: Doubleday, 1996], pg. 534-5)

In this passage Brown makes a double error. First, there is no reason an appearance to 500 need be corporeal, it could well be internal and spiritual (unless there is some third party present, how are we to evaluate a vision we both share?). Second, there is no reason to assume that Paul is sincere in this statement, so Brown has no reason to refer to Paul's "understanding." The proper terminology would be Paul's "claim." By evaluating this as an "understanding" Paul has of an actual event, rather than seeing it as a claim Paul is making, Brown is presupposing that it is simply Paul relaying history. Of course, that is doubtful at best.

Note that Brown does not even contemplate the awful possibility that Jesus wasn't resurrected; he regards Paul's claim as rock-solid on that score. Instead he uses it to help him refract another presupposition, namely, that the resurrection wasn't spiritual. In other words, he takes it for evidence about what kind of resurrection Jesus had.

This isn't scholarship. It's just highly intelligent and creative apologetics.

By comparison, there are numerous stories, often with many witnesses, that the Prince of Huai-nan ascended to heaven with all of his retinue, household and livestock (this a couple of centuries BC). They have exactly the same status as Paul's story -- a third-hand claim, buttressed by attributions to unnamed witnesses in large numbers, and named prominent witnesses (in this case two well-known scholars). I doubt Brown takes them for evidence about what way the Prince of Huai-nan actually ascended to heaven. I suspect, like any normal scholar, he'd shrug off these stories as claims about fictions.

Any properly skeptical scholar would look at Paul's claim in the light of similar claims made by missionaries today, or about prominent figures such as Uri Geller or Sai Baba, in the light of way similar claims in other cultures are treated, and conclude that it is exceedingly weak evidence for any Resurrection (let alone a physical one, as Brown concludes). As I said earlier, it has two common justificatory strategies -- it claims there were zillions of witnesses, and it claims that prominent people saw. This is standard in UFO material, psychic phenomena, other religions, missionary claims.

Consider the following passage about Sai Baba:
The present Raja of Venkatigiri was in Puttaparti at that time. When asked about this incident, he told me that he remembered it well. He had been with the swami when Mr. Radhakrishna's relative came to tell Sai Baba that he was dying. About an hour after Mr. Radhakrishna allegedly died, the swami came down from his room at last and said to them: `Don't fear, nothing has happened.' They waited outside the room while the swami went in. When he opened the door and called them, they saw that Mr. Radhakrishna was alive and talking slowly.

Note the standard pattern. There are many unnamed witnesses (relatives of the dead man) and a named prominent person (the Raja). Would you take this seriously as evidence as to exactly how someone was raised from the dead by Baba, or would you view it as a claim that would require a lot more evidence than this?

In fact, we are fortunate to possess multiple accounts of this event -- all of which differ -- and skeptical accounts, which point out that not a single claim made in the above passage is true. Unfortunately few negative accounts have survived to provide us a balanced view of Paul's claims.

Since I can locate dozens of similar claims about hundreds of people, forming a general pattern in which Paul's claim fits very nicely, it is easy to see that it is a claim, only, and not a very convincing one either.

As I stated before, it is excellent evidence for some things, but not for what Brown is using it for in the above passage.

Michael

Anunnaki

Nomad:
Huh? I looked at that thread and it clearly says a member named Brian Trafford (member #2894) debated Earl back in may. I see nothing there from Nomad (member #652).
Please explain.

Toto

Nomad wants people to think that he won this debate. Actually, Doherty read Nomad's initial argument and decided it wasn't worth his time to argue with an uninformed apologist. He wrote a scathing and sarcastic final post and left. Meanwhile, the rest of us dissected Nomad's arguments and found them wanting. The debate format is not the best for determining the truth.

Far from conceding defeat, Doherty has produced a critique of Lee Stobel's book, and is promoting it, so any implication that he has backed away from his ideas or cannot defend them is wrong.

No established scholar has produced a refutation of Doherty's work. This is not because there is so much historical evidence for Jesus. It is because there is no little evidence from that period of history that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus with any large degree of certainty. The scholars who start off assuming the existence of Jesus are doing so because that's a comfortable assumption for them, or because they think it is the most likely explanation based on the scraps of evidence that they do have.

MrKrinkles

If it is the debate I remember, it was not the way Nomad describes it. Doherty did not stop debating with Nomad because Nomad had shown his position to be mistaken, but because Nomad would write about anything and everything but the points that Doherty was making. It was as though Nomad was not even reading what Doherty was writing, and was just blindly laying out his own position without any regard to Doherty's efforts to engage him in a discussion. It was obnoxious. Doherty finally just gave up out of what I presume was frustration.

It may be that Nomad still does not understand this, and is, in fact, incapable of understanding this, so I can almost forgive him for misreprenting the discussion/debate months later. I just can't let his description of the debate go unchallenged though.

Brooks