The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ

[youkrst]

well i thought the obvious answer was

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

ahhhhh, so that's where the kingdom is.

[Flann 5]

well i thought the obvious answer was

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

ahhhhh, so that's where the kingdom is.

It's hard to say whether within you or among you is the best reading there. Take the guy he casts a demon out of. He's controlled by it but then God's power is exerted and he's free from that control, or rule if you like.

I know you don't believe in these beings. The problem I find is that those who take the gnostic view think that it means that they themselves somehow become gods, and then reckon they can pass judgement on Christ's teachings and select or reject what suits them.
Gnostic Bishop does this to an entertainingly absurd level. I would have thought that if it really was the kingdom of Christ his words would be obeyed.

He asked; "Why do you call me Lord,Lord and not do as I say." I can't say I do this consistently myself, but that's the general idea.
So in the end the gnostic interpretation is "I'm god and I do whatever I think is good or bad in my own eyes."

Obviously I understand that you interpret things mythically. I think it's mistaken, and I wouldn't say it's all literal because not everything is literal, but I think that the straightforward common sense meaning is true.

There are parables and use of metaphors but overall I take an historical view which includes the miraculous.

[Robert Tulip]

Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it....Vanity of vanities,says the preacher, vanity of vanities!

The bare faced impudence of such comments is a sight to behold. The absence of evidence regarding a chain of transmission for the New Testament makes its claims entirely unreliable. And indeed, when those claims are examined without confessional motives, they point inexorably and consistently to the invention of Jesus Christ as pure myth, and the assertions of historicity as pure parable, and if not parable then fraud.

Vain assertions that critics don't see a problem are another example of the neologism I presented recently, nethereal.

The Bible is so far short of chain of custody requirements for admissible evidence in a court of law or even historical claim that such assertions are entirely laughable, a great example of why apologetic rationalisation is broadly viewed as intellectually bankrupt. Those who don't see a problem are deliberately not looking.

[youkrst]

In accordance with the following verses in the New Testament and after the example of the great man of God known as brother bob...

…4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?

I have decided to hand Flann over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh

[Interbane]

Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it.

Meanwhile, other ancient historians and textual critics do see a chain of custody problem. My my, who do we believe? As I said before, appealing to other people's conclusions is meaningless. For every yay there's a nay. Show me the reasoning, not the conclusion.

You're a philosophical naturalist Interbane. Like I said previously,Craig Keener has written a book on miracles in the present time. So I don't know how you can be so sure there are not miraculous events in answer to prayer.

I think the reason we go in circles is because you don't understand my replies. Or perhaps you don't remember them.

As I've said often before, I'm not "sure". There are many events that I'd label miraculous. But if you are trying to tell me that they are supernatural miracles, the onus is on you. Induction is on my side. Our investigations, whenever resolved, are unanimously naturalistic. Nothing more has ever been shown. And as I explained in the thread on the supernatural, it isn't even possible to show anything more.

I've given many reasons why Christianity is credible, and if God does exist then of course he could have raised Jesus from the dead.

Your reasons are all snakes eating their own tails. You appeal to the texts to prove many of your points, without supporting the texts. You appeal to the conclusions of scholars to support the texts, without ever showing what that support actually is. You believe the scholars you agree with are right, and the scholars you don't agree with are wrong.

Why should I believe you Flann? The reasoning doesn't hold up.

There's Dawkins who follows Krausse who says; "nothing isn't nothing anymore in science." I've even heard it said that "nothing is unstable!"
And Krausse like a fairground magician, pulls rabbits out of a hat while trying to conceal something up his sleeve.

And even if they are dead wrong, that does not make you right. That's a classic argument from ignorance, which I've also repeated many times.

Of course you will complain about my arguments from ignorance but as Ant shrewdly observed, you think your ignorance trumps mine.
It's more inference to the best explanation.

I'm not complaining. The arguments truly are arguments from ignorance. Blaming me won't make it otherwise.

To infer the best explanation, you need positive evidence in favor of the chosen explanation. Your arguments above do not fit. Casting doubt on existing explanations does not count as positive evidence in favor of a different explanation. It's what's known as an argument from ignorance, and is a fallacy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

[youkrst]

[Flann 5]

Flann wrote:
Ancient historians,N.T.scholars and textual critics don't see a "chain of custody" problem and believe a history of early Christianity can be determined by scholarly methods. That's a big subject, but you're no expert on it.




Meanwhile, other ancient historians and textual critics do see a chain of custody problem. My my, who do we believe? As I said before, appealing to other people's conclusions is meaningless. For every yay there's a nay. Show me the reasoning, not the conclusion.

Who are these ancient historians and textual critics, Interbane? Bart Ehrman is one. Ehrman wouldn't dispute that Paul wrote first Corinthians for example, but tries to rationalize the early belief in the resurrection as found in Paul's accounts of the various post death appearances.

Liberal scholars wouldn't dispute that N.T. books were recognized as authentic by early Christian churches. They dispute the authorship of some books like the gospels.

Their naturalistic presuppositions preclude them from, for example, accepting John's gospel's account as being of an eyewitness to miraculous healings, and the death and subsequent resurrection appearances of Christ.

So they claim they can't be by the authors attested by the titles and reject the testimony of those close to these authors.

Robert cries conspiracy but Constantine wasn't til much later and the 2nd century Christian writers quote from these gospels as of already recognized texts in the churches.

I think the reason we go in circles is because you don't understand my replies. Or perhaps you don't remember them.

As I've said often before, I'm not "sure". There are many events that I'd label miraculous. But if you are trying to tell me that they are supernatural miracles, the onus is on you. Induction is on my side. Our investigations, whenever resolved, are unanimously naturalistic. Nothing more has ever been shown. And as I explained in the thread on the supernatural, it isn't even possible to show anything more.

And what about those unresolved ones? You seem to believe in naturalistic miracles. How do you distinguish between a naturalistic miracle and the usual natural course of events?
A miracle is contrary to the natural course of events surely.

Craig Keener's accounts are interesting and the point is the frequent link between specific prayer to God and sudden healing.
These cannot be explained psychosomatically in the majority of cases.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYBnJF2P_WQ Miracle reports in the gospels and today.

Flann wrote:
I've given many reasons why Christianity is credible, and if God does exist then of course he could have raised Jesus from the dead.




Your reasons are all snakes eating their own tails. You appeal to the texts to prove many of your points, without supporting the texts. You appeal to the conclusions of scholars to support the texts, without ever showing what that support actually is. You believe the scholars you agree with are right, and the scholars you don't agree with are wrong.

Why should I believe you Flann? The reasoning doesn't hold up.

You don't have to believe me Interbane. If you want to study the arguments for or against the reliability of the N.T. documents you can do that.

Here's a pdf of N.T. scholar F.F.Bruce's book on the subject; The New Testament documents are they Reliable? It's not the most recent book on the subject but the arguments haven't really changed much,and it's freely available.

http://www.ncbible.info/MoodRes/Transmi ... -Bruce.pdf

I think I have shown on other threads that the dating of O.T. books by liberal scholars has bad foundations in the outdated and untenable 19th century speculations of sceptical German scholars.

They just can't accept the whole idea of genuine prophecy. So as I said if they approached these texts in an unbiased way examining the internal and external supports for dating and authorship,the weight of the evidence is against them.

And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?

Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.

[youkrst]

They just can't accept the whole idea of genuine prophecy.

yeah, what's wrong with them?!?!

And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?

Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.

yeah, i mean it's written in a book, what's wrong with these unbelievers, it's like they want evidence from outside the book, crazy hey!

i have the same problem with people when i try to tell them about baby krishna, who rocks by the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPKXvhnz-A

[DB Roy]

More proof the gospels were written by the men they are named for:

Matthew, Mark and Luke all recount the Transfiguration. This incredible (literally incredible, it seems) event where Jesus went up on a mountain and shone with a brilliant light and then Elijah and Moses appear alongside him and then a bright cloud appears and from it issues the voice of god. The witnesses were Peter, John and James. But strangely, John doesn't recount it! Some say he mentions it in 1:14 but it's so offhand and general that he must not have been that impressed by it. The only way John could have not mentioned the Transfiguration when the other witnesses say he was there is if the account purportedly written by John was not written by him.

[Interbane]

Their naturalistic presuppositions preclude them from, for example, accepting John's gospel's account as being of an eyewitness to miraculous healings, and the death and subsequent resurrection appearances of Christ.

It's not a presupposition. It's a conclusion. We conclude that the most we can know is the natural world. We've been over this, in the thread on the supernatural.

What this means is that if there is a claim that something is not natural, then extraordinary evidence is required. What the bible provides us with is extraordinarily shabby.

So they claim they can't be by the authors attested by the titles and reject the testimony of those close to these authors.

Who are you to say they're wrong?

And what about those unresolved ones? You seem to believe in naturalistic miracles. How do you distinguish between a naturalistic miracle and the usual natural course of events?
A miracle is contrary to the natural course of events surely.

The unresolved ones have always existed, all throughout time. Aurora borealis, lightning, clouds, stars, the moon, etc. These have all been unresolved at one point, and have all turned out to be naturalistic. Yet they were previously considered supernatural. You're simply in denial if you don't see the pattern.

Regarding naturalistic miracles, it's simply a matter of the rarity of the associated events. It is a subjective classification. Your grandpa dies and you use his lotto ticket numbers for the first time and they win the jackpot, then you use that money to save your son's life - it's an extraordinary series of events. It's a miracle. It's a miracle because of how rare the combination of events is. But this most certainly does not mean it's supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about it.

Craig Keener's accounts are interesting and the point is the frequent link between specific prayer to God and sudden healing.
These cannot be explained psychosomatically in the majority of cases.

Of course there's a frequent link. The key is comparing that frequency with the frequency of all the other combinations of events. How often to people pray, yet there is NO sudden healing? How often is there sudden healing, but no initial prayer?

How do you conclude that there is statistical significance over and above the other combinations? Well, you perform an experiment and control the variables. That's been done, and prayer has no effect. In fact, it had a slightly negative effect.

You don't have to believe me Interbane. If you want to study the arguments for or against the reliability of the N.T. documents you can do that.

I did, and it's a joke. First of all, it's amazing you think that all the witnesses held the accounts of their witness in their heads for 40 some years. Where did they memorize it from? So they witnessed it, and it stuck in their memory as good as the monks that use endless repetition to memorize things? That simply isn't how the human mind works. Even if they had a video camera recording the events, they'd have to watch the recordings for endless hours to commit it reliably enough to memory to last for even a single year.

But you expect me to believe they saw something once, memorized it, then spat it back out 40 years later?

Second, in the link you provided, there is absolutely nothing conclusive about dating. It's all about what "probably happened", and what "the majority of scholars in this country believe".

This is freaking light years removed from what I'm looking for Flann. First of all, if the events were written down on the exact day they happened, you STILL couldn't rule out embellishment or fabrication. You CAN'T rule it out. It's impossible. Think about it. How could you rule it out? By saying that people in that time died for their beliefs? You already know why that doesn't work. So how?

But the events weren't written down on the day they happened. And the chain of custody went through countless hands, without checks and balances against alterations for a long time. Bleh

And you never did explain why the authorities didn't just produce the dead body of Jesus to counter the resurrection preaching,or why no one would have checked the tomb themselves, since it was in Jerusalem?

What makes you think there was a dead body? Because the bible tells you so? Hold up cowboy, you can't support the bible at the same time you use it to support itself. This is circular. It's a snake eating it's tail.

Or how they came to believe he had risen from the dead and that they had seen him physically alive. individually,in groups and on separate occasions.

What makes you think people saw him physically alive? Because the bible said that's what happened?

You can't support a thing with itself before it's supported. Please tell me this is getting through to you.