Christianity

[aleph_0]

As a preface, I made a deal with my Christian roommate: I would read The Case for Christ if he would read Les Miserables, and he took me up on it. So I'm reading The Case for Christ. Now I never had much doubt about the historicity of Jesus' secular life. However, the book makes a solid case for it, and as I’ve picked through the arguments I see a few holes that I’d like to discuss. But this might be tedious details for some readers, so I’ll mark when I’m done with that section, so people can skip over it.

The next thing that I’d like to discuss is the collection of supernatural claims, and how one ought to consider them.

After that, I’d like to discuss some particular supernatural claims and how, if possible, one can give them secular explanation.

Historical Analysis

Now to begin at the beginning, the author Lee Strobel claims that—as reported by historian Craig Blomberg—there is solid historical evidence that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were indeed written by these men. However, what is meant by a text being “written by” someone seems suspect since I understand that it was common practice for people to use scribes who would basically take dictation from illiterate masters who would have no way of verifying the accuracy of the written text. Secondly, the evidence that these were the actual authors is from Roman historian Papias who wrote in 125 A.D., a good 90 years (a disputed approximation) after the death of Jesus and possibly 70 years after the first gospel was written. This evidence seems shaky, considering that Papias probably did not have the necessary sources to confirm that these men were the authors. It seems all together possible that these men might not have written the gospels, but rather it was some other person or group of people who attributed it to them and, by 125 A.D., it was common belief that they in fact did write the gospels—from which basis, Papias wrote his history.

As for the gap between the event and the first gospels, Strobel claims that this is not so large as it is for other events that we take to be historically accurate, such as the conquests of Alexander the Great which was written more than 100 years after the events. Mark was written, alternately, between 30 and 50 years after the event, while many of the people who had been present were still alive to verify or deny the story. However, even just 30 years still seems enough to blow a story out of proportion, mix in some self-serving lies, or otherwise get facts wrong—regardless of what is done with other texts. Now why do I take the story of Alexander the Great to be accurate while I take Jesus’ resurrection to be suspect? Because the only part of the stories that I believe are ones in which Alexander did nothing supernatural or beyond all probable belief. Even at that, though, I do not hold a hard belief in those events which are not verified by other sources or archeological evidence. Secondly, even if people were alive to verify or deny the accounts, 1) would they be so literate as to know that Mark had written a gospel that makes false claims, and 2) even if they knew about the gospel and the false claims, how could they publicly deny the claims? So let’s assume that Mark fabricated the claim that Jesus was resurrected on the third day, and Mark says Shmuel saw the resurrection. But Shmuel can’t read and he doesn’t know anybody who has read Mark’s gospel, so he doesn’t have the opportunity to reject the story. Or let’s say Shmuel can read, or let’s say that someone has told Shmuel about Mark’s gospel, and Shmuel says, “I didn’t see no freakin’ ghost! Mark must be trippin’, son!” That still leaves Mark’s gospel in history, and Shmuel’s “rebuttal” out of it. How would Shmuel publicize his denial, and even if he did make it public, how would history know about it? Moreover, what if Mark said, “And look, if you don’t believe me, just ask Shmuel, he was there,” but it turns out that Shmuel doesn’t exist at all—Mark sent people on a wild goose chase.

Then there’s the question of the uniformity of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Why do they all seem to agree on the important points? Well, Mark was written first, and by the time the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels, people largely took Mark to be true. So it wouldn’t make much sense for the authors of Matthew and Luke to contradict Mark or each other.

Also, something that should cast doubt on the motive of writing the gospels is the fact that each author would often portray other authors in a negative light—sometimes the accusations are downright pedantic. However, none ever writes about himself in any embarrassing situations or doing things that are difficult to explain, which would be the hallmark of somebody who tells the truth.

It is argued that one of the reasons Roman historian Josephus didn’t write much about Jesus was because he didn’t pose much of a threat to the Roman Empire—yet the reason he was given Rome’s most ignoble death, crucifixion, was because he was considered dangerous.

Jesus was described by one gospel as having healed a blind man while going into Jericho, while another gospel says that he did so while leaving Jericho. This is explained because, apparently, cities of biblical times would move over time along the banks of a river, and so the designation of where Jericho was, was not a determinate matter. So Jesus could have been leaving and entering Jericho at the same time. I find this weak, since even if they were at a point where it is not certain whether they were in Jericho, it should have been clear whether they were headed to Jericho or away from it.

One old question was about the fact that Jesus’ family was ordered back to Nazareth to take part in a census of the Roman Empire, and that this was during the reign of—I think—Quintus. Yet other facts determine that the year of the census was not under the reign of Quintus. It is argued, though, that a coin bearing Quintus’ name and reign shows that there were two rulers named Quintus (or that the same Quintus ruled at two different times). Either way, it places the ruler at the appropriate time. However, I wonder how reliably a coin can report the time of a ruler’s reign.

And let’s not forget that it seems Jesus never even claimed to be god—son of god, “Son of Man”, messiah, etc. But there’s little evidence that he actually thought he was god except for a single quote, “The Father and I are one.” But I don’t know where this quote is or how reliable the source is.

Now a list of general questions which could perhaps reasonably be answered, but should be answered in order to make a solid case for Christ:

Why did god choose the year 0 A.D. to bring Jesus into the world, and yet does not demonstrate or influence the world in any direct and visible way at any time thereafter? (Except, maybe, some of the “miracles” that happened to the early Christians who spread the gospel.)

How reliably do we know that Luke incorporated parts of Mark, rather than Mark incorporating Luke?

With how much certainty do we know the authenticity and validity of Corinthians, and when it was written?

The opening of Luke implies that there were many incorrect stories about Jesus at the time it was written. How do we know the invalidity of these stories as opposed to the validity of Luke?

How do we know that the apostles truly held on to their Christian beliefs until death?

Was anybody who was opposed to Jesus ever in a position to deny the claims of his miracles? For instance, was a Roman soldier ever present during any of his “miracles”, who might have refuted Jesus’ claims.

Do the gospels that were excluded from the New Testament contradict the gospels in the New Testament in a literal and substantive way? If they contradict only in spirit, can this be made explicit? For what reasons were the gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Judah excluded?

As for the “darkness that fell over the earth” during Jesus’ crucifixion, could this have been a storm? Was it noted in the histories of Russia, Australia, or the Americas?

Though the Jews called Jesus a sorcerer, did they make this same claim about many other people at the time?

Metaphysical Questions

Now that many of the secular questions have been dealt with, I want to talk more substantively about the religious issues. Namely, I don’t think that any amount of historical evidence could ever convince me of supernatural events, the metaphysical principles of which I cannot scientifically reproduce or observe at the present time. There are, in philosophy, what are called Moorean beliefs—beliefs which you hold so primitively that, if any evidence contradicts it, you will sooner disavow the evidence or its basis before you disavow the belief. To me, at least within the scope of historical evidence, the belief that there is nothing supernatural must be a Moorean belief. It is simply so absurd, so completely without precedent, that if you can explain any given historical evidence by any secular means—even by the most improbable of stories—it is more rational to believe the improbable secularism than the unfathomable religious belief.

Questions about Secular Explanation

Jesus’ brother, James, supposedly did not believe Jesus was supernatural until his resurrection three days after death, when Jesus appeared to him as a ghost. How does one explain this in a secular way? James hallucinated? Seems hardly plausible. James lied? Why would he choose that time to lie? Did he never actually claim to see Jesus resurrected? I don’t know what historical evidence there is. In general, I find it difficult to explain this story, if historically accurate, by any probable secular story. All the same, as I outlined above, so long as I can come up with some secular story—it matters not which—it still seems more likely than Jesus’ resurrection.

I may add more to my list of criticisms, questions, and secular explanations of religious stories as I read further into the book.

[Tenure]

I think you might be interested in this:

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

It's one of of the most discussed essays written on that book. The basic by-line is, "Great, Sam shows all this, but the trick is in what he doesn't say." Have a read through that and see if his objections are the same as your own.

To answer one of your questions, as someone who comes into contact with Christians and Christian theological argument a fair bit, namely, "Why hasn't Jesus impacted the world since 0 A.D", well, you need to be careful there. Christians will say that he has impacted the people in the world directly, by offering them salvation. To them, the significance of Jesus was not everyday miracle worship, or for him to be some form of deity where if you prayed hard enough, you got a new pair of shoes.

You have to look at Jesus from a Jewish perspective. According to Jewish scripture, you need to be really devout and pray and worship a lot, and then God will look kindly on you and bless you, etc. What Jesus was saying was that one shouldn't live one's life just making worship to God, but should instead live, so that their acts are such that they become like God.

This is similar to what Ayn Rand would say, about how one shouldn't put Reason on some pedastool, or ideas in some different dimension. Ideas aren't fanciful things disconnected from reality - Reason is man's tool of survival, not just something he uses for intellectual masturbation. Jesus was saying, basically, that people could live practically, so as to become just like him (the whole point of Jesus being God in the Flesh was not just 'Hey look! God got a body!', it was more along the lines of, 'Look, these aren't just disembodied ideas - see how they work in practice!').

So that's the significance of Jesus. He was supposed to make his impact in 0 A.D and people would carry on, memetically promulgating his ideas and carrying them out in practice (because he believed, just like Ayn, that his ideas were practical, such that they didn't require blind faith to enforce, but that they would spread by the sheer fact that one needed them to survive).

Disclaimer: I'm not putting Jesus ideas on the level with Rand's, nor am I saying Rand was misguided - please don't get that impression.

[Superluminal]

I will be quite blunt about this.

1. Jesus taught that the universere was not real.

2. Jesus taught that the you as a man could not know the universe.

3. Jesus taught that man should sacrifice himself unto others.

4. Jesus believed that men should be governed not by natures laws, but gods. His god.

Knowing all these things, and knowing how false each idea is false why make such a deal? Being raised by a deacon I can

assure you that there was plenty of historical data for the argument that indeed Jesus did exist. As to whether or not anyone

witnessed miracles.......

I know many people who try and convince me of the exisence of these miracles. Historical and contemporary, I do not know what these individuals have seen. I do know what they have NOT seen. What exactly do you hope to gain from this endeavor?

A better understanding of the life of Jesus? Christian history? The chance to give someone worthy the opportunity to step outside of their limited understanding of the nature of man and the universe? I am just curious. ( I hand out Rand books to just about anybody with a pulse and the ability to comprehend something is wrong in the world!)

[Superluminal]

One day my fingers will keep up, or I will check my posts a little closer. Until then please excuse all the misspellings and additional words!

[aleph_0]

I'm posing a question about the philosophy of history, framed in a specific question about Christianity: By what standards and methods do we construct knowledge of history? In this context, I argue that it is most rational to never try to conclusively and exclusively learn your physics from history. That is to say, if a historical text claims anything that exceeds known scientific possibility, it ought to be verified by modern, reproducible, observable phenomenon before being accepted by science. Until such verification can be made, though, we still need an account of history--and this should involve any kind of explanation which incorporates known sciences, including physics, psychology, biology, and so forth.

The historian's project, then, with reference to Christian history, is to explain the evidence using modern scientific knowledge. So we review the history, explaining any coherence or agreement in the ancient texts, archeology, etc., by strictly secular means. We may, however, find difficulties, such as this example of James.

As for the site you posted, Tenure, some of his objections are mine, some I have which he doesn't, and some he has which I didn't. In general, it's a pretty decent reference.