rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (01/01/70)
> Evidence For The Historical Jesus Again, whether or not a man named Jesus walked the earth and said the things he is attributed with saying is irrelevant to proving the notions of divinity surrounding his existence in Christian thought. > The references in the Talmud demonstrate some knowledge of Jesus as > a historical figure but gives some indication of the scorn with which > Rabbi's regarded him. > > For example, one passage refers to the hanging of Jeshu of Nazareth > and mentions his practice of sorcery. Another refers to five disciples > of Jesus by name, but none of the names coincide with the Gospels. Could this be an error? :-? It's not surprising that Jewish documents mention such a person and even call him a sorcerer. Just as the disciples were writing documents (commercials?) glorifying him, those who were against him (the status quo) said negative things about him. None of this is either surprising or relevant to "objective evidence". > There is a reference to Him departing and coming again. One portion > warns that this man will lead the whole world astray. Another example of an unearthed accurate historical document (and one that made a valid prediction?--or was it really Jesus who led people astray?) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Hello out there in netland. I am putting together a pamphlet on "Objective Evidences For The Christian Faith" and I thought I would try them out on you net.religioners for size. The articles contain excerpts from various authors put together as concise as possible. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or flame away. If they survive netland, their ready to hit the press! There are four of them so I will post them one at a time! Dan
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Reliability of The New Testament It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical account can not be deemed reliable. It is argued that the accounts would become distorted during their textual transmission. However, it can be shown that the New Testament documents are the most reliable of all historical documents; and to reject the New Testament records without rejecting all other historical documents and regarding them unreliable, would be to act in utter bias and absurdity. Manuscript Evidence There are more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament today. Over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the "Iliad", by Homer, is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Besides the number of manuscripts, the New Testament differs from all other writings in its interval of time between the composition of the book and date of the earliest extant manuscripts. The New Testament books were written (originals) in the latter part of the first century. The oldest manuscripts in exsistance are of the fourth century. From 250 - 300 years later. This is nothing compared to most of the great classical authors. Examples below: no. of manuscripts interval of time Ceasar's Gallic Wars 10 900 years later Roman History of Livy 35 400 years Histories of Tacitus 14 800 - 1000 years History of Thucydides 8 1300 years History of Herodotus ? 1300 years Greenlee writes in "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism", "The oldest known manuscripts of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or so after the authors death. In all of these thousands of manuscripts, there is a discrepency rate of less than 1 per cent while there is five per cent textual corruption in the Iliad. 40 lines of the New Testament in question as compared to 764 lines in the Iliad. Gleason Archer, "A careful study of the variants of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture. Benjamin Warfield, "If we compare the present state of the New Testament with that of any other ancient writing, we must declare it to be marvelously correct. The New Testament has been transmitted to us with no or next to no variation; and even the most corrupt form in which it has appeared, the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. The scrolls were dated 125 B.C. and was placed in the location about A.D. 68. The tremendous exactness with the Isaiah scroll found compared to the Massoretic text of Isaiah that we already possessed, dated 916 A.D., demonstrates the unusual accuracy of the copyists of Scripture. Reliability supported by external writings The church Fathers of the first and second centuries qouted the scriptures in their writings extensively. Between Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, the Gospels were quoted over 19,000 times, the book of Acts quoted 1352 times, Paul's epistles over 14,000 times, general epistles 870 times, book of revelation 664 times for a total of 36,289 quotations. Are the Scriptures reliable? F. F. Bruce, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us; of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
The Uniqueness of The Bible Unique in its continuity: Written over a 1500 year span; 40 generations. Written by over 40 authors from every walk of life (Kings, peasants, poets, fisherman, herdsman, doctor, tax collector etc.) Written in different places: In the wilderness, in dungeons, in a palace, in prisons etc. Written during different moods: Written in war time, peace time, heights of joy, depths of sorrow. Written on three continents; Asia, Africa, Europe. Written in three languages; Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects which would normally create oppossing opinions when discussed, yet biblical writers spoke on these issues with harmony and continuity. There is one unfolding story: God's Redemption of Man. The message is one great drama in which all parts fit together! Such a work, encompassing the lives of generations of individuals, can only be accounted for by a common author, the Spirit of God. Unique in its Teachings: Historical accounts found to be tremendously accurate. Confirmed by other historians, by archealogy, by geography. Teaches contrary to human thought. Records the sins and failures of its own characters and own country. Even the greatest of the Heroes are shown at their worst. King David commits adultry, Moses loses his temper and disobeys God, Elijah falls into self-pity, Jonah disobeys God out of prejudice, Peter denies Christ, Paul condemns himself for persecuting the church, Jacob deceives his brother out of his birth right. The great prophets of Isreal and the Apostles accuse their country of disobedience, wickedness, and apostasy. Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself below his true nature. Man also has a tendency to avoid responsibility for his own actions. This attribute of secular humanism, blaming our environment, genes, and other people for our behaviour is nothing new. It all began when God questioned Adam, "Did you eat of the fruit that I told you not to eat?" Adam's irresponsible reply, "The WOMAN that YOU GAVE ME gave me the fruit and I ate it!" The writer's of scripture could only have portrayed such an accurate picture of man, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The bible is unique in its teaching about salvation. All religions of the world have one thing in common. They all portray salvation as attainable through human effort. The natural desire of man to earn merit is completely absent in the writers of scripture as they, one by one, from Genesis to Revelation, illustrate the inadequecy of man and the Gracious gift of God: Salvation! The teaching of Christ attest to the bible's uniqueness! The very restrained portrait of Christ testifies to their inspiration. One only has to read the mythologies of various cultures to see the propensity of man to embellish the truth with fantastic imagination. Even the non-biblical writings of Jesus, portray him as a childhood prodigy instructing His schoolteachers with hidden mysteries in the alphabet and astounding His family and playmates with miraculous works. One story has Jesus, age 5, fashioning 12 sparrows out of clay on the Sabbath. When questioned by His father about such activity, Jesus clapped His hands and the sparrows flew away chirping! In total contrast, the Bible portrays the miracles of Christ with straight forward simplicity. The biblical writers purpose is not to entertain or to sensationalize, but to demonstrate the power, authority, and glory of Christ. The bible has survived various attacks and attempts to destroy it. Some powerful men in history have tried to rid the world of the holy Scriptures, as others have predicted its demise. The French humanist, Voltaire, boastfully proclaimed, "Fifty years from now the world will hear no more of the Bible." In that year, the British Museum purchased one manuscript of the Greek New Testament from the Russian government for $500,000 while a copy of his own book was selling for eight cents a copy! Fifty years after his death, bibles were being printed by the Geneva Bible Society in the very house where Voltaire had lived and on his presses! The Bible, is the only religious book in which there has never been found a legitimate error. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and many other "sacred" books contain gross errors and inconsistencies. The bible is accurate in history, science, and most importantly, in human nature. The hope of mankind is not in our world leaders, not in science, but in the intervention of God in human history, in the person of Jesus Christ. One need only examine the content of the sacred scriptures for a clear, accurate description of the world today. Mankind, in his rejection of the creator/redeemer, has vainly attempted to recapture his lost dominion over nature and mortality, destroying everything in his path in the process. All the while the Saviour waits, hands outstretched, longing to restore man to his God-given image. The most unique book the world has ever known, Gods loveletter to the human race, contains the solutions to the worlds problems and the remedy for the human paradox. A book as unique as the bible could only be supernatural in origin!
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Evidence For The Historical Jesus Cornelius Tacitus reports about the Christians in the time of Nero (A.D.64) and mentions that Christ was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Pliny, in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, concerning the "superstition" of Christianity, refers to Christ. Pliny was seeking council from Trajan as to how to treat the christians. Pliny had been killing all he could find (men, women, & children), and wondered if he should continue. Suetonius mentions the expulsion form Rome of certain Jews who had caused a great tumult under the influence of "Christus". (A.D.120) Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote a history of the Jews which he titled "Antiquities". Born in A.D. 37, Josephus is described as an egoist, motivated by self-interest, and a flatterer of the Romans. One statement in "Antiquities" gives an account of Herod's action in killing John The Baptist, which supports the validity of the Gospel records. Another passage makes specific statements about Jesus. Here it is: "Now about this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be called a man. For He was a doer of marvellous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over to himself many Jews and many also of the Greek nation. He was the Christ. And when on the indictment of the principal men among us Pilate had sentenced Him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease; for He appeared to them on the third day alive again. The divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And even now the tribe of Christians named after Him is not extinct. A third passage in Antiquities mentions Jesus in connection with James, His brother, whose murder by the Sanhedrin Josephus describes. There are also statements concerning Jesus in Josephus' work, "The Jewish Wars". Josephus is the principle source for Jewish history between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D. Recent archeological discoveries at Qumran and Masada have indicated that the accounts of Josephus are remarkably accurate and rank him as a topographer. His writings also speak of other Gospel personalities such as Herod, Pilate, Agrippa, Felix, etc. Arnold Toynbee rates him among the first five greatest Hellenic (Greek) historians, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Xenophon. There are several references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud. This Talmud is an extra-biblical sacred book of the Jews. It contains the record of laws and traditions which were not recorded in the Old Testament. The Talmud was compiled between the last century B.C. and the early second century A.D. It was completed by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi in A.D. 135-217. The references in the Talmud demonstrate some knowledge of Jesus as a historical figure but gives some indication of the scorn with which Rabbi's regarded him. For example, one passage refers to the hanging of Jeshu of Nazareth and mentions his practice of sorcery. Another refers to five disciples of Jesus by name, but none of the names coincide with the Gospels. Another passage describes a proselyte calling up the spirit of Jesus by spells while another refers to a man "born of a woman" who was to arise and "make himself God", against whom people were warned. There is a reference to Him departing and coming again. One portion warns that this man will lead the whole world astray. In two sayings there are descriptions of Jesus reflecting Jewish ridicule of the Virgin Birth. Lucian of Samosata was a satirist of the second century, who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. Thallus, a Gentile writer of A.D. 52, mentions Christ. However, his writings have disappeared and we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. A letter from a prisoner named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion, dated about A.D. 75, is preserved in the British Museum. In the letter Mara mentions the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgement for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given." The Encyclopedia Britanica, concerning the testimony of the many independant secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, records the following: "These independant accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th century." Enc. Brit. 15th Ed. 1974.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
Dan Boskovich offers what he calls "objective evidences" of Christianity. Are
they what he claims? Of course not. They are as presumptive as any proofs
that came before it: if you already believe there to be a god of the form you
would like, if you already accept the Bible as the word of god, it all makes
sense. If not, if you choose to think first and shirk a few assumptions, well,
let's see.
> Reliability of The New Testament
Like McDowell and Lewis before him, Boskovich claims that because the Bible
exists as a long standing, "reliable" document, it thus (??) must be the word
of god. This only "follows logically" if you already believe it. And, of
course, you must already believe in the existence of god to believe that the
Bible is his word. Where do you get evidence of that? In the Bible, of course!
The following three go into more detail about the remaining parts of Dan's
tetralogy. I would hope that Dan would want to include these comments in
his pamphlet as a rebuttal so as to really give a semblance of objectiveness
to the work. I doubt though that it is really his intention to be objective,
only to prove his conclusion at any cost. This is apparent from the nature
of his evidence, as documented in the next three articles.
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
> The Uniqueness of The Bible Though many major religions and belief systems throughout the world have their own sets of "holy" documents, Boskovich claims the Bible to be unique. A good look at each and every other document shows them all to be "just as" unique as the Bible. Each holding a different perspective, each offering different wisdom in a different way based on the culture that developed it. To say that the Bible is unique is to say nothing with regard to its supposed veracity. Boskovich states AS EVIDENCE supporting the Bible's veracity that it was written as no other book in history: by different people, at different times, in different places, in different languages! Impressive, but hardly evidence. > Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects which > would normally create oppossing opinions when discussed, yet biblical > writers spoke on these issues with harmony and continuity. To this day, it still creates opposing opinions when discussed. Normally. Of course, if those who follow the early authors accept their notions when writing later portions, continuity will seem to appear. Maybe they left out the non-continuous, non-agreeing portions that others wrote? Maybe they only included what fit? As those who would seek to prove the book's deific origin do? > Such a work, encompassing the lives of generations of individuals, > can only be accounted for by a common author, the Spirit of God. It can "only" be accounted for in this manner if you already assume it to be so. > Teaches contrary to human thought. > > Records the sins and failures of its own characters and own country. > > Even the greatest of the Heroes are shown at their worst. King David > commits adultry, Moses loses his temper and disobeys God, Elijah > falls into self-pity, Jonah disobeys God out of prejudice, Peter > denies Christ, Paul condemns himself for persecuting the church, > Jacob deceives his brother out of his birth right. Greek mythology doesn't show similar things? Why, in fact, they even show GODS behaving in those ways! Does this mean that (thus?) Greek mythology bears the real truth? Of course not. > The great prophets of Isreal and the Apostles accuse their country > of disobedience, wickedness, and apostasy. Ironic how the "Christians" of today despise those who point out the same things in their own society and (so-called) morality. > Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's > tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself > below his true nature. As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! "Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. > Man also has a tendency to avoid responsibility > for his own actions. This attribute of secular humanism, blaming our > environment, genes, and other people for our behaviour is nothing new. > It all began when God questioned Adam, "Did you eat of the fruit that > I told you not to eat?" Adam's irresponsible reply, "The WOMAN that YOU > GAVE ME gave me the fruit and I ate it!" Aesop's fables also provide good stories with good morals, but I don't see anyone today worshipping Greek gods because of it. Furthermore, you're right, it's nothing new. But it's nothing wrong, either. We ARE the products of our physical makeup, our environment, our sum and total experiences in life. Those who talk of responsibility seem more interested in pinning blame on others than actually taking responsibility themselves or encouraging it in others. More buzzwords with negative connotations like the dreaded "secular humanism". When you can actually point out something logically and ethically wrong with secular humanism beyond the fact that you don't like its point of view, let us all know. > The writer's of scripture could only have portrayed such an accurate > picture of man, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. ONLY, if you assume that in advance. What about all the other great writers throughout history and throughout the world. Very culturally centrist of you. > The bible is unique in its teaching about salvation. All religions of > the world have one thing in common. They all portray salvation as > attainable through human effort. The natural desire of man to earn > merit is completely absent in the writers of scripture as they, one > by one, from Genesis to Revelation, illustrate the inadequecy of man > and the Gracious gift of God: Salvation! So? The Bible has a different "line". Does that make it right? Only if you already believe in it. > The bible has survived various attacks and attempts to destroy it. Because so many people cling to what they wish for and hope for regardless of reason, evidence, and thinking, because they want it that way, and because they've been conditioned to think in that way. > Some powerful men in history have tried to rid the world of the holy > Scriptures, as others have predicted its demise. The French humanist, > Voltaire, boastfully proclaimed, "Fifty years from now the world will > hear no more of the Bible." That's what happens when you have too much faith in something. Too much faith, in this case, in the ability of reasoned people to educate masses of people in reasoned thought and analysis. > The Bible, is the only religious book in which there has never been > found a legitimate error. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and many other > "sacred" books contain gross errors and inconsistencies. What's a legitimate error? Any error uncovered (like the chronology of the whole story of creation) is plastered over with new "interpretation" to make it still fit, or (worse) the real world evidence is simply denied in favor of the original text. In such an atmosphere, how could you ever find an error? -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/02/85)
> > Reliability of The New Testament > > It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word > to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical > account can not be deemed reliable. It is argued that the accounts > would become distorted during their textual transmission. > > However, it can be shown that the New Testament documents are the most > reliable of all historical documents; and to reject the New Testament > records without rejecting all other historical documents and regarding > them unreliable, would be to act in utter bias and absurdity. This is incorrect. You are confusing historical accuracy with consistency of the historical record. An example of this would be an historian of the future finding a nazi propaganda movie intact in a vault say, and deducing the role nazis played, in that era's history, from it. I note with interest that you refer to The Histories by Herodetus in your article. You should read it to gain some insight into what was understood as "history" back then, and compare it to what we now understand by it. Herodetus was known as the "father of lies". Padraig Houlahan.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/02/85)
> Evidence For The Historical Jesus
This seems to be a mute point since very few people question whether he
existed, only whether he was in fact "the son of god".
Padraig Houlahan.padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/02/85)
> > The Resurrection > > Presupposing the reliability of scripture, it has been suggested that the > gospel writers may have been mistaken concerning the Resurrection, or > even purposely perpetrated such a hoax. In discussing the possibility > of such theories, several questions remain unanswered. Dan unfortunately is only more than willing to provide answers for us however. > Where did his body go? > > ... Did the soldiers fall asleep while guarding the tomb? > > To do so would have meant death for these highly trained soldiers. > The Roman soldiers were under the very strictest of discipline and > training. > > ... The soldiers were not able to explain the empty tomb. They were told what > to say and bribed by the Sanhedrin. I suppose bribery was consistent with their "very strictest" discipline and training. Gimme a break. > Was Jesus really dead? Jesus was beaten with a cat-of-nine-tails, slapped > in the head and face repeatedly, punctured in several places with a > crown of thorns (these thorns were about 3 inches long), spit upon, > made to carry his own heavy cross to calvary, and nailed to the cross. > How much can a man take? To survive all of that would be a MIRACLE! > > T. J. Thorburn -"The victims of crucifixion seldom recovered, even under > the most favorable circumstances." "Seldom" is not quite the same as "never". You have just destroyed your own case here. > Evidences in favor of the Resurrection: > > Jesus appeared to over 500 people after His Resurrection. > This could be taken as evidence that he never died. > The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of the Resurrection! Why? They > had no alternative conclusion! Go and take another look at Thorburn's statement that you have provided for us above. This would indicate that crucifixion on rare occasions was not fatal, in which case it would go unchallanged. > ... Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, > and a student of the great Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel. Why would Paul suddenly > on one of his roundups, give up all of his prestige and position, to > serve a being of which he had been persecuting the followers of, knowing > that he too would soon be persecuted. Maybe he guilt tripped? It has been known to happen. > Phenomenal growth even through persecution. The church grew by the millions > in the first century. The more they were put to death for their faith, > the more they attracted others who marvelled at their behaviour. So what? What has any of this got to do with the validity of the resurrection? The drug culture here thrives in spite of persecution. > God has provided us with a great supply of objective evidence. Perhaps you would care to provide Rich Rosen with some. I would also be interested in seeing some. Padraig Houlahan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy) (06/03/85)
from Dan Boskovich: > > Hello out there in netland. I am putting together a pamphlet on > "Objective Evidences For The Christian Faith" and I thought I > would try them out on you net.religioners for size. The articles > contain excerpts from various authors put together as concise as > possible. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or flame away. >Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion This series is poorly titled. Since it is actually an attempt to defend one very narrow brand of Christianity, it should actually have been titled: "Arguments for Christian Fundamentalism" Or would you claim that there is no other valid Religion or interpretation of the Bible than your own? > It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word > to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical > account can not be deemed reliable. Given that Fundamentalists usually interpret: "God's revealed word" ..to mean: "literally and absolutely true" ... I feel that the introduction `It is true that Christians...' and `Those who oppose' to be pretentious in the extreme. Whether you like it or not, many Christians have no problem reconciling the discoveries of science with their religious beliefs. One can only infer from your article that YOU do not consider such people to be Christians. > The bible is accurate in history, science, and most importantly, in > human nature. In your series, you have pigheadedly discredited or ignored all other faiths besides your blind mutation of Christianity; now you claim dominion in the realm of science. Religion perverts itself when it becomes the vehicle for the spreading of falsehoods. -michael
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/03/85)
In article <325@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boscovitch) writes: > > Reliability of The New Testament > > It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word > to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical > account can not be deemed reliable. It is argued that the accounts > would become distorted during their textual transmission. Your last sentence is a straw man. All the skeptics I know feel that the unreliability of the NT predates its writing. I, personally, place the fraud in the lap of JC and/or his apostles. > No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers > and attestation. In comparison, the "Iliad", by Homer, is second with > only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Funny you should pick a largely fictional work to compare the bible to. Perhaps fictional works survive better? > In all of these thousands of manuscripts, there is a discrepency rate > of less than 1 per cent while there is five per cent textual corruption > in the Iliad. 40 lines of the New Testament in question as compared to > 764 lines in the Iliad. Greater care has been taken to ensure accurate transmission of the New Testament than for the Illiad. A copiest may try to improve epic poetry, but had better not dare with sacred texts. So? > The New Testament has been transmitted to us with no or next to no > variation; and even the most corrupt form in which it has appeared, > the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact. So? How does this constitute evidence for religion? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/03/85)
In article <326@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boscovitch) writes: > > The Uniqueness of The Bible > > Unique in its continuity: > > Written over a 1500 year span; 40 generations. Assuming you believe it literally, perhaps it was written over that long a period. But continuous? Hardly. Most of those generations made no contribution other than mentions by some later generation in a "begat". There's a blatant geneological and generational gap between the OT and JC. > Written by over 40 authors from every walk of life (Kings, peasants, poets, > fisherman, herdsman, doctor, tax collector etc.) That's a subject of extensive debate. There is a well known 5 author hypothesis for the origin of the OT. > Written on three continents; Asia, Africa, Europe. Written where the three continents meet. This is the stupidest claim I've seen yet, unless you want to make that 4 continents and add in the Book of Mormon. > Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects which > would normally create oppossing opinions when discussed, yet biblical > writers spoke on these issues with harmony and continuity. With ~3000 years to make up explanations to try to make the whole thing harmonious, it's not surprising you claim that. However, the truth (appaent to anyone who looks at Christianity) is that since Christians can't agree what the writers meant, and are disharmonious, there's no reason to assume the writers all meant harmonious things. > The message is one great drama in which all parts fit together! > Such a work, encompassing the lives of generations of individuals, > can only be accounted for by a common author, the Spirit of God. Why? There's a tremendous non-sequiteur here. > Historical accounts found to be tremendously accurate. Confirmed by > other historians, by archealogy, by geography. Right. We've found the Garden of Eden, complete with flaming sword, huh? Accurate geography and day-to-day living is all you can really claim for the bible's accuracy, because that's all archaeologists and geologists can find out. In that respect, the bible ranks right up there with other famous works of fiction like "Gone with the Wind", which also was historically and geographically correct. But this gives us no reason to believe in the religion of the bible, since a secular work of fiction could do as well. > Records the sins and failures of its own characters and own country. > > Even the greatest of the Heroes are shown at their worst. King David > commits adultry, Moses loses his temper and disobeys God, Elijah > falls into self-pity, Jonah disobeys God out of prejudice, Peter > denies Christ, Paul condemns himself for persecuting the church, > Jacob deceives his brother out of his birth right. > > The great prophets of Isreal and the Apostles accuse their country > of disobedience, wickedness, and apostasy. You need to read the Bhagavad Gita. This is not unique. > The writer's of scripture could only have portrayed such an accurate > picture of man, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I guess you must be ignorant of literature. Or maybe you just don't dwell on it long enough to convince yourself of its accuracy and inspiration by the Holy spirit. > The bible has survived various attacks and attempts to destroy it. > Some powerful men in history have tried to rid the world of the holy > Scriptures, as others have predicted its demise. The French humanist, > Voltaire, boastfully proclaimed, "Fifty years from now the world will > hear no more of the Bible." In that year, the British Museum purchased > one manuscript of the Greek New Testament from the Russian government > for $500,000 while a copy of his own book was selling for eight cents > a copy! Fifty years after his death, bibles were being printed by the > Geneva Bible Society in the very house where Voltaire had lived and > on his presses! Every culture in the world attributes its worldly successes to its gods. Big deal. I'm sure this is as significant as the taking of Jerusulem by the Moslems X number of times. > The Bible, is the only religious book in which there has never been > found a legitimate error. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and many other > "sacred" books contain gross errors and inconsistencies. Sez you. Only someone with his head stuck in the sand can not be aware of the counter arguments. And only someone with his mind made up could accept this position. > The bible is accurate in history, science... The bible's scientific accuracy is a well-known subject of ridicule. Usually circumvented by claims of symbolism. > A book as unique as the bible could only be supernatural in origin! I have a piece of plastic in my hands. Given 3000 years of analysis, I could find umpty ump zillion ways this lump was unique. Does that make it supernatural in origin? Alternatively, I have the oldest known story. Does that make it supernatural in origin? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/03/85)
In article <327@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovitch) writes: > > Evidence For The Historical Jesus How does the fact that JC existed have any bearing on believing the stories about supernatural beings and miracles and the like? Mohammed existed too. So what? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/03/85)
In article <328@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Boskovich) writes: > > The Resurrection > Where did his body go? Unimportant, unless you believe the story of the resurrection. Perhaps the body was disposed of casually: the tomb could be a story. > Did the disciples steal it? Shortly before the crucifixion, the disciples > fled away like scared rabbits. Peter denied even knowing Jesus for > fear of his life. What is the probability that these 12 frightened sheep, > ruined and dejected at the loss of their shephard, would go to the tomb of > Jesus, face the Roman guards and all their weapons, move the stone and take > the body. Why would Romans guard the tomb of a heretic they had executed? Why would someone be foolish enough to claim the body, identifying themseleves as followers? > Evidences in favor of the Resurrection: > > Jesus appeared to over 500 people after His Resurrection. That's the STORY: this is nowhere supported outside of the bible. You already have to beleive the bible to accept this as evidence. That's called circular logic. > The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of the Resurrection! Why? They > had no alternative conclusion! No refutation has survived to today. Why? It might not have seemed important at the time, being an outrageous tale, and in any event how could it be refuted? Even if the actual body was produced, you couldn't convince anyone it was JC, rather than any other corpse. And you'd have to truck it all over the countryside, where ever the apostles went telling their lies. The best refutation then and now is that it just defies common sense. The alternative conclusion is that the ressurection story is a silly lie. > The transformed lives of the Apostles! After being frightened away > and left in a state of depression and self-pity, suddenly the Apostles > become brave, courageous, outspoken, empowered witnesses for Christ. > Facing prison, persecution, and death, the Apostles continued to > evangelize and proclaim the Gospel. No transformation involved. Jesus specifically had to dissuade the apostles from fighting for him prior to being lead away, if you believe the bible. As for the risk, it was no greater than that taken by many people then and now, in many faiths, political persuasions, armies, and crimes. It was a living. > The transformed lives of the last 1900 years. In every faith you can name. > The courage of the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Huss, etc. Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Ba'Ha Ulla, and the reformers in other faiths. > Not only was the Resurrection predicted by Christ over and over again, > but it was predicted in the Old Testament over 1000 years before it > happened. Psalm 22 vividly describes the Lord being crucified and > the purpose for it. Another dubious claim. Even if it were predicted, the apostles could have claimed it happened without its having happened. "Oh, Jesus appeared to over 500 people in the last town!" A shill in the audience: "I saw it!" > The choices are few: He was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or The Lord! I'm not going to bother to refute the liar/lunatic/god false dilemma in depth. It has been refuted here many times before. Suffice it to say that even wise and good people can lie fluently. I hope, Dan, that you will favor us with your revised versions that take all our criticisms into account. But I suspect you will ignore us and repeat these fallacious arguments anyhow, hoping to prey upon the uninformed. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (06/05/85)
> > Where did his body go? > > > > ... Did the soldiers fall asleep while guarding the tomb? > > > > To do so would have meant death for these highly trained soldiers. > > The Roman soldiers were under the very strictest of discipline and > > training. > > > > ... The soldiers were not able to explain the empty tomb. They were told what > > to say and bribed by the Sanhedrin. > > I suppose bribery was consistent with their "very strictest" discipline > and training. Gimme a break. GimME a break. It's one thing to train a soldier to do what you tell him to without question (stand guard without falling asleep), and it's another thing to make him be "moral" (not accept bribes). If you were to take a U.S. Army platoon and have them guard something over-night, you are going to be very surprised if they all fell asleep. (I would be surprised if any of them fall asleep during the first week of guard duty except when ordered "off duty" by their immediate C.O.--after that, provided that nothing ever happens to make them feel necessary, some of them might get lazy, but not all of them, and not all at once.) However, I doubt that you would be sur- prised if they wouldn't be perfectly willing to lie if the object they were guarding were to disappear mysteriously (putting them in jeapardy of Court Martial) and if there were a little cash to grease the process. They didn't pay the grunts enough money at that time, any more than they do now. Yes even the elite Praetorian Guard could have been in that situation and reacted in the same way. > > > Was Jesus really dead? Jesus was beaten with a cat-of-nine-tails, slapped > > in the head and face repeatedly, punctured in several places with a > > crown of thorns (these thorns were about 3 inches long), spit upon, > > made to carry his own heavy cross to calvary, and nailed to the cross. > > How much can a man take? To survive all of that would be a MIRACLE! > > > > T. J. Thorburn -"The victims of crucifixion seldom recovered, even under > > the most favorable circumstances." > > "Seldom" is not quite the same as "never". You have just destroyed your > own case here. He forgot three pieces of evidence without which the above objection would be valid. 1) Somebody rammed a spear into his side. We aren't talking your dainty little lance that looks like an olympic javelin here. We're talking about a broad-headed spear that's going to cut a good two-three inch wide swath at the very least. The idea was to make sure the criminal was dead, so it probably was directed up from the abdominal cavity into the chest cavity. Then it was reported that blood and water came out. I have heard a coronor's explanation of this but I can't remember it. But basically, the only way that you would get water out of a body like that would be if the person had already died. 2) The Romans weren't stupid. They knew when someone was dead. It is still POSSIBLE that Jesus was alive when he was taken down, but extremely unlikely. Even then, (I know that this is just an extension of the quoted argument, but it is an extension that you didn't answer) given the fact that Jesus looked bad enough to the guards to allow his followers to take him away, it is extremely unlikely that he could have recovered. 3) His body was embalmed. That means that his blood was drained. If you can survive having a large portion of your blood drained from your body, without any replacement, perhaps we should begin wondering whether you are more than just a man. (But then that is a pretty big 'if'.) > > ... Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, > > and a student of the great Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel. Why would Paul suddenly > > on one of his roundups, give up all of his prestige and position, to > > serve a being of which he had been persecuting the followers of, knowing > > that he too would soon be persecuted. > > Maybe he guilt tripped? It has been known to happen. > Guilt tripped about something that he believed was right? How many religious fanatics (which is what Paul was) "guilt trip"???? > > Phenomenal growth even through persecution. The church grew by the millions > > in the first century. The more they were put to death for their faith, > > the more they attracted others who marvelled at their behaviour. > > So what? What has any of this got to do with the validity of the resurrection? > The drug culture here thrives in spite of persecution. > With a very physically and psychologically addictive substance at the heart of the issue. Christianity might be "addictive", but then, perhaps that is just more evidence that there is some substance to it. There's more than one way to be savage Lowell Savage
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/07/85)
What Is Objective Evidence There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning. Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation" and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal reflections or feelings". Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view. You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was instrumental in the formation of your belief system. Lets suppose that you are unaffected by Christianity and can remain neutral or "objective". What possible "objective" evidences are there that could lead you to believe in it? Its teachings include: God created the universe and life, Man a free and moral agent rebelled against his creator which subsequently resulted in separation from God and moral depravity, God then justified and redeemed His creation through the Incarnation, Salvation is now offered as a gift, through faith. Are any of these acts on the part of God verifiable through observation? The answer would seem to be NO! Since none of us were there to witness any of it. However, what if we had been there to see it? Is this purely objective evidence? Might we not have been mistaken? Isn't the hand quicker than the eye? Could it have been an illusion or a dream? Have we not been affected by what we saw? If we take it to far, "objective evidence" seems to be non-existant. So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There has to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning what can be considered objective evidence! How do we know Abe Lincoln existed? How do we know Hitler existed? If we weren't there to see them, (even if you were, you still can't be sure what you saw was what you saw) why believe they ever existed? As a rational and reasonable person (obviously these terms are relative), one must enter into the situation with presuppositions. The first presupposition is that you exist. (Objectively unprovable) The next presupposition is that others exist. At this point we might say that a reasonable person could base (relative) truth on two things. What he has observed, and what others have observed and agreed upon. This is one way that truth can be ascertained in a court of Law. In other words, if several persons that had reputations for being trust- worthy, all agreed upon the same set of events of which they were all eyewitnesses, it would not be unreasonable to except their testimony as true. How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that Lincoln was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? By the testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their observations. Still, these observations are based on subjective perceptions. I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence". If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed earlier. For example, we can observe the change in Peter, with and without the power promised that would come through the Holy Spirit. We can observe the changed lives down through history from Paul to Luther to Colson. We can reasonably believe that Christ was raised from the dead since several honest, reputable, eyewitnesses have recorded their observations of the incident. (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc.) Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either. Dan
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/07/85)
In article <1019@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> The Uniqueness of The Bible > >> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. > >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. > > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Man: A Paradox Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the Eastern religions but not exclusively. The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care and concern, man is everything. This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of destroying life. The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse of the Hydrogen Bomb: "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! Through Christ, man's governing disposition can be changed. The raging tiger in man's heart can be overcome by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who came to earth as the Lamb of God. He can conquer and control man's fallen nature. Psalm 8:4-5 "What is man that you are mindful of him... For you have made him a little lower than the angels and have crowned him with glory and honor." Dan
padraig@utastro.UUCP (06/09/85)
> Man: A Paradox > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. > I thought God was supposed to have made man in his own image? Padraig Houlahan.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (06/09/85)
Dan Boskovich writes: > The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material > substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern > psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. Dan, you have really got to stop talking about things you know nothing about. If you were studying behaviorism and stated anything of that sort on one of the exams, I could guarantee you a failing grade. A paper of that sort submitted to a journal of behaviorism would not get past initial review. The whole point of behaviorism is to avoid that kind of metaphysical speculation and concentrate only on what can be proved by the scientific method. It is not materialistic, it is not degrading to humanity: it is merely a laboratory discipline used to guarantee verifiability of results. It provides no "final answers". Any discussion of "material substance and chemical processes" is anathema to behaviorism. The subject matter is behavior. The question of what internal processes cause behavior is explicitly not addressed, because no scientific method of establishing them yet exists. All behaviorist rules are of the sort "the presentation/removal of stimulus A has been followed in lab trials by an increase/decrease in the frequency of emission of operant B". You will find nary a word about anything except stimuli and operants, and super-structures such as schedules of reinforcement that are built on these. Skinner did publish "Verbal Behavior", in which he claimed to reduce all human behavior to operant processes. But his conclusions were met with immediate skepticism even within the behaviorist community, since such claims are unprovable and have been made many times before. Before Skinner, the Watsonians claimed that all behavior could be reduced to their models, and before them it was the Pavlovians. You will not find many behaviorists these days who would come out in public as being absolute adherents of Skinner's models in "Verbal Behavior". Your easy willingness to speak from a position of ignorance provides yet more evidence (as if any were needed) that you are indulging in post facto reasoning, intended not to find the answer to questions but to establish fixed conclusions that have already been reached on non-rational grounds. You can no more reason correctly in this fashion than you can bicycle in reverse from Maine to Wisconsin, or run a C program from the "exit(0)" to the "main(argc,argv)". Unfortunately, it is rather easier to delude yourself in the intellectual arena than on the roads or peering at a CRT. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
padraig@utastro.UUCP (06/09/85)
>> Me > Lowell Savage Regarding the soldiers at the tomb: >> I suppose bribery was consistent with their "very strictest" discipline >> and training. Gimme a break. >GimME a break. It's one thing to train a soldier to do what you tell him >to without question (stand guard without falling asleep), and it's another >thing to make him be "moral" (not accept bribes).... This is just begging the question. If the soldiers could be bribed after the death, as is claimed, then they could have been bribed at an earlier time, and told what to say. I was not implying that their morality was as strict as their discipline, whereas Dan was. On the subject of whether Jesus was dead when removed from the cross the following "evidence" is referred to: >1) Somebody rammed a spear into his side. ... > >2) The Romans weren't stupid. They knew when someone was dead. It is still >POSSIBLE that Jesus was alive when he was taken down, but extremely unlikely. >Even then,(I know that this is just an extension of the quoted argument, but it >is an extension that you didn't answer) given the fact that Jesus looked bad >enough to the guards to allow his followers to take him away, it is extremely >unlikely that he could have recovered. > >3) His body was embalmed. ... I don't know why you make the second point. I think that it is plausible that he never died. The dying later bit is conjecture. Basically we are faced with either accepting a miraculous event, or the possibility that the story got exaggerated. How great an exaggeration is the above compared with the claims (widely accepted at the time) that the russian army passed through Britain one night, during the last world war, while on the way to the front? How unreasonable is it to postulate that ardent admirers added a few extra details to help convince people of Jesus' divine nature? The motivation certainly existed to introduce some god-like attributes. You attempt to rationalize us into accepting the irrational, while rejecting a rational explanation that undermines a cherished belief. [about Paul being converted:] >> Maybe he guilt tripped? It has been known to happen. >> >Guilt tripped about something that he believed was right? How many religious >fanatics (which is what Paul was) "guilt trip"???? Who said that he guilt tripped "about something he believed was right"? To feel guilty is to feel that one is to blame for something. If we are not guilty, or to blame for something, then why do we hear so much about the need for us to be forgiven, and be "saved"? One can't be forgiven if there is nothing to forgive. On this basis, it follows that guilt, and Christianity go hand in hand. I think that it was St. Agustine who wrote about how he repented for years on having stole some fruit from a tree when he was a child. It was his works that influenced Catholic teaching, and still do, to this date. >>So what? What has any of this got to do with the validity of the resurrection? >> The drug culture here thrives in spite of persecution. >> >With a very physically and psychologically addictive substance at the heart >of the issue. Christianity might be "addictive", but then, perhaps that is >just more evidence that there is some substance to it. > > Lowell Savage Agreed, at least to the extent that the Moonies and the Hare Krishna cults have substance because they are addictive. Padraig Houlahan.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/09/85)
> What Is Objective Evidence > > There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning. > Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation" > and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and > finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal > reflections or feelings". > Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to > prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is > perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it > appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never > heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to > them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject > a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first > understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view. > You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was instrumental > in the formation of your belief system. This is all mixed up as far as I can tell. You are confusing proof of Christianity's truth, with proof of its existence. No one questions that they have been "affected" by Christianity in the sense that they have been exposed to it, but this is not the same as being exposed to evidence that does not rely on another's subjective interpretation. > ... So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There has > to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning what can > be considered objective evidence! > > ...How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that Lincoln > was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? By the > testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their observations. > Still, these observations are based on subjective perceptions. > > I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being > "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described > above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence". Not quite. You are overlooking the fact that evidence comes with many different degrees of reliability to be associated with it. You do this assignment yourself when you decide in favour of christianity instead of judaism or islam. In fact it is incorrect to decide first whether evidence is objective or not, and then follow its implications wherever they lead. Evidence must be interpreted in the light of the claims that are to be made based upon it i.e. exotic claims require evidence of extremely good quality. This is where the problem with the bible arises; Biblical claims are pretty fantastic, while the evidence to support has not been clearly demonstrated to be of a sufficiently high quality. > If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective > evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed > earlier. ... That is a very big "if". Assuming that it is true, you have yet to show that the listed Christian teachings constitute historical testimony - and I don't mean that they are old and part of history, but that their contents are reliable, unbiased, and unexaggerated accounts of early christianiaty. > Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption > that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either. > > Dan The last point could be interpreted as indicating that he never died. As long as you want to be reasonable you should consider that the burden of proof rests with the claimant therefore the first point is worthless. Padraig Houlahan.
root@trwatf.UUCP (06/10/85)
In article <340@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > Man: A Paradox > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. I wouldn't call this a paradox. Man has it in him to do both good and evil. That's not a paradox. That's called reality. > This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man.... > This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, > bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. > Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of > destroying life. Views? Nope. Observations. > The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's > behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, > noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores > his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit > himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, > prejudice, and power struggle... > > Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up > a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. > You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! Which only tells us that the set of things considered to be "good" is smaller and more restrictive than the set of things considered to be "wrong." Is man inherently evil? Does evil overwhelm good without some higher guiding hand (be it God, social order, what have you)? Well that might make a good experiment on some isolated and remote world. Hmmmmmmm, a world called "Earth" perhaps. This also brings into question the definitions of "good" and "evil." Are the terms "good" and "evil" simply labels placed on certain social and personal behavior and modes of thought or what? There's more here than meets the eye. > Through Christ, man's governing disposition can be changed. The raging > tiger in man's heart can be overcome by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, > who came to earth as the Lamb of God. He can conquer and control man's > fallen nature. Ick... this is almost as bad as MY poetry. Labeling things as "paradoxes" and "enigmas" and "mysteries" of the universe is really saying nothing. Words like this simply gild the issue. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/12/85)
Could someone please send me a copy of the parent article to this one <340@scgvaxd.UUCP> from Dan Boskovich. It never arrived here at Piscataway, and since it seems to be a followup to an article of mine, and since the excerpts I've seen from it in responses to it are most intriguing, I'd like a chance to respond to it. (It was the one in which Dan mentioned behaviorism as a negative view of humanity as "just another animal", among other things. Thank you in advance. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jomibase@ihu1h.UUCP (opperman) (06/13/85)
> > Man: A Paradox > > > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. > > > > I thought God was supposed to have made man in his own image? > > Padraig Houlahan. In his image, not a xerox copy. -- C.J. Opperman ihu1h!jomibase IH 2D315A x5014
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/19/85)
>> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. [BOSKOVICH] >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. [ROSEN] * Man: A Paradox * * Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is * a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. * This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. Well, those words "noble" and "depraved" are sure laced with subjective judgment there. Who defines noble? Depraved? If you get right back to your own bible (that which you're trying to prove), you haven't said anything. * The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material * substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern * psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. * * The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to * be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own * nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the * Eastern religions but not exclusively. Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called "anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., themselves) that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. "Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to support it? * The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness * of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care * and concern, man is everything. Another example of the wishful thinking school of justification. Lost in the vastness of the universe, humans might see themselves as "nothing" (depending on their perspective---with respect to our immediate surroundings, none of us is nothing, but in the universe as a whole we are less significant, yet somehow still having an effect on our surroundings). Does that mean that because someone feels that way, there MUST be a deity who, through its "care and concern" makes that person feel like "everything"? * This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, * bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. * Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of * destroying life. * The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's * behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, * noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores * his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit * himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, * prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the * senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass * will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man * has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse * of the Hydrogen Bomb: * "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. * "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. * * Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up * a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. * You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! As someone else said, that is because there are many more "bad" things one can do than "good", so statistically your conclusion might be valid. But I don't think so. What makes a person act in a good fashion? What makes societies form rules based on "good"? (i.e., actions not harmful to others). What does that mean "no instruction as he grows"? Left alone, without the interaction of others, a child might grow up solely seeking his/her own best interests. Put the child in an environment with others (not his/her parents, who may choose to spoil and indulge him/her and thus truly "spoil" the child's upbringing), and see how long the child takes to learn what it takes to live with other people. Perhaps, like a microcosm of human history, the children will at first fight until the point where they realized (as some elements of humanity have throughout history) what cooperation and respect for other people mean. Moreover, let's look at your definition of "misbehave". No one had to teach the child to do what felt good and what was in its best self-interests. In a world where the child was by himself/herself, what is "evil" about that? Of course, the child is not alone in the world. It is in relation to behavior towards others that behavior that HARMS other people can be considered evil. Every organism on the planet acts in its best interests. Is a predator evil for killing and eating its prey? If anything could be said at all about humanity's good and evil, the fact that humans can seek out a longer term good for more people bespeaks our "good" side. My thanks to all those who sent me a copy of Dan's article. I'd still like to hear what he has to say directly about all our comments on his "pamphlet". Does he still intend to publish it after all we've said? Can we thus assume that its purpose is not to provide objective evidence but to "convince" those who want to be convinced. (Not exactly the hardest job in the world.) By the way, I understand that Dan wrote another article (<339@scgvaxd.UUCP>??) on other aspects of the objective evidence debate. I would appreciate it if someone (hopefully the author) would send me a copy of that. Thanks in advance. (I have to wonder why people who yell at me and call me all sorts of heinous things would WANT to send me an article knowing that I'm going to respond to it more than likely in a way they're not likely to like. I didn't know masochism was so rampant. But thanks. :-) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/08/85)
>> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. [BOSKOVICH] >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. [ROSEN] * Man: A Paradox * * Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is * a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. * This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. Well, those words "noble" and "depraved" are sure laced with subjective judgment there. Who defines noble? Depraved? If you get right back to your own bible (that which you're trying to prove), you haven't said anything. * The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material * substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern * psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. * * The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to * be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own * nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the * Eastern religions but not exclusively. Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called "anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., themselves) that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. "Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to support it? * The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness * of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care * and concern, man is everything. Another example of the wishful thinking school of justification. Lost in the vastness of the universe, humans might see themselves as "nothing" (depending on their perspective---with respect to our immediate surroundings, none of us is nothing, but in the universe as a whole we are less significant, yet somehow still having an effect on our surroundings). Does that mean that because someone feels that way, there MUST be a deity who, through its "care and concern" makes that person feel like "everything"? * This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, * bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. * Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of * destroying life. * The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's * behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, * noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores * his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit * himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, * prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the * senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass * will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man * has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse * of the Hydrogen Bomb: * "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. * "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. * * Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up * a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. * You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! As someone else said, that is because there are many more "bad" things one can do than "good", so statistically your conclusion might be valid. But I don't think so. What makes a person act in a good fashion? What makes societies form rules based on "good"? (i.e., actions not harmful to others). What does that mean "no instruction as he grows"? Left alone, without the interaction of others, a child might grow up solely seeking his/her own best interests. Put the child in an environment with others (not his/her parents, who may choose to spoil and indulge him/her and thus truly "spoil" the child's upbringing), and see how long the child takes to learn what it takes to live with other people. Perhaps, like a microcosm of human history, the children will at first fight until the point where they realized (as some elements of humanity have throughout history) what cooperation and respect for other people mean. Moreover, let's look at your definition of "misbehave". No one had to teach the child to do what felt good and what was in its best self-interests. In a world where the child was by himself/herself, what is "evil" about that? Of course, the child is not alone in the world. It is in relation to behavior towards others that behavior that HARMS other people can be considered evil. Every organism on the planet acts in its best interests. Is a predator evil for killing and eating its prey? If anything could be said at all about humanity's good and evil, the fact that humans can seek out a longer term good for more people bespeaks our "good" side. My thanks to all those who sent me a copy of Dan's article. I'd still like to hear what he has to say directly about all our comments on his "pamphlet". Does he still intend to publish it after all we've said? Can we thus assume that its purpose is not to provide objective evidence but to "convince" those who want to be convinced. (Not exactly the hardest job in the world.) By the way, I understand that Dan wrote another article (<339@scgvaxd.UUCP>??) on other aspects of the objective evidence debate. I would appreciate it if someone (hopefully the author) would send me a copy of that. Thanks in advance. (I have to wonder why people who yell at me and call me all sorts of heinous things would WANT to send me an article knowing that I'm going to respond to it more than likely in a way they're not likely to like. I didn't know masochism was so rampant. But thanks. :-)