Among the many false and misleading claims being made about Jesus' infancy at Debunking Christianity, we read the following comments by Steven Carr:
"After such an auspicious start to his life, why were his family suprised when Jesus started his ministry? Didn't those events give them a little clue that Jesus was special? The answer is that such scepticism is only in Mark, who does not have a birth narrative."
I discussed this issue with Steven two years ago on the TheologyWeb boards. He brought the subject up in a thread on another topic, and when his off-topic objection was refuted, he left the thread. And now, two years later, we see him repeating the same error.
Do the gospels refer to Jesus' family as "surprised"? No. Do the gospels deny that some people, such as His family, viewed Him as "special"? No. For more on this subject, see my recent comments elsewhere. All four gospels, not just Mark, portray Jesus' family as sometimes misunderstanding and opposing Him (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:57, Luke 2:48-50, 8:19-21, John 2:3-4, 7:5), much as His disciples sometimes did. See, further, Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). Mark agrees with the other gospels that Jesus' relatives and others opposed Him even after seeing and hearing about some of His miracles, so the opposition can't be a result of their not having heard of anything supernatural about Him. And while Mark doesn't have an infancy account, he does suggest that Jesus was God (Mark 1:3) and that He was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48, 11:1-11), for example, in agreement with Matthew and Luke, and he agrees with Matthew and Luke about the presence of anticipation of Jesus' ministry before the ministry began (Mark 1:2-8). The gospel of John apparently was written after the gospels of Matthew and Luke, yet John also decided not to include an infancy account. Mark's choice to do the same doesn't prove that he was unaware of what Matthew and Luke report.
You mean all that stuff happened where Mary was told that she was carrying 'God with us', and his family observed 30 years of literally Christ-like behaviour, and observed that Jesus was the only Jew never to make an offering for sin, and they still opposed him?
ReplyDeleteIf only the people who knew Jesus best, and had seen him and lived with him, if only they had the faith in Jesus that Jason does.
Jason puts the faith of the people who knew Jesus personally to shame.
In reality, Jason's faith in Jesus is a living proof that the Gospel's depictions are false when they claim that the disciples and the family of Jesus did not have the faith of a Jason.
Let us take another person supposedly marked as special by the Angel Gabriel.
I wonder why Muhammad's uncle, Abu Lahab, opposed Muhammad, even after Muhammad had received a divine revelation about Abu Lahab himself.
Abu Lahab threw the entrails of a goat over Muhammad.
I guess there seems to be a general pattern in history that family members aren't impressed by divine revelations from the Angel Gabriel.
Jason is impressed though, and he hasn't one hundredth of the evidence supposedly available to Jesus family, Abu Lahab or the disciples, who even doubted in Matthew 28:17
Steven,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you ignoring what I told you in our discussion two years ago and what I wrote in the first post in this thread?
As I've told you repeatedly, Jesus' relatives and other people continued to oppose Him after His public ministry began. If they could oppose Him after He performed miracles as an adult, why should we think that they couldn't have done so if miracles had occurred 30 years earlier? The early Jewish opponents of Christianity recognized that Jesus performed miracles, but they attributed those activities to Satan, as we see in the gospels and elsewhere (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq12.html). The performance of miracles isn't the only issue involved.
Mary would have known that Jesus was unusual and that there were supernatural elements in His life, but she also would have known what the common expectations for the Messiah were, and she would have heard the arguments of the religious leaders to the effect that Jesus was empowered by Satan, for example. She would have to take all of these factors into consideration, and what all four of the gospels suggest is that she struggled with it. (Your earlier claim that this is reflected only in Mark's gospel is false, as I've shown, and you aren't even attempting to defend your initial claim.) She knew of some supernatural aspects of Jesus’ life, but she also knew that He was a poor carpenter who wasn't fulfilling some common expectations for the Messiah, wasn't approved by the religious leadership, was associated with some of the most sinful people in society, and could be empowered by Satan rather than God. She also would have known that there would be some significant negative consequences to following Jesus. Even Jesus' closest disciples abandoned Him when He was getting close to the cross.
As I told you in our discussion two years ago, the Christian claim that Jesus was sinless doesn't require that everybody would recognize Him as sinless. As Luke 2:48-50 and John 2:3-4 illustrate, Mary could hold some form of heightened view of Jesus, yet still misunderstand Him or think that He was wrong at times, as Peter did. In Luke 2:48, for example, Mary mistakenly concludes that Jesus had mistreated His parents. The fact that Mary perceived that Jesus had done something wrong doesn't mean that He did something wrong. His sinlessness didn't require recognition from other people. As the apostle Paul illustrates, a person who opposed Jesus and considered Him a sinner could later conclude that he had been wrong (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Mary repeatedly is "perplexed" and "ponders" the meaning of what she’s told, and she asks questions (Luke 1:29, 1:34, 2:19, 2:33). The same sort of surprise, questioning, and uncertainty is seen in other people involved in the infancy accounts (Matthew 2:1-9, Luke 1:12, 1:18, 1:66, 2:18, 2:33). Being impressed by a supernatural event or understanding that Jesus was unusual in some manner isn’t equivalent to having the sort of faith Christians would have later, after events such as Jesus’ public ministry, His resurrection, and the building up of the church. How people first reacted to the events of the infancy narratives, when everything was unexpected and new to them and they hadn’t thought about these issues much, would be different from how they reacted after the passing of more time and after having to take more factors into account.
You write:
"If only the people who knew Jesus best, and had seen him and lived with him, if only they had the faith in Jesus that Jason does....I guess there seems to be a general pattern in history that family members aren't impressed by divine revelations from the Angel Gabriel. Jason is impressed though, and he hasn't one hundredth of the evidence supposedly available to Jesus family, Abu Lahab or the disciples, who even doubted in Matthew 28:17"
What you're suggesting is that relatives would know better than we do whether we should believe these claims. Then why aren't you a Christian, Steven? Whatever doubts Jesus' family had at some points or however they reacted to other influences, they were believers later, and there was early belief as well in the cases of Joseph and Mary. If they struggled like Peter did, but ultimately were believers, then how would following their example lead us to your conclusion?
I think Steve's point, Jason, is that it is quite absurd to think that Jesus' relatives could still doubt after all of the miracles they witnessed, and yet you're so confident and you've seen nothing. Imagine if you had seen miracles? The point is these stories are just not believable. They aren't realistic. These people aren't real.
ReplyDeleteYou could point to many such things in the gospels. Take the event of the resurrection. Jesus tells his disciples he's going to be betrayed, tried, scourged, killed, and then on the third day he will rise. So what happens? The disciples watch as he's betrayed, tried, scourged, and then killed. Even the Jews think to post guards because they know he has predicted he will rise. But the disciples don't think to watch the tomb and see if something happens. They've seen the miracles and the predictions are fulfilled to a tee. But when the disciples hear reports that the tomb is empty they're confused. The women's words seem like "idle tales." The women leave "wondering what had happened." Peter sees the empty tomb but has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead.
These people are caricatures. They aren't real. The disciples make for a good foil, showing Jesus to be calm and in control despite these moron buffoons around him. But they reveal this as just a story.
Carr usually gets around to mentioning that the disciples doubted after seeing the risen Jesus (even though I think what they were doubting is different than what he thinks they were doubting) so why can't Carr be consistent and allow Jesus' family to doubt or be unsure after the incredible things they had witnessed?
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be because Carr is willing to be inconsistent and allow different possibilities depending on how they could be used to attack Christianity? I wonder..
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"I think Steve's point, Jason, is that it is quite absurd to think that Jesus' relatives could still doubt after all of the miracles they witnessed, and yet you're so confident and you've seen nothing."
You've given us no reason to think that you know what my degree of confidence is or that it's inappropriate. I don't have to have as much confidence as an eyewitness in order to be as confident as I am.
You didn't see what Paul and the other resurrection witnesses saw, yet you believe that they were wrong in their conclusions about what they had seen. You even go so far as to claim that the early Christians and their enemies were mistaken in thinking that Jesus had existed as a historical figure. They were much closer to the events and relevant sources, yet you claim to understand such issues better than they did.
In addition to having the advantage of seeing events I didn't see, Jesus' relatives had some disadvantages. They lived in an environment in which there were Messianic expectations of a more political nature. They lived in an atmosphere of less religious pluralism and less social individualism. They were under the influence of religious leaders who not only were opposed to Jesus, but also had the ability to make life highly difficult for people who supported Him. They hadn't experienced later events that are now part of the historical record. The New Testament documents and other sources tell us that Jesus' relatives initially believed and that they lived as faithful Christians later in life, but were unfaithful to differing degrees inbetween. When they are unfaithful in some manner, it's for different reasons from case to case. In Luke 2:48-50, for example, why is Mary's lack of understanding of Jesus supposed to lead us to your conclusions? Similarly, Peter sometimes lacked faith and misunderstood Jesus and His mission, but it doesn't therefore follow that Peter didn't believe that Jesus performed any miracles, that I should emulate Peter's lack of faith, or that I should ignore the times when Peter did have faith. For you to single out the times when Jesus' relatives were unfaithful in some manner, then conclude that I shouldn't be "so confident" in my faith, doesn't make sense.
You write:
"Imagine if you had seen miracles? The point is these stories are just not believable. They aren't realistic. These people aren't real."
As I said before, there's more involved than "seeing miracles". (In the case of Jesus' siblings, they wouldn't have seen the infancy narrative events themselves. They weren't alive yet.) You also have to interpret the significance of what you see. Ancient Judaism had a belief system involving more than one supernatural agent. The Old Testament repeatedly refers to supernatural activity of an evil nature. The argument that Jesus was empowered by Satan appears early (Mark 3:22), and it was utilized by Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity for centuries (for example, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq12.html). You claim that such people "aren't real", but we see such people repeatedly in the historical record and in today's world. Modern people who claim to have seen a case of demon possession, for example, don't place their faith in the person possessed or in the demon. Rather, they would tend to hold a negative view of both. Similarly, the earliest Jewish opponents of Christianity didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles. Rather, they attributed the miracles to Satan. Witnessing miracles doesn't prevent people from questioning the source of the miracle or distancing themselves from the person the miracle is associated with for some other reason. Even miracle workers perceived to be from God can be viewed as fallible.
We have to distinguish here between different types of unfaithfulness. In Mark 3:20-35, for example, Jesus' relatives in all likelihood didn't oppose Jesus in the same manner that the religious leaders did. All of the gospels agree that Jesus' relatives still associated with Him and tried to visit Him, for example, and there's no indication that they joined the religious leaders in trying to have Him executed. They didn't oppose Him to that extent. In Mary's case, Luke 2:48-51 and John 2:3-5 probably best illustrate the balance involved. She had some faith, but she was a sinner who was sometimes ignorant and had some misconceptions.
If you want us to believe that "these people aren't real", then where are the historical sources who said so? Was everybody deceived? Why would the early Christians fabricate the concept that Jesus' relatives sometimes opposed Him? For example, Paul refers to James as a resurrection witness (1 Corinthians 15:7) and a faithful Christian (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19-2:10), along with at least one other brother of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:5). What we know about James from Acts, Josephus, and other sources is consistent with what Paul reports. Why would the Christians fabricate accounts that portrayed James as having been an unbeliever earlier? I doubt that James' children or other relatives or associates would want that said about him if it wasn't true. Even liberal scholars date Mark's gospel to the sixties, and that gospel is based on earlier traditions. James lived into the sixties, so a lot of people who knew him would still be alive at the time.
You write:
"You could point to many such things in the gospels. Take the event of the resurrection. Jesus tells his disciples he's going to be betrayed, tried, scourged, killed, and then on the third day he will rise. So what happens? The disciples watch as he's betrayed, tried, scourged, and then killed. Even the Jews think to post guards because they know he has predicted he will rise. But the disciples don't think to watch the tomb and see if something happens. They've seen the miracles and the predictions are fulfilled to a tee. But when the disciples hear reports that the tomb is empty they're confused. The women's words seem like 'idle tales.' The women leave 'wondering what had happened.' Peter sees the empty tomb but has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead. These people are caricatures. They aren't real. The disciples make for a good foil, showing Jesus to be calm and in control despite these moron buffoons around him. But they reveal this as just a story."
Again, even liberal scholars date Mark to the sixties. Some of the apostles and their associates were still alive. They and the people who knew them wouldn't have been interested in fabricating accounts to portray them as "buffoons" for something as insignificant as offering a foil to Jesus. Even if one author of the gospels had such an interest, it's highly unlikely that all four would have had the same concern and the same dishonesty and would have expressed it in the same way and that no traces of people objecting would be left in the historical record.
Mark refers to Jesus as "very distressed and troubled...deeply grieved to the point of death" (14:33-34). Yet, you tell us that the unfaithfulness of the disciples was fabricated to "show Jesus to be calm and in control". Instead of fabricating accounts of the disciples as "buffoons", why didn't Mark refrain from referring to how distressed Jesus was? The early Christians didn't need to see the apostles as "buffoons" in order to be confident that Jesus was "in control". And they didn't need Jesus to be "calm", since there's nothing wrong with Jesus' being distressed about what He was going through (Matthew 26:38, Mark 14:33-34, Luke 22:42, John 12:27).
You tell us that the disciples should "think to watch the tomb and see if something happens". They wouldn't have to watch the tomb in order to know whether something happened.
You tell us that "Peter sees the empty tomb but has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead". Where do the gospels say that? They don't. We're not told anywhere that they "had no concept that perhaps" it would happen. What the gospels tell us is what the people involved considered likely at the time, not what they considered possible. When the reports of the women were rejected as "idle tales" (Luke 24:11), it was known that a resurrection was being claimed (Luke 24:6). Thomas knew that a resurrection was being claimed when he doubted (John 20:25). It's not as if the possibility of resurrection never entered their minds.
Jesus had just died a highly shameful and painful death, and they knew that the same could happen to them (John 20:19). Whatever faith they had left in Him could be hesitant, even though it shouldn't have been.
The disciples' reluctance to believe that the Messiah would suffer, die, and rise in such a manner is seen repeatedly in their reactions to the predictions (Matthew 16:22, Mark 9:10). They didn't have two thousand years to become accustomed to the concept, as we've had. They may have interpreted Jesus' comments as references to the general resurrection, as Martha did in John 11:24, since that was the view that was popular in the Judaism of that time. They also may have had a resuscitation in mind, since there were many precedents for it in Jewish history and in Jesus' ministry. The same is true of the religious authorities in Matthew 27:63-64.
Crucifixion was common, particularly for a person as disruptive of society as Jesus was, so the fact that Jesus had been executed "to a tee", as you put it, wouldn't have prevented people from doubting that something as unusual as a pre-eschatological resurrection would occur or that a resuscitation would occur. The religious leaders who accused Jesus of being empowered by Satan were the ones who arranged for His crucifixion. Some of Jesus' followers may have thought that it remained to be seen whether God would vindicate Him or, instead, His death was a vindication of the religious authorities.
There are multiple possible reasons why they would have reacted as the gospels portray. We aren't given much information, and different people may have had different perceptions and motives. (See my comments above regarding different types of unfaithfulness.) We have good evidence for Jesus' predictions of His death and resurrection. See, for example, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004), pp. 29-30 and Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 432-433. The gospels tell us that those predictions weren't understood by some of the people who heard them, and that makes sense in light of the common Messianic expectations and common views of resurrection at that time. (Even a phrase like "on the third day" could be interpreted along the lines of the non-literal "third day" of Hosea 6:2 rather than as Jesus intended. People probably would have been looking for such an alternative understanding if they didn't think that Jesus' prediction made sense in light of common Messianic expectations and common views of resurrection.) It also would make sense that some people would have some doubts even if they partially or entirely understood what Jesus meant. More goes into doubt than an objective analysis of all of the relevant data. People are often influenced by emotions and impressions (such as the emotions and impressions involved in seeing your master publicly shamed, beaten, and nailed to a cross naked by people who would like to do the same to you), and people don't always think logically. If all four gospels agree that Jesus predicted His resurrection, yet some of His followers were skeptical, that's probably because Jesus predicted His resurrection, yet some of His followers were skeptical.
Your alternative is to suggest that all of the gospels fabricated these accounts, that Jesus didn't even exist, and that the contemporaries of the purported events who were still alive when the gospels were written (and the traditions behind them circulating) didn't prevent these fabricated accounts from being widely accepted. And you speculate that these early sources fabricated the accounts about the disciples to make Jesus look better in comparison to "buffoons". You tell us that the same gospel authors who refer to Jesus as "very distressed and troubled", "deeply grieved to the point of death", wanting the cup to pass from Him, etc. were trying to portray Him as "calm and in control". You keep overlooking problems with your own arguments, including some that are so significant that even liberal scholarship disagrees with you, while objecting to less significant difficulties in the Christian worldview. You frequently strain gnats while swallowing camels.
You didn't see what Paul and the other resurrection witnesses saw, yet you believe that they were wrong in their conclusions about what they had seen. You even go so far as to claim that the early Christians and their enemies were mistaken in thinking that Jesus had existed as a historical figure. They were much closer to the events and relevant sources, yet you claim to understand such issues better than they did.
ReplyDeleteHow many fallacies can you cram into just a couple of sentences. Start with a red herring about how I think they're wrong in what they think they saw. It's irrelevant to my point. Proceed to bring up a completely unrelated subject. Proceed with another red herring. Anything but dealing with the issue.
In addition to having the advantage of seeing events I didn't see, Jesus' relatives had some disadvantages.
So let's see if I got this straight. Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel and became pregnant without intercourse. Her husban Joseph is miraculously visited by angels and warned to flee before Herod's slaughter. She witnesses water into wine and however many more miracles. All that seems like it would give a real person confidence that there is something special about their son. Heck, most people think their kids are the greatest thing in the world even without miracles. But wait. Mary lived in a time where messianic expectation was high. Jesus was opposed. Well gosh that would make any normal person sweep all the miraculous happenings aside and doubt that there son was really who the angels claimed he was and what the miracles demonstrated he was. You are living in an alternate universe, Jason. There's not much more I can say.
You claim that such people "aren't real", but we see such people repeatedly in the historical record and in today's world.
Show me a real person that really is visited by angels confirming the authenticity of a person, really watches that person perform authentic miracles, and yet manages to doubt that person. Show me real people that watch miracles, watch 10 predictions fulfilled perfectly, yet doubt the 11th prediction. I stand by my claim, and nothing you've said overturns it.
Reality is exactly the opposite. People require little evidence at all, or in some cases no evidence, to believe divine claims from people. Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson. Heck, even you are confident (you admitted yourself that you are, despite other statements you've made distancing yourself from the description of "confident). Yet you've seen nothing remotely close to what Mary supposedly saw and experienced. Benny Hinn's followers have seen nothing. Yet they still believe. That's the real world. The gospels portray a fantasy world.
Similarly, the earliest Jewish opponents of Christianity didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles. Rather, they attributed the miracles to Satan.
Despite the irrelevant nature of your claim, I would point out that they thought all kinds of people were miracle workers. Do you accept their claims when they talk about people other than Jesus?
If you want us to believe that "these people aren't real", then where are the historical sources who said so? Was everybody deceived? Why would the early Christians fabricate the concept that Jesus' relatives sometimes opposed Him?
Possibly we're dealing with competing factions. Early on James is highly regarded, but later for whatever reason people want to drive a wedge between those that are perceived as his blood relatives and him. You'll notice that James is never described in the gospels as a former skeptic that is converted. Jesus' siblings are always skeptics. That's an odd portrayal if in fact James is highly regarded. Robert Eisenman argues that James the Just undergoes evolution for this reason and becomes James the brother of John, and is also cloned into James the son of "Alphaeus" in the later gospels. Supposedly Papias says that Alphaeus is interchangeable with Cleophas, which apparently happens to be the name of Simeon's father, who is James successor as bishop of Jerusalem and also his brother. See Robert Price's review of Eisenmen's work here:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html
Again, even liberal scholars date Mark to the sixties. Some of the apostles and their associates were still alive.
By the time Marks gospel (written to a greek audience far removed from Palestine) would have reached them who knows if they'd still be alive.
They and the people who knew them wouldn't have been interested in fabricating accounts to portray them as "buffoons" for something as insignificant as offering a foil to Jesus.
Unless the authors don't really know the disciples and their goal is simply to exalt Jesus.
Even if one author of the gospels had such an interest, it's highly unlikely that all four would have had the same concern and the same dishonesty and would have expressed it in the same way and that no traces of people objecting would be left in the historical record.
Two of the authors are copying the first, and the 4th author may be basing his story on the three of them. It's not as if we have 4 independent authors.
Mark refers to Jesus as "very distressed and troubled...deeply grieved to the point of death" (14:33-34). Yet, you tell us that the unfaithfulness of the disciples was fabricated to "show Jesus to be calm and in control".
Of course that depends on which gospel you read. Mark has things out of control, but not Luke. But regardles, even in Mark the disciples are a foil for the hero Jesus even if Jesus is sometimes in anguish. They are morons. There's no question about that. They are so stupid as to be unreal. In Mark 6 Jesus feeds the 5 thousand with a little fish and bread. Get to Mark 8 and Jesus talks about how he needs to feed the crowds. How do the disciples react? "But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?" These people are unreal.
You tell us that the disciples should "think to watch the tomb and see if something happens". They wouldn't have to watch the tomb in order to know whether something happened.
I suppose not. Logically. But real, normal people would have been so excited. "Wait till Jesus shows 'em." They would have been busting.
You tell us that "Peter sees the empty tomb but has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead". Where do the gospels say that? They don't.
They do. John 20:9 says that even after seeing the empty tomb they "still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead." HELLO!! Jesus has already said this would happen, as even the Jewish authorities think to place guards. But the prime eyewitnesses to the miracles still can't figure it out.
Thomas knew that a resurrection was being claimed when he doubted (John 20:25). It's not as if the possibility of resurrection never entered their minds.
All the more reason to recognize these stories as simply that; stories. Thomas witnesses miracle upon miracle, prediction upon prediction, and those predictions are fulfilled. Real people would be busting with excitement waiting for Jesus' triumphal resurrection. The empty tomb is reported to Thomas and he still doesn't believe. It's unreal. Like I said, you believe with no miracles. Benny Hinn is very popular and the evidence is non-existant. That's how real people operate.
Your alternative is to suggest that...
My alternative is beside the point. This is more examples of the fallacious nature of your reasoning. It doesn't matter if I think Jesus is myth or if I even disagree with liberal scholars, or I'm an "extremist" or if I like to "strain gnats" or whatever. The unrealistic nature of the gospel portrait of the disciples remains regardless of the number of fallacies you want to interject. That unrealistic portrait is all the more pronounced as we look at the high confidence you have based upon much less evidence and the low confidence the supposed followers of Jesus had based upon much greater evidence. Everyone else makes claims that are "ridiculous" and "absurd" but your position is so much more reasonable. That's the way real religious people operate. Confidence in their beliefs despite poor evidence. Your own behavior proves your argument here wrong.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Start with a red herring about how I think they're wrong in what they think they saw. It's irrelevant to my point."
No, it's not irrelevant. If you can question people's interpretations of what they experienced, then why can't I? You criticized me for being more confident than Jesus' relatives were when they were unfaithful to Him. Why can't I conclude that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they experienced, as you do with the apostle Paul, for example?
You write:
"Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel and became pregnant without intercourse. Her husban Joseph is miraculously visited by angels and warned to flee before Herod's slaughter. She witnesses water into wine and however many more miracles. All that seems like it would give a real person confidence that there is something special about their son. Heck, most people think their kids are the greatest thing in the world even without miracles. But wait. Mary lived in a time where messianic expectation was high. Jesus was opposed. Well gosh that would make any normal person sweep all the miraculous happenings aside and doubt that there son was really who the angels claimed he was and what the miracles demonstrated he was. You are living in an alternate universe, Jason. There's not much more I can say."
All that you're doing is repeating your argument that these people saw miracles, then you add the comment "you are living in an alternate universe, Jason". You aren't interacting with what I said. You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that I'm wrong.
You're also misrepresenting what I've argued. I didn't just say that "messianic expectation was high". I said that Messianic expectations were of a more political nature. And I didn't just say "Jesus was opposed". He was denounced as an agent of Satan by the religious establishment. Those religious leaders had a lot of influence and the ability to make life highly difficult for their opponents. I also explained that the society in which these events occurred was one that was less religiously pluralistic and less individualistic. The social consequences of following an unpopular Messianic movement were much more significant than they would be in a society like ours.
As I explained earlier, I don't argue that Mary had no faith. Rather, I argue that she was inconsistent, much like Peter, as illustrated by passages like Luke 2:48-51 and John 2:3-5. Every Christian sins. A person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and performed miracles by the power of God might steal money from his employer, commit adultery, lose his temper, or sin in some other way. Believing that Jesus is the Messiah and that He performed miracles doesn't assure you of living a life of sinlessness. Many people believe that there's evidence for the miracle of creation, that there is a God, that God has given us a moral law, and that we're accountable to God for adherence to that law. Does seeing that evidence and believing in our accountability to God result in our never sinning? No, it doesn't. People often make unwise decisions as a result of lust, greed, cowardice, or some other motivation. We aren't told what Mary's motives were when she was unfaithful to Jesus, but I've given some examples of plausible motives, and your response so far is to suggest that her having seen miracles should have been sufficient to have prevented her from being unfaithful. But people frequently fall short of what they know they ought to do, even if they're highly confident that their standards are correct.
You write:
"Show me a real person that really is visited by angels confirming the authenticity of a person, really watches that person perform authentic miracles, and yet manages to doubt that person. Show me real people that watch miracles, watch 10 predictions fulfilled perfectly, yet doubt the 11th prediction."
I did give you examples. You ignored them. There have been many people who have believed that a person performed a miracle or had a miracle associated with him, yet attributed the miracle to an entity other than God. Some people might conclude that God is involved, but not trust Him. In the past, I've discussed the example of Matthew Green. He's said that he would commit suicide if he was convinced that Christianity is true. Paul Moser comments:
"Philosopher Thomas Nagel has a 'cosmic authority problem' with theism. In his words: '...I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.' Nagel confesses to having a fear of any religion involving God. Such fear seems widespread among humans. It stems from human fear of losing human lordship over human decisions and life. Such self-protective fear resists God's liberating ways of unselfish love. This kind of fear prompted an atheist friend of mine to report that he would kill himself if he had to acknowledge God's reality. The sad attitudes of Nagel and my friend regarding God speak volumes about the human condition. Such attitudes self-destructively banish God from human lives." (Why Isn't God More Obvious? [Norcross, Georgia: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 2000], p. 28)
Steve Hays recently discussed the example of Richard Carrier's comment that he would sooner attribute Jesus' resurrection to an alien than to God. It's the same sort of response that we see from many of the earliest Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity. A supernaturalist might argue that Jesus is empowered by Satan, and a naturalist might argue for something like the involvement of aliens. And as I said before, even if a person thinks that a miracle worker is empowered by God, he isn't necessarily going to consider the person correct in everything he says or does.
Some people are more untrusting than others. They doubt when they shouldn't doubt. It may be because they've experienced a betrayal in the past, because they're overly skeptical of the reliability of their own judgment, or whatever the case may be.
But what do we see in the case of Mary? We aren't told much. We know that she had faith early on. She's still "treasuring all these things in her heart" (Luke 2:51) and telling people "whatever He [Jesus] says to you, do it" (John 2:5) after misunderstanding Jesus and being rebuked by Him. She had some faith, but also some misunderstandings and wrong motives. And she's portrayed as a faithful Christian at the time of Jesus' death and afterward. It seems that her unfaithfulness was primarily during Jesus' public ministry, when social pressures and the influence of the religious leaders would have been more heightened than previously. We're never told that she entirely lost her faith. What we're told is that she kept a distance from Jesus, went along with His brothers on one occasion when they were trying to prevent Him from carrying out His ministry, and was rebuked by Jesus for not being among His faithful disciples. How does the fact that she experienced some of the miracles surrounding Jesus' life prove that she couldn't have been unfaithful to Him temporarily as a result of social pressures or some other factor? It doesn't.
You write:
"Reality is exactly the opposite. People require little evidence at all, or in some cases no evidence, to believe divine claims from people. Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson."
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence you cite. The fact that some people have little concern for evidence doesn't lead us to the conclusion that "people" in general have that characteristic. Some people follow Benny Hinn, but some are skeptical of him. When the media want to run stories on corruption in Benny Hinn's ministry, they frequently go to Christian organizations that specialize in debunking such ministries. Christians like Ole Anthony and Hank Hanegraaff probably have done more to debunk Hinn's alleged miracles and his other errors than any atheist, agnostic, or deist has. If you want us to think of Mary as we would think of a follower of Benny Hinn who has little or no concern for evidence, then you need to justify that association rather than just asserting it.
And you need to decide which of your inconsistent arguments you're going to use. On the one hand, you tell us that Mary surely would have been discerning enough to have recognized who Jesus was, to have been undeceived by the religious hierarchy, to have resisted temptations to follow the social pressures placed upon her, etc. On the other hand, you associate Mary with undiscerning followers of Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, etc. who have little or no concern for evidence. Which is it? If "people require little evidence at all, or in some cases no evidence", as you're now arguing, then why couldn't Mary have been swayed by different influences at different times, depending on what she was faced with at a given moment? Why couldn't Mary, with "little evidence at all or no evidence", have accepted the religious leaders' claims about Jesus' being empowered by Satan, for example?
You write:
"Heck, even you are confident (you admitted yourself that you are, despite other statements you've made distancing yourself from the description of 'confident)."
Where did I distance myself from the description of "confident"?
You write:
"Benny Hinn's followers have seen nothing. Yet they still believe. That's the real world. The gospels portray a fantasy world."
No, the real world is more complex than what you're portraying. In the real world, people like Benny Hinn's followers are accompanied by people like Matthew Green, Thomas Nagel, Paul Moser's friend, Richard Carrier, Ole Anthony, and Hank Hanegraaff, as well as many other types of people.
You write:
"Despite the irrelevant nature of your claim, I would point out that they thought all kinds of people were miracle workers. Do you accept their claims when they talk about people other than Jesus?"
You asked for examples of people who would see a miracle, yet not trust the person associated with the miracle. Many early Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity believed that Jesus performed miracles, yet attributed those miracles to some source other than the Christian God. How is that fact "irrelevant"? It isn't. What's irrelevant is your raising of the issue of whether I agree with their belief in other miracles. I don't have to agree with their belief in other miracles in order to cite them as examples of people who don't place their faith in a person just because that person has a miracle associated with him. You accuse me of making an irrelevant point when, in fact, you're the one doing it.
You write:
"Possibly we're dealing with competing factions."
What would they be competing with James for? He was in agreement with the other most prominent church leaders on the most fundamental issues (Acts 15, 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, Galatians 2:9-10). Portraying James as an unbeliever prior to the resurrection wouldn't overturn his credibility as a later church leader. Paul was also an unbeliever prior to the resurrection. Modern Christians think highly of James, even though he initially was an unbeliever. If Luke was trying to dismiss James in his gospel, then why does he have James so prominent and portrayed so positively in Acts?
"Early on James is highly regarded, but later for whatever reason people want to drive a wedge between those that are perceived as his blood relatives and him."
In the past, you've suggested a late date for the book of Acts. And Acts portrays James positively. The early Pauline documents that portray him positively are accepted as scripture by later sources. So is a letter attributed to James. I don't know what you have in mind. You need to be more specific and provide documentation.
You write:
"You'll notice that James is never described in the gospels as a former skeptic that is converted. Jesus' siblings are always skeptics. That's an odd portrayal if in fact James is highly regarded."
The gospels are about an earlier period of history. You might as well ask why they don't mention Paul. But one of the gospel authors also produced another book, Acts, in which James is portrayed positively as a Christian. For you to ignore Acts, as if James' unbelief in the gospel of Luke is evidence that he wasn't "highly regarded", is absurd. If Luke didn't highly regard James or didn't even consider him a Christian, he wouldn't have written Acts in the manner in which he did. And if mainstream Christians didn't highly regard James, then why did they accept as scripture the Pauline documents that speak highly of James? Why did they accept Acts as scripture? Why did they accept a letter of James as scripture? Why did mainstream Christians for centuries speak positively of James?
You write:
"Robert Eisenman argues that James the Just undergoes evolution for this reason and becomes James the brother of John, and is also cloned into James the son of 'Alphaeus' in the later gospels."
Eisenman has a lot of problems:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html
You write:
"Supposedly Papias says that Alphaeus is interchangeable with Cleophas, which apparently happens to be the name of Simeon's father, who is James successor as bishop of Jerusalem and also his brother."
That passage doesn't come from the Papias who lived in the first and second centuries. It comes from a later Papias who lived in the eleventh century. Michael Holmes' recent edition of the apostolic Papias excludes the passage you're referring to (The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], pp. 556-595).
You write:
"By the time Marks gospel (written to a greek audience far removed from Palestine) would have reached them who knows if they'd still be alive."
The early church was highly networked, as we see in Paul's letters and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, for example. It wouldn't have taken long for the gospels to circulate. See the comments of Clayton Jefford and Martin Hengel regarding the gospel of Matthew in my most recent post on Jesus' birthplace (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/jesus-birthplace-part-4-other-early.html). Mark's gospel was based on the testimony of Peter (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-influential-was-papias.html), and Peter was an eyewitness and was frequently in Israel. James was a church leader for decades. He was known in churches outside of Israel. That's why Paul mentions him and expects readers to recognize him when he's writing to Corinth and Galatia. In Galatians 2, Paul refers to how associates of James influenced people outside of Israel. If the gospel of Mark was radically redefining James, people wouldn't have to have lived in Israel in order to recognize it.
You write:
"Unless the authors don't really know the disciples and their goal is simply to exalt Jesus."
Again, Jesus can be exalted without making the disciples look like "buffoons". The two authors who wrote more of the New Testament than any others, Paul and Luke, saw no need to keep portraying themselves as "buffoons" in order to exalt Jesus. You presumably would claim that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul, and, if so, the authors didn't think that they needed to make Paul look like a "buffoon" in order to exalt Jesus. There's no logical need to make the disciples appear as "buffoons" in order to exalt Jesus, other New Testament authors didn't do it, and no early sources claim that any such fabrication took place. Concerning your suggestion that "the authors don't really know the disciples", I've already answered you on that issue, and you've repeatedly left the discussions without addressing most of what I've cited. For example:
http://www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-wrote-gospel-of-john.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/would-matthew-not-have-used-mark-if-he.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-influential-was-papias.html
You write:
"Two of the authors are copying the first, and the 4th author may be basing his story on the three of them."
You'll need to argue for those positions rather than just asserting them. Matthew, Luke, and John include large amounts of material not found in Mark, and all of them contain passages on Jesus' family not found in Mark. Even where they have similar material, they wouldn't be including that similar material if they didn't accept it. And if three other early sources agreed with Mark on the issue we're discussing, and you can't cite a single comparable source disagreeing with them, then that doesn't reflect well on your position.
You write:
"Of course that depends on which gospel you read. Mark has things out of control, but not Luke."
Where does Mark say that things are "out of control"? He doesn't. To the contrary, he has Jesus knowing ahead of time that He'll be victorious (Mark 9:31, 14:62). Besides, your original argument had Jesus "calm" in all of the gospels, including Mark. You're changing your argument.
You write:
"They are so stupid as to be unreal."
Is that why you believed that the accounts were historical for years?
You write:
"In Mark 6 Jesus feeds the 5 thousand with a little fish and bread. Get to Mark 8 and Jesus talks about how he needs to feed the crowds. How do the disciples react? 'But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?' These people are unreal."
The issue in Mark 8 isn't whether Jesus can perform a miracle. The issue is whether He's going to do it again. The fact that Jesus fed people supernaturally on one prior occasion doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that He'll do so every time there's an opportunity.
You write:
"But real, normal people would have been so excited. 'Wait till Jesus shows 'em.' They would have been busting."
All that you're doing is rephrasing your original argument without interacting with what I said in response. As I explained, there would be reasons why people would possibly misunderstand Jesus' predictions about the resurrection or doubt them. Your assertion that they would have "been busting" doesn't become more convincing just because you repeat it.
You write:
"John 20:9 says that even after seeing the empty tomb they 'still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.' HELLO!!"
You cite John 20:9, but verse 8 tells us that John believed. What verse 9 seems to be referring to is the fact that the belief in verse 8 had been based on physical evidence rather than an understanding of and faith in what scripture had foretold. In other words, it was their failure to understand scripture that led them to need the physical evidence. How can you ignore verse 8 in your interpretation of verse 9? For somebody who keeps calling the disciples "morons", you make a lot of mistakes yourself.
As Steve Hays mentioned in another thread, maybe we should conclude that you "aren't real", just as you conclude the same for the disciples in the gospels. Think of the absurd mistakes you keep making. You thought that Eusebius participated in the Easter controversy of the second century, even though he wasn't alive at the time. You claimed that no New Testament manuscripts contained the names of the authors for 400 years. You had no basis for that conclusion, yet you kept maintaining it even after being corrected repeatedly and after being given citations from multiple scholars on the subject. It took days of arguing with you to get you to acknowledge your error. Surely no real person would behave so unreasonably. Then there's your belief that Jesus didn't exist, a position so radical that it's to the left of the Jesus Seminar. Or your claim that Pauline authorship of documents like 1 Corinthians and Philemon is "suspicious" and that a phrase like "I, Paul" is a "dead give away" that a document is a forgery. Or your citation of a Wikipedia article that makes ridiculous claims about the origins of Christianity, an article that carries a warning about its own contents and is shown to be highly unreliable in its own comments section. What real person would repeatedly cite such an article, even after being warned about it? Surely nobody would make the sort of mistakes you've made. Considering your many errors on so many issues, even after repeatedly being corrected, you can't be real.
You write:
"That unrealistic portrait is all the more pronounced as we look at the high confidence you have based upon much less evidence and the low confidence the supposed followers of Jesus had based upon much greater evidence."
As I said earlier, you can't single out the times of unbelief in the lives of some of Jesus' disciples while ignoring the times when they believed. After the short periods of doubt portrayed in the gospels, Peter lived a more faithful life for decades, during which he was willing to suffer and die for the faith. John lived in faithfulness even longer. And men like Paul and Luke weren't involved in the gospel events you're citing. Since the evidence relevant to my confidence as a Christian involves much more than the times of doubt that some disciples had in the gospels, it doesn't make sense for you to keep citing those times of doubt as if I shouldn't have more confidence than those disciples had when they were doubting.
You write:
"Everyone else makes claims that are 'ridiculous' and 'absurd' but your position is so much more reasonable."
I didn't say that "everyone else" makes absurd arguments.
No, it's not irrelevant. If you can question people's interpretations of what they experienced, then why can't I?
ReplyDeleteI'm not questioning interpretations of what they experienced. I'm assuming they really did experience what the text says they did. Assume they really did have visits from angels, see water turned into wine. How do they behave with that knowledge? I may question interpretations of what they experienced when we're discussing other subjects in different threads. But if you want to entirely switch topics then I'm simply going to point out your continued use of this fallacy.
You criticized me for being more confident than Jesus' relatives were when they were unfaithful to Him. Why can't I conclude that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they experienced, as you do with the apostle Paul, for example?
You can conclude that if you want, and I know you will. But it doesn't address the issue we're discussing here.
You aren't interacting with what I said. You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that I'm wrong.
Of course I am. I'm restating your side of the position to expose it for what it is.
You're also misrepresenting what I've argued. I didn't just say that "messianic expectation was high". I said that Messianic expectations were of a more political nature.
Ok. Wow. This changes everything. They're "political" in nature. Again, sweep the virginal conception, miraculous visits of angels, and miraculous deeds of Jesus aside. Messianic expectations were "political in nature." All those miraculous deeds fall by the wayside.
And I didn't just say "Jesus was opposed". He was denounced as an agent of Satan by the religious establishment. Those religious leaders had a lot of influence and the ability to make life highly difficult for their opponents.
In other words, Jesus was opposed.
I also explained that the society in which these events occurred was one that was less religiously pluralistic and less individualistic. The social consequences of following an unpopular Messianic movement were much more significant than they would be in a society like ours.
Even if there were disincentives to follow Jesus, this wouldn't make those that have seen his miracles doubt. It would possibly make them silent. Possibly they wouldn't follow him as they should. But they wouldn't doubt. And they wouldn't be all confused at the reports of a resurrection.
As I explained earlier, I don't argue that Mary had no faith.
I didn't say you did.
I did give you examples. You ignored them. There have been many people who have believed that a person performed a miracle or had a miracle associated with him, yet attributed the miracle to an entity other than God.
That's not what I'm asking for. I want examples of people that got something like bona fide miracles. You're talking about Benny Hinn type miracles. I'm talking about real virgin births, predicted prophecy fulfilled perfectly, real water into wine. Give us an example. I can give you dozens of examples of people believing fervently on far less. Where are your examples of people doubting with the best possible evidence a person could ask for?
Some people might conclude that God is involved, but not trust Him. In the past, I've discussed the example of Matthew Green. He's said that he would commit suicide if he was convinced that Christianity is true.
So has Matthew Green seen miraculous things? He hasn't. If he did, how would he react? You don't know. So you still don't have a real world example.
People have preferences about what they want to believe, but that's not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a Mary that rejoices in God her savior. We're talking about disciples that follow Jesus and want him to be the Messiah. Do these people have firm contact with the real world? I don't think so.
Steve Hays recently discussed the example of Richard Carrier's comment that he would sooner attribute Jesus' resurrection to an alien than to God.
If Richard Carrier knew that Jesus was claimed to be born of a virgin, if he watched as Jesus raised the dead and turned water into wine, if he watched him walk on the water, he might conclude that he had been tricked. If he knew of Jesus predictions leading up to his death and watched them fulfilled perfectly he might again conclude that Jesus was a really sharp guy that could pull off some crazy stunts. But he would also watch that tomb. And when he heard reports of an empty tomb he wouldn't dismiss the women. He'd say "That crazy Jesus pulled it off. I don't know how he did it. But he's probably alive just like he said he would be." That's the real world, Jason.
In your world Richard Carrier watches the miracles, watches the predictions, hears of the empty tomb, then says "Gosh, I wonder what has happened here?"
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence you cite. The fact that some people have little concern for evidence doesn't lead us to the conclusion that "people" in general have that characteristic.
Well, when I can produce millions of people that do follow that pattern and you offer zero that fit the caricature pattern of the gospels, what should I conclude?
And you need to decide which of your inconsistent arguments you're going to use. On the one hand, you tell us that Mary surely would have been discerning enough to have recognized who Jesus was, to have been undeceived by the religious hierarchy, to have resisted temptations to follow the social pressures placed upon her, etc. On the other hand, you associate Mary with undiscerning followers of Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, etc. who have little or no concern for evidence. Which is it?
I'm not associating Mary with Hinn's followers. I'm saying Mary is UNLIKE Hinn's followers in that she is unreal, whereas Hinn's followers are real people. I'm saying IF Mary were real she'd be more like Hinn's followers. Real devoted followers believe with little evidence, like Hinn's followers.
Where did I distance myself from the description of "confident"?
When I said you were confident you responded that I don't know what your degree of confidence is. I took that to mean that you're saying I'm out of line to say you are confident.
In the real world, people like Benny Hinn's followers are accompanied by people like Matthew Green, Thomas Nagel, Paul Moser's friend, Richard Carrier, Ole Anthony, and Hank Hanegraaff, as well as many other types of people.
Carrier and Hanegraaff are normal people and they are both unlike the people in the gospels. A Word Faith teacher made a prediction about Hanegraaff's ministry going down in 90 days and Hanegraaff paid close attention. He listened and waited to see if in fact his ministry would go down, and he made sure his radio listeners paid attention as well. Every subsequent day he'd start of by saying how many days were left before his ministry went down. This is the opposite of what we see in the gospels. In the gospels Jesus makes predictions after already justifying himself and the disciples don't pay attention to the tomb or even believe the women when they report what has happened.
So let's suppose the Word Faith teacher's prophecy was fulfilled. Let's suppose Hank died in a plane crash and the plane happened to land on the CRI building and everyone inside died. What would the Word Faith teacher's deeply comitted followers have thought? In your world they would have been confused. "I wonder what has happened." When reports of Hanegraff's death began being reported, these followers would have dismissed these reports as "idle tales." It's so absurd as to be comical.
You asked for examples of people who would see a miracle, yet not trust the person associated with the miracle. Many early Jewish and Gentile opponents of Christianity believed that Jesus performed miracles, yet attributed those miracles to some source other than the Christian God.
I misunderstood your point, so I withdraw my claim that your point was irrelevant. I agree that opponents will attribute what they think is miraculous to demons and so forth. But that is not what we're dealing with in the case the disciples and Mary. We're dealing with devoted followers, not enemies. In this specific case their actions are not realistic. And I'm also assuming that genuine miraculous events are involved here, whereas the references to miracles from others are probably usually phony. To hear of other miraculous happenings and attribute them to Satan is one thing. But to actually experience a virginal conception, to actually watch the water become wine, the dead rising, the blind seeing, the leperous being restored in front of your eyes, it is my opinion that in the real world this type of an action would make a bit more of an impression than a Benny Hinn style miracle.
Eisenman has a lot of problems:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html
So you've read Eisenman? Or is your assertion based upon one critical review that you've read? Do you try and become familiar with the arguments of your opponents by reading them in their own context? Or do you just dismiss them based upon a critique from a friendly source?
I'm not going to debate the reasons for fabrication in the gospels relating to James. I haven't read Eisenman either. But there are any number of reasons for the change and speculation is all that is needed in response to your question. A creative person like yourself that can come up with speculative explanations for Mt 16 and Mt 24 should be able to imagine something.
Again, Jesus can be exalted without making the disciples look like "buffoons".
Yeah, he can. Be he can also be exalted by making the disciples look like buffoons. But hey, if you don't like my speculations about why they're doing it, that's fine. Regardless, they are unrealistic buffoons in Scripture. That's the bottom line.
You'll need to argue for those positions rather than just asserting them. Matthew, Luke, and John include large amounts of material not found in Mark, and all of them contain passages on Jesus' family not found in Mark.
I don't think I do. If you want to argue independence in the teeth of both liberal and conservative scholariship, that's your burden. It is not my burden to show otherwise. You're the one that has made the positive claim (independence).
Of course you're not wrong simply because your view is a minority view, even amongst conservative Christians, but you do have the burden here.
Where does Mark say that things are "out of control"? He doesn't.
He does. In Mark you have the whole anguish thing in Gethsemane that you mentioned. He’s mocked by both thieves. He’s silent before his accusers, and completely silent on the cross until he says “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” So he’s in complete agony and almost in doubt.
In Luke the anguish is removed. He sees women and says “Don’t weep for me, but weep for yourselves.’ While nailed he’s not silent, but says “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” One robber mocks him but the other supports him, and he tells the robber he will be with him in paradise. Rather than talking about God forsaking him he says “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” So for Luke Jesus is in complete control, for Mark Jesus is in anguish and shock. This is part of that improvement to the story I've talked about before. For the later account (Luke) Jesus is more impressive. This is a tell tale sign of embelishment. This is one reason the gospels are not believable. Luke is improving on the original story. He's not simply recounting the facts.
Is that why you believed that the accounts were historical for years?
I believed for years because I was indoctrinated to believe as a young child, as are many people. I'd sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." I'd see as Christians would beg and plead with others to convert and guilt people that didn't tow the line. That has an effect on people. I didn't want to see the inconsistencies and the unrealistic nature of the gospel accounts because like a lot of cultists I was conditioned to not see such things. It's a hard nut to crack. And maybe I'm a little slow.
The fact that Jesus fed people supernaturally on one prior occasion doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that He'll do so every time there's an opportunity.
When you're talking about whether a picture is realistic, the issue of whether one thing "logically" leads to another is not at issue. When you watch a movie with a bad actor and that actor appears to be reading his lines you say it's unrealistic. You don't say "Hey, logically, someone could very well simply talk as if they were reading. This person is a great actor." You are not engaging the issue when you reason in this way.
You cite John 20:9, but verse 8 tells us that John believed.
But I was talking about Peter, not John. I didn't say John didn't know what was going on.
What verse 9 seems to be referring to is the fact that the belief in verse 8 had been based on physical evidence rather than an understanding of and faith in what scripture had foretold.
That's what it "seems" to be referring to in your mind? Well, you might as well reserve some name calling for Matthew Henry. This is the first commentary I saw that discussed the issue of whether they believed and I'm sure I could find more. Here is what Matthew Henry says.
[2.] Yet, it should seem, John got the start of Peter in believing. Peter saw and wondered (Luke 24:12), but John saw and believed. A mind disposed to contemplation may perhaps sooner receive the evidence of divine truth than a mind disposed to action. But what was the reason that they were so slow of heart to believe? The evangelist tells us (John 20:9), as yet they knew not the scripture, that is, they did not consider, and apply, and duly improve, what they knew of the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
So according to Matthew Henry Peter still does not believe that Jesus has risen from the dead at this point despite the miracles he's seen, predictions that have been made, and the empty tomb. That's exactly what I said. You want to imply I'm a "moron" for thinking the same thing?
Think of the absurd mistakes you keep making.
And here comes your parting thought. A desperate effort to re-direct the conversation towards every other conversation that has occurred. I've made mistakes as you have. I've conceded my mistakes. You haven't. None of this changes the facts. The gospel portrayal of Mary and the disciples is unrealistic. Even if I'm wrong about Paul's authorship of whatever book, that fact remains.
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"I'm not questioning interpretations of what they experienced. I'm assuming they really did experience what the text says they did. Assume they really did have visits from angels, see water turned into wine. How do they behave with that knowledge? I may question interpretations of what they experienced when we're discussing other subjects in different threads. But if you want to entirely switch topics then I'm simply going to point out your continued use of this fallacy."
There's nothing wrong with my using examples of what you've said in other discussions to illustrate your inconsistency. Instead of addressing your inconsistency, you're objecting to the fact that I'm mentioning something from other discussions. You're criticizing me for doing something in this discussion that you've done elsewhere. It's relevant for me to mention that you're being inconsistent.
You write:
"Again, sweep the virginal conception, miraculous visits of angels, and miraculous deeds of Jesus aside. Messianic expectations were 'political in nature.' All those miraculous deeds fall by the wayside."
I said that Jesus' failure to meet common Messianic expectations, which were of a more political nature, could have been a factor in how somebody like Mary evaluated Jesus. I didn't say that such a factor would cause "miraculous deeds to fall by the wayside".
You write:
"In other words, Jesus was opposed."
The type and degree of opposition is significant. I specified the type and degree. You didn't. Your suggestion that the type and degree don't need to be mentioned is ridiculous.
You write:
"Even if there were disincentives to follow Jesus, this wouldn't make those that have seen his miracles doubt. It would possibly make them silent. Possibly they wouldn't follow him as they should. But they wouldn't doubt. And they wouldn't be all confused at the reports of a resurrection."
You're ignoring the distinctions I made between different types of unfaithfulness. Doubt isn't involved in all of the relevant passages. You tell us that "Possibly they wouldn't follow him as they should", and that's what I've been saying about Mary, who you've been mentioning. She isn't part of the resurrection passages. I've addressed the resurrection passages you cited, and you've ignored much of what I said. Since you acknowledge that Mary could see miracles, yet be unfaithful to Jesus, then tell us specifically which passages describe Mary doing something she supposedly wouldn't have done. You keep mentioning Mary without citing passages. What are the passages that supposedly should lead us to your conclusion about her?
You write:
"I want examples of people that got something like bona fide miracles. You're talking about Benny Hinn type miracles."
Where did I say that I was addressing "Benny Hinn type miracles"? I didn't. I gave examples of people who believed that miracles occurred and attributed them to an entity other than God or who said that they would reject God or attribute the miracles to some other entity if they did become convinced that the miracles occurred. For you to respond by saying that the miracles in my examples aren't "bona fide" doesn't make sense. The people I cited either believed that the miracles occurred or were discussing what they would do if they did believe that miracles occurred. The miracles are assumed to be "bona fide" in every case.
You write:
"Where are your examples of people doubting with the best possible evidence a person could ask for?"
How does your opinion of the quality of the evidence change the person's belief that a miracle occurred? When the ancient Jews attributed supernatural activity to Satan, they believed that the supernatural activity occurred. The fact that you don't think that the evidence for that activity is "the best possible evidence a person could ask for" doesn't change the fact that the people in question attributed supernatural activity to Satan. Similarly, people like Matthew Green and Richard Carrier have said that they wouldn't trust in Christ even if they knew that the resurrection occurred. If the evidence is sufficient to convince them that the resurrection occurred, then what's the relevance of objecting that the evidence isn't "the best possible evidence a person could ask for"? The examples I've cited refute your previous claim, and you don't want to acknowledge that.
How do you know that the ancient Jews who attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan didn't have "the best possible evidence a person could ask for"? Jesus had lived among them. If Jesus didn't exist, as you claim, then they could have said so. If He did exist, but didn't do anything that seemed supernatural, they could have said so. When people in the modern world experience what they consider demon possession or a poltergeist, for example, the fact that they experience it doesn't lead them to the conclusion that it must be from God. As a deist, you presumably believe that there's evidence for the existence of God in the universe around us. Yet, many people who have access to that universe deny God's existence. Seeing evidence of supernatural activity firsthand doesn't settle the issue of identifying the agent involved, nor does it ensure that the person who sees it firsthand will be honest about it or trust in the agent involved.
You write:
"So has Matthew Green seen miraculous things? He hasn't. If he did, how would he react? You don't know. So you still don't have a real world example."
Matthew Green has told us that he would oppose the God of Christianity even if he was convinced that Christianity is true. He was assuming the truthfulness of Christianity in the process of making his judgment. I don't have to "know" what Matthew Green would do, in the sense of being certain of it, in order to cite him in support of my argument. If Matthew Green opposes the God of Christianity for reasons other than whether He exists, then why are we supposed to think that miracles demonstrating His existence would change Matthew Green's mind?
You write:
"People have preferences about what they want to believe, but that's not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a Mary that rejoices in God her savior. We're talking about disciples that follow Jesus and want him to be the Messiah. Do these people have firm contact with the real world? I don't think so."
You didn't limit your comments to people like Mary and the disciples. And I don't know what you mean by "firm contact with the real world".
You write:
"If Richard Carrier knew that Jesus was claimed to be born of a virgin, if he watched as Jesus raised the dead and turned water into wine, if he watched him walk on the water, he might conclude that he had been tricked. If he knew of Jesus predictions leading up to his death and watched them fulfilled perfectly he might again conclude that Jesus was a really sharp guy that could pull off some crazy stunts. But he would also watch that tomb. And when he heard reports of an empty tomb he wouldn't dismiss the women. He'd say 'That crazy Jesus pulled it off. I don't know how he did it. But he's probably alive just like he said he would be.'"
How do you supposedly know that Richard Carrier would behave that way? You don't. You're just assuming that he would behave however you need him to behave in order to support your argument. If Jesus was viewed as "a really sharp guy that could pull off some crazy stunts", there would be reason to be skeptical of his "pulling off stunts" after he was dead. Besides, the disciples didn't have Richard Carrier's worldview or his circumstances. See the last several paragraphs of my first reply to you in this thread, most of which you ignored when you responded earlier.
You write:
"I'm saying IF Mary were real she'd be more like Hinn's followers. Real devoted followers believe with little evidence, like Hinn's followers."
Again, the fact that Benny Hinn has followers who don't have much concern for evidence doesn't lead us to your conclusion. Millions of Christians aren't followers of Benny Hinn or anybody comparable to Hinn. Even if you took a follower of Benny Hinn and placed him in first century Israel, the circumstances would be significantly different. Benny Hinn is associating himself with a popular religion in a nation that has a high degree of political freedom and individuality. People aren't persecuting and executing Benny Hinn and his followers. Benny Hinn's critics aren't as prominent and influential in society as Jesus' critics were. We have no reason to conclude that Mary was as unconcerned with evidence as the Benny Hinn follower you describe, and she was living in significantly different circumstances.
You write:
"When I said you were confident you responded that I don't know what your degree of confidence is. I took that to mean that you're saying I'm out of line to say you are confident."
No, you used the term "so confident". That's why I responded by asking how you know what my degree of confidence is. I didn't deny that I'm confident.
You write:
"In the gospels Jesus makes predictions after already justifying himself and the disciples don't pay attention to the tomb or even believe the women when they report what has happened."
And I gave some possible reasons why they might have behaved as they did in my first reply to you. You ignored most of what I wrote.
You write:
"So let's suppose the Word Faith teacher's prophecy was fulfilled. Let's suppose Hank died in a plane crash and the plane happened to land on the CRI building and everyone inside died. What would the Word Faith teacher's deeply comitted followers have thought? In your world they would have been confused. 'I wonder what has happened.' When reports of Hanegraff's death began being reported, these followers would have dismissed these reports as 'idle tales.'"
You're using an example that's disanalogous on multiple points. Your example doesn't include anything that's comparable to the popular Messianic expectations of first century Israel, a prediction that could be misinterpreted as easily as Jesus' prediction could be, or the recent experience of seeing the person who made the prediction publicly shamed and executed (knowing that you could face the same sort of end if you followed Him).
You keep citing Luke 24:11, but Luke goes on to refer to how some of the people went to the tomb (Luke 24:12, 24:24). Verse 12 is presented in contrast to verse 11 ("But"). Either verse 11 is making a general reference to the group that doesn't include every individual or the women's report was taken more seriously upon further reflection, if not both. Neither verse 11 nor verse 12 requires what you suggested earlier when you claimed that Peter "has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead". Hesitation and a desire for more confirmation aren't equivalent to having "no concept" that "perhaps" something is true.
As I explained earlier, there are multiple plausible explanations for why some of Jesus' disciples would initially be in unbelief to some degree. All of the gospels agree that Jesus predicted His resurrection, but that the disciples didn't understand the prediction. Their failure to understand makes sense in a historical context in which a general resurrection was expected in the end times, but not an individual resurrection beforehand. If they concluded that Jesus was referring to the general resurrection, then they wouldn't have been expecting a resurrection prior to that time. They also had just experienced Jesus' death, in a context in which crucifixion was considered highly shameful and evidence that a person was cursed by God (1 Corinthians 1:18-23, Galatians 3:13; see, further, Martin Hengel, Crucifixion [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1977]). What happened to Jesus could happen to them, and His opponents would have been claiming vindication (as reflected in Mark 15:31-32).
Jesus wasn't the only influence in the disciples' lives. They also would have been influenced by their interpretation of the Old Testament, which they considered a revelation of God that was itself attested by miracles, and they would have been influenced by the society around them, by the religious hierarchy, and by their personal interests. The reason why the resurrection passages place so much emphasis on the disciples' failure to understand scripture (Luke 24:25-27, 24:44-45, John 20:9) probably is because their misunderstandings of scripture on issues like what the Messiah would do and the resurrection led them to misinterpret Jesus and to have some false expectations. The issue isn't whether the disciples should have been hesitant to believe in the resurrection in such a context, but rather whether it's plausible that they would react in that manner. It is plausible.
The alternative is to conclude that all four gospels fabricated accounts of the earliest church leaders being in unbelief at a time when some of the apostles and many of their associates were still alive, and that the Christian world was persuaded to accept those accounts as historical. The motives you've proposed to explain why the gospel writers would have agreed on such a fabrication don't make sense, as we'll see below, and you haven't even attempted to explain how the fabrication was so widely accepted.
You write:
"I misunderstood your point, so I withdraw my claim that your point was irrelevant. I agree that opponents will attribute what they think is miraculous to demons and so forth. But that is not what we're dealing with in the case the disciples and Mary. We're dealing with devoted followers, not enemies."
The fact that people are followers of Jesus at one point doesn't mean that they can't doubt Him at another point. If Jesus' opponents are arguing that He's empowered by Satan, then the fact that a person is a follower of Jesus isn't going to prevent that person from considering the argument and in some cases having doubts as a result of it. The concept of supernatural activity coming from evil sources was part of the Jewish environment Christianity came from. Your initial claim that "seeing miracles" would be enough to produce faith in Jesus is erroneous.
You write:
"To hear of other miraculous happenings and attribute them to Satan is one thing. But to actually experience a virginal conception, to actually watch the water become wine, the dead rising, the blind seeing, the leperous being restored in front of your eyes, it is my opinion that in the real world this type of an action would make a bit more of an impression than a Benny Hinn style miracle."
Either people believe that a miracle occurred or they don't. If they don't, then why would they be attributing it to Satan? The degree of evidence a person has for a miracle doesn't determine whether he's willing to attribute it to Satan. Since I've given you examples of people attributing miracles to Satan, including the miracles of Jesus, you're trying to dismiss the examples by arguing that the people in question may not have had much evidence that the miracles occurred. But even if they believed in the miracles without much evidence, the fact remains that they believed in the miracles. And they attributed them to Satan.
You write:
"So you've read Eisenman? Or is your assertion based upon one critical review that you've read? Do you try and become familiar with the arguments of your opponents by reading them in their own context?"
I haven't read Eisenman's book, and neither have you. You posted a review by Robert Price, so I responded with an article by Glenn Miller that cites multiple scholars' comments about Eisenman, scholars who are more mainstream than Robert Price. I've read more about Eisenman than what's contained in Miller's article, but why should I cite more sources when all you gave us was one review by Robert Price?
You write:
"I'm not going to debate the reasons for fabrication in the gospels relating to James. I haven't read Eisenman either. But there are any number of reasons for the change and speculation is all that is needed in response to your question. A creative person like yourself that can come up with speculative explanations for Mt 16 and Mt 24 should be able to imagine something."
Your "speculation" was inconsistent with the evidence. Telling me to be "creative" in an attempt to justify your bad argument doesn't make sense.
You write:
"Be he can also be exalted by making the disciples look like buffoons."
If Jesus can be exalted either way, and there are other reasons for the authors to have refrained from fabricating such material about the disciples (like the reasons I mentioned earlier), then your speculation that the fabrications might have been done in order to exalt Jesus is insufficient.
You write:
"If you want to argue independence in the teeth of both liberal and conservative scholariship, that's your burden. It is not my burden to show otherwise. You're the one that has made the positive claim (independence)."
You made the positive assertion of dependence. Where's your evidence? We don't begin with an assumption that four different authors were dependent on each other. Document your claim that "liberal and conservative scholarship" supports your position. Many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark, but their using Mark isn't equivalent to their getting the concept of the unfaithfulness of Jesus' relatives from Mark. Even if they did rely on Mark alone on that issue, you haven't given us any reason to conclude that Mark was wrong, and Matthew and Luke's agreement with Mark would suggest that Mark's assessment was widely accepted. Why are we supposed to believe that Mark's assessment was wrong? And how would Matthew and Luke's use of Mark explain the material in John?
You write:
"So for Luke Jesus is in complete control, for Mark Jesus is in anguish and shock."
You keep ignoring material in both gospels that balances their presentation. Mark's Jesus isn't "shocked". He knew He would be victorious (Mark 9:31, 14:62). And Luke's Jesus wants the cup to pass (Luke 22:42). Luke also has Jesus referring to the blessedness of weeping (Luke 6:21), has Jesus showing emotion Himself (Luke 13:34), and often has Jesus referring to His own suffering (Luke 9:22, 17:25, 22:15, 24:26, 24:46). Luke includes Mark's concept that Jesus struggled at Gethsemane, but without as much detail or emphasis. The fact that Luke doesn't emphasize Jesus' suffering as much as Mark emphasizes it doesn't prove that either account is unhistorical. Different gospels emphasize different issues, just as biographies of other people do the same. If a biography of Abraham Lincoln written in the 1960s includes more material about his views on racial issues and discusses his influence on the civil rights movement more than a previous biography did, do we conclude that "embellishment" has occurred? If a biography of Lincoln written in 2006 includes material about his view of homosexuality, whereas a biography written in 1910 didn't, do we conclude that "embellishment" must have occurred? Or do different authors write in different environments with different interests and different emphases?
You write:
"This is part of that improvement to the story I've talked about before. For the later account (Luke) Jesus is more impressive. This is a tell tale sign of embelishment. This is one reason the gospels are not believable."
As I've told you before, the later material often has fewer details or less emphasis on something that would make Jesus "more impressive", as you put it. Mark's gospel includes more miracles performed by Jesus than John's. 1 Corinthians 15 includes more resurrection appearances than we see in any of the gospels. Luke names more women at the tomb than John does. Etc. See, further:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-dan-barker/barkers-blunders.html
How do you know what order Matthew and Luke were written in? You don't. How, then, do you know which one is supposed to be more "embellished" than the other? You don't.
Using your logic, we can selectively point to elements of John's gospel that have Jesus "less impressive" than He is in Mark's gospel, then conclude that John must have written earlier or that there must have been a tendency to lower their view of Jesus with the passing of time. John's gospel has Jesus performing fewer miracles. That's "less impressive", to use your terminology. John doesn't mention the darkness at the crucifixion or the tearing of the temple veil (Mark 15:33, 15:38). That's "less impressive".
How do you justify your conclusions about what should be considered less impressive and what should be considered more impressive? Jesus' suffering can be seen either way. A modern source who postdates all of the gospels, like Mel Gibson, can think that showing more suffering results in a higher view of Jesus. You could think that emphasizing His suffering produces a heightening of our sense of Jesus' love or a heightening of our sense of His endurance, for example.
We don't know what order the gospels were written in. Even when we have some confidence about the dating of some of the sources, such as dating Paul before John or Mark prior to John, sometimes earlier sources are more advanced in some ways, and sometimes later sources are more advanced in other ways. Mark knew about at least some of the resurrection appearances. He anticipates them in his gospel (Mark 16:7), and the accounts of the appearances mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 were circulating before Mark wrote his gospel. Yet, he doesn't narrate any resurrection appearances. If a later source narrates a resurrection appearance that Mark doesn't mention, it doesn't therefore follow that Mark was unaware of that appearance and that the account of it was a later fabrication. When a later source includes more advanced material in a particular context, it doesn't follow that the later source must be giving us unhistorical information. You're assuming conclusions that you can't justify.
You write:
"When you're talking about whether a picture is realistic, the issue of whether one thing 'logically' leads to another is not at issue. When you watch a movie with a bad actor and that actor appears to be reading his lines you say it's unrealistic. You don't say 'Hey, logically, someone could very well simply talk as if they were reading. This person is a great actor.' You are not engaging the issue when you reason in this way."
How does comparing my interpretation of Mark 8 to an actor "talking as if they were reading" refute my interpretation of the passage? It doesn't.
You write:
"But I was talking about Peter, not John. I didn't say John didn't know what was going on."
You're mistaken. You used the plural twice. You referred to what "they" didn't understand. You referred to what the "eyewitnesses" hadn't figured out. John 20:9 comes just after a reference to John, and it uses the plural "they". As I said before, it's referring to the source of belief, not whether belief is present. As verse 8 demonstrates, John did believe. So, not only did you misread the passage the first time we discussed it (and however many other times you had read it previously during your life), but you've also misread it this second time we've discussed it. As I said before, for somebody who keeps calling the disciples in the gospels "morons" who are "unreal" because of how often they make mistakes they shouldn't have made, you're quite unreal yourself.
You write:
"So according to Matthew Henry Peter still does not believe that Jesus has risen from the dead at this point despite the miracles he's seen, predictions that have been made, and the empty tomb."
Luke 24:12 refers to how Peter was in wonder at what he'd seen. Some people assume that faith wasn't involved, but nothing in the text logically leads to that conclusion. Citing Matthew Henry doesn't make your case.
You write:
"I've made mistakes as you have. I've conceded my mistakes."
The disciples conceded their mistakes as well. They became believers. They didn't think that their earlier unbelief was something good. I gave you examples of mistakes you've made in our discussions, including mistakes you repeated after being corrected, and you've given us more examples in this thread.
You initially claimed that the gospels' portrayals of the disciples' unfaithfulness was fabricated in order to make Jesus look "calm and in control". Less than two days later, after I explained some of the many obvious problems with your theory that you had overlooked, you contradicted yourself by arguing that "Mark has things out of control, but not Luke". You then claimed that the disciples were made to look like "buffoons" in order to make the "hero" Jesus look better. Later, you claimed that, in Mark, Jesus is "in complete agony and almost in doubt...in anguish and shock". Why, then, are we supposed to believe that Mark was so concerned with making Jesus look good that he repeatedly fabricated accounts of the disciples as "buffoons"? If he wanted to make Jesus look good, and he wasn't concerned with historical accuracy, then why didn't he just refrain from having Jesus "in complete agony and almost in doubt...in anguish and shock" in the first place? I've also discussed other problems with your theory, and you've likewise failed to overcome those problems. Your theory about why James is portrayed in the gospels the that way he is was so ridiculous that you stopped trying to defend it. You told me that "speculation is all that is needed", and you said that I should be "creative" in trying to think of a way to defend your theory. You don't even attempt to explain how all of these allegedly false and embarrassing accounts about the earliest leaders of the church became so widely accepted at a time when some of the apostles and many of their associates were still alive. You repeatedly overlook major strands of data in documents you've read, such as when you initially claimed that Jesus is "calm" in all of the gospels, including Mark. (You can't claim that you were initially excluding Mark, since excluding Mark would defeat the logic of your argument. Besides, as I've shown, all of the gospels, not just Mark, are inconsistent with your claim about Jesus' being "calm".) You repeatedly misread individual passages, like John 20:9. You repeatedly rely on dubious sources, like Robert Price and Robert Eisenman, and repeat false claims about church history, such as confusing an eleventh century Papias with the Papias of the apostolic era. You don't just do these things once in a while. You do them frequently, on a wide variety of issues, and even after being corrected repeatedly. And we're supposed to believe that you're in a position to call the disciples "morons" and "buffoons" whose mistakes are "unreal"?
There's nothing wrong with my using examples of what you've said in other discussions to illustrate your inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with it if you think there is nothing wrong with fallacies. I disagree.
Instead of addressing your inconsistency, you're objecting to the fact that I'm mentioning something from other discussions.
Actually, I don't understand what you are saying is inconsistent of me. Can you show me what statements in other discussions you are referring to and how that contradicts what I've said here? You've said I've questioned Paul's interpretation of what he experienced. What are you referring to? And how is that inconsistent with thinking that the gospel portrayals of the disciples are unrealistic.
Now, don't ignore this question from me as you ignored my response to the charge of inconsistency that you levied against me with regards to Mary and Benny Hinn's followers. Show me this inconsistency that you are talking about. I'd really like to know.
I didn't say that such a factor would cause "miraculous deeds to fall by the wayside".
But that is exactly what you are saying. I'm saying the miraculous deeds would cause Mary to be confident in the messianic claims. You're saying that her doubt is understandable because these things are "political in nature" i.e. it is the political nature of the messianic expectation that makes it reasonable for Mary to disregard the miraculous events.
The type and degree of opposition is significant. I specified the type and degree. You didn't.
I'm not going to repeat everything you state verbatum. I'm simply restating your position back to you in a more simplified and concise way so the irrationality of it can be exposed. Jesus was opposed strongly and messianic expectation was "political." This would cause a normal person to sort of disregard virginal conceptions and miraculous deeds in your mind. OK. I think any semi unbiased person would disagree, but whatever. Let's allow the reader to decide.
Since you acknowledge that Mary could see miracles, yet be unfaithful to Jesus, then tell us specifically which passages describe Mary doing something she supposedly wouldn't have done. You keep mentioning Mary without citing passages. What are the passages that supposedly should lead us to your conclusion about her?
The first one that would come to mind for me is Mk 3:21 where Mary and Jesus brothers try to take him thinking he must be crazy. This person immaculately conceived of God is crazy? This person that has already performed miracles in front of Mary is crazy in Mary's eyes? That makes no sense.
Where did I say that I was addressing "Benny Hinn type miracles"? I didn't.
So you're claiming that other miracles your referring to by various miracle workers were truly legitamate honest to goodness supernatural events? I'm assuming they are not and also assuming you agree, but if you disagree you need to say so. It is my contention that true miracles have more of an impact than Benny Hinn style fake miracles. If you are saying we are not dealing with Benny Hinn style miracles, but in fact we are dealing with real miracles, then I will address that argument.
How does your opinion of the quality of the evidence change the person's belief that a miracle occurred? When the ancient Jews attributed supernatural activity to Satan, they believed that the supernatural activity occurred. The fact that you don't think that the evidence for that activity is "the best possible evidence a person could ask for" doesn't change the fact that the people in question attributed supernatural activity to Satan.
You are ignoring two relevant factors that I pointed to last time. 1-I'm asserting that real miracles have more of an impact on people than fake ones. Even if they attribute them to Satan I still think true miracles have an impact on those that witness them. 2nd, and this is key, is that Mary is sympathetic to Jesus. She doesn't oppose him. It's one thing for enemies to believe that miracles have occurred. It's quite another to think committed followers would doubt their leader after seeing these miracles. Again, this is a point I made last time, but you're ignoring it.
Similarly, people like Matthew Green and Richard Carrier have said that they wouldn't trust in Christ even if they knew that the resurrection occurred.
That doesn't mean they would doubt his claims or be stunned if his prophecies came true. It only means they would oppose him even if he was a true prophet. This example does not demonstrate that the committed followers of Jesus would realistically have been so confused about the Easter morning events.
How do you know that the ancient Jews who attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan didn't have "the best possible evidence a person could ask for"?
How do you know they did? It's your burden to show they did, not mine to show they didn't. The reason is because I produce millions of examples where people act in a manner opposite of the portrait in the gospels. For you to argue that though I have a million examples you may have one example even though we don't have all the information needed, well that just doesn't cut it. All I ask for is one example, but you can't offer one where we know all the facts.
Seeing evidence of supernatural activity firsthand doesn't settle the issue of identifying the agent involved, nor does it ensure that the person who sees it firsthand will be honest about it or trust in the agent involved.
Well, give us an example. Give me an example of a committed follower that witnessed legitamate miracles and reacted as the disciples and Mary did. You keep pointing to enemies, but this is not the same thing.
Matthew Green has told us that he would oppose the God of Christianity even if he was convinced that Christianity is true.
But that doesn't matter. I will grant that in the real world a person could see a miracle and yet oppose the miracle worker. But I deny that in the real world committed followers doubt a miracle workers authenticity. I deny that in the real world real people could know of Jesus' virginal conception, confess him as the Son of the living God, watch him raise the dead, watch him make predictions that all come true, and then when he finally predicts his own resurrection that they could hear reports of it, see strong evidence for it, yet doubt it. That's unrealistic.
You didn't limit your comments to people like Mary and the disciples. And I don't know what you mean by "firm contact with the real world".
What do you mean I didn't limit myself to Mary and the disciples? I'm specifically talking about the unrealistic behavior of Mary and the disciples. Who are you talking about?
How do you supposedly know that Richard Carrier would behave that way? You don't.
You are the one asserting that Richard Carrier would behave like Mary and the disciples did, which would prove that Mary and the disciples are not portrayed in an unrealistic way. So we're both speculating about how he would behave. How would you expect him to behave if he had all the evidence Mary and the disciples had? Do you really think he wouldn't have any concept of what the empty tomb meant?
Jason1-And you need to decide which of your inconsistent arguments you're going to use.
Jon-I'm saying IF Mary were real she'd be more like Hinn's followers. Real devoted followers believe with little evidence, like Hinn's followers."
Jason2-Again, the fact that Benny Hinn has followers who don't have much concern for evidence doesn't lead us to your conclusion. Millions of Christians aren't followers of Benny Hinn or anybody comparable to Hinn. Even if you took a follower of Benny Hinn and placed him in first century Israel, the circumstances would be significantly different. Benny Hinn is associating himself with a popular religion in a nation that has a high degree of political freedom and individuality. People aren't persecuting and executing Benny Hinn and his followers. Benny Hinn's critics aren't as prominent and influential in society as Jesus' critics were. We have no reason to conclude that Mary was as unconcerned with evidence as the Benny Hinn follower you describe, and she was living in significantly different circumstances.
This is nothing but a total dodge. You accuse me of inconsistency. I explain why I'm not inconsistent. You completely ignore my correction of your error. This is what I mean when I say I admit my errors and you ignore yours. You're wrong to claim my position was inconsistent.
or the recent experience of seeing the person who made the prediction publicly shamed and executed (knowing that you could face the same sort of end if you followed Him).
This just has nothing to do with it. As I explained last time, fear certainly would have caused followers to deny association with Jesus and possibly not stand up for what is right. But it wouldn't have caused them to be confused at reports of the resurrection. It wouldn't have caused Peter to still not know what was up when he saw the empty tomb. There would have been some anticipation and hopeful expectation. None is present in the gospels.
Their failure to understand makes sense in a historical context in which a general resurrection was expected in the end times, but not an individual resurrection beforehand.
That doesn't cut it. The Jewish leaders understood what Jesus meant, and they hadn't even spent as much time with Jesus as the disciples had. They knew to post guards.
The fact that people are followers of Jesus at one point doesn't mean that they can't doubt Him at another point.
As I emphasized last time, when the issue is whether or not the portrait is realistic, the issue is not what is possible. I understand that they can doubt. But that's not the question. You need to address this issue rather than ignore it repeatedly.
I haven't read Eisenman's book, and neither have you.
Uhm...yeah. That's what I said last time.
You posted a review by Robert Price, so I responded with an article by Glenn Miller that cites multiple scholars' comments about Eisenman, scholars who are more mainstream than Robert Price.
I offered one persons opinion about some theories as to why James would not be treated the same in the gospels as he was previously. You suggest that he's wrong because he "has problems" based upon someone elses review of different material that he's written, and you're completely ignorant of the argument in question. Sure, I am to, but I'm not saying it's wrong or right. I'm saying it's possible that the switch could be explainable. If you're going to suggest it is flawed then you should be familiar with it.
Your "speculation" was inconsistent with the evidence. Telling me to be "creative" in an attempt to justify your bad argument doesn't make sense.
I thought you just said you haven't read Eisenmen? If you haven't, how do you know that this speculation is inconsistent with the evidence? Is this just a foregone conclusion for you?
If Jesus can be exalted either way, and there are other reasons for the authors to have refrained from fabricating such material about the disciples (like the reasons I mentioned earlier), then your speculation that the fabrications might have been done in order to exalt Jesus is insufficient.
I don't need to persuade you of my reasons for the unrealistic portrayal of the disciples. The fact remains that they are portrayed unrealistically. That's all I need to know. I thought I already said this last time.
You made the positive assertion of dependence. Where's your evidence?
No, you made the initial argument that required independence. Here is what you said:
Even if one author of the gospels had such an interest, it's highly unlikely that all four would have had the same concern and the same dishonesty and would have expressed it in the same way and that no traces of people objecting would be left in the historical record.
It is your argument that these 4 authors are independent. I was simply replying to it and pointing out that we don't have independence as you assume.
Even if they did rely on Mark alone on that issue, you haven't given us any reason to conclude that Mark was wrong, and Matthew and Luke's agreement with Mark would suggest that Mark's assessment was widely accepted. Why are we supposed to believe that Mark's assessment was wrong? And how would Matthew and Luke's use of Mark explain the material in John?
Notice how you've completely shifted your argument. You are making an argument that requires independence and when I deny independence you switch and start arguing that even if they are dependent this doesn't make them wrong. That's a change of subject from the point at issue. Obviously dependence doesn't make them wrong. I've argued that they are wrong for other reasons.
How does comparing my interpretation of Mark 8 to an actor "talking as if they were reading" refute my interpretation of the passage? It doesn't.
I'm not trying to refute your interpretation. I'm afraid you are just not grasping the point here. Again.
You're mistaken. You used the plural twice. You referred to what "they" didn't understand.
I said that Peter didn't understand and I was referring to the text of Scripture which said "they" (which includes Peter) didn't understand, thus demonstrating that Peter didn't understand as I had claimed and you denied. I never said John didn't understand on seeing the tomb.
As I said before, for somebody who keeps calling the disciples in the gospels "morons" who are "unreal" because of how often they make mistakes they shouldn't have made, you're quite unreal yourself.
You're going to continue with the name calling based upon your mistake? You're wrong that the text says Peter didn't understand and you're wrong to say I claimed John didn't understand upon seeing the tomb.
Jon-So according to Matthew Henry Peter still does not believe that Jesus has risen from the dead at this point despite the miracles he's seen, predictions that have been made, and the empty tomb."
Jason-Luke 24:12 refers to how Peter was in wonder at what he'd seen. Some people assume that faith wasn't involved, but nothing in the text logically leads to that conclusion. Citing Matthew Henry doesn't make your case.
I'm not saying you have to agree with Matthew Henry. I'm asking if you think he's a moron too, as you suggest I'm a moron. Am I a moron for thinking like Matthew Henry (and probably a lot of other conservative commentators)?
Why, then, are we supposed to believe that Mark was so concerned with making Jesus look good that he repeatedly fabricated accounts of the disciples as "buffoons"? If he wanted to make Jesus look good, and he wasn't concerned with historical accuracy, then why didn't he just refrain from having Jesus "in complete agony and almost in doubt...in anguish and shock" in the first place?
Some faithful Mormons make Joseph Smith look impressive in one way and other faithful Mormons make Joseph Smith look even more impressive in a different way. Does this meant that the former really isn't trying to make Joseph Smith look impressive. You're just not thinking logically.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Now, don't ignore this question from me as you ignored my response to the charge of inconsistency that you levied against me with regards to Mary and Benny Hinn's followers."
You then go on to ignore some of what I said, as you've ignored so much of what I've written in other threads. What you do respond to you often misrepresent. You don't seem to have made much of an effort to think through what I was saying. As I told you in another recent discussion, I've been responding to you primarily for the benefit of other people, not for your benefit.
You then go on to ignore some of what I said, as you've ignored so much of what I've written in other threads.
ReplyDeleteAnd you go on to ignore my explanation for why I ignore some of what you type. The ball is in your court, not mine.
You ignore some of what I write and I ignore some of what you write, but I explain why I ignore what you write and I also have told you that if there is a specific issue that you want me to address I will. I am calling your attention to your specific charges of inconsistency and asking you to address them. You want to avoid the issue by making vague references to things I've ignored elsewhere in other discussions. That's an excuse that is always available, because both of us are forced to ignore some of what is written. It's a convenient and always accessible excuse for ignoring your own mistakes, and would be an excuse for me if I wanted to do the same thing. I don't.
As I told you in another recent discussion, I've been responding to you primarily for the benefit of other people, not for your benefit.
Of course. Like I said many times before you are here to pacify the concerns of lurkers, not engage in conversation. I think this explains your misrepresentations and constant vague appeal unrelated other discussions where supposedly I've "left the discussion". It gives the concerned reader a sense that an answer has been provided when in fact that isn't true.
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"You ignore some of what I write and I ignore some of what you write, but I explain why I ignore what you write and I also have told you that if there is a specific issue that you want me to address I will."
Why would I post material in response to you if I didn't want you to interact with it when you wrote a reply? The idea that I have to post a specific request that you interact with my material is absurd.
Besides, you've often continued to ignore my material even after I've specifically asked for a response. I repeatedly asked you to interact with my comments on Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 2:8, and you refused. I repeatedly asked you to justify your claims about the authorship of Biblical books, and you've refused. Etc. Here's a thread in which I gave you some examples of arguments you had ignored, and you left that thread after I gave those examples:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/jon-currys-treatment-of-eusebius.html
Notice, also, that you claimed in that thread:
"We could talk about Paul's view of whether resurrection was physical if you like. That was the single thread where I did leave arguments from you unresponded to."
At that time, you were claiming that there was only one thread in which you "left arguments unresponded to". Now you're acknowledging that you did it in other threads as well, but the explanation you're now giving us is that you need me to make a request for you to respond to these arguments before you'll respond to them.
You write:
"That's an excuse that is always available, because both of us are forced to ignore some of what is written."
I've responded to far more of your material than you've responded to of mine. I spent months replying to you at length. You left many of the threads on Greg Krehbiel's board, and you eventually left the board entirely. You then began posting here several months later. I repeated the pattern of responding to you at length, and you repeated the pattern of frequently leaving threads without replying to my last response. After those patterns had been occurring for more than a year (from the time we began our discussions on Greg Krehbiel's board in the late summer of 2005), I began responding to less of your material. As I told you in an e-mail discussion months ago, and have repeated since then, my primary concern is for other readers, not you. The other readers of these threads don't seem to think much of you or your arguments, and I've already answered so many of your claims at such length, and you keep ignoring such a large portion of what I write in response to you. I don't have much reason to keep replying to you to the extent I did last year and earlier this year. Why should I keep responding to what you want me to respond to when you've been far less responsive to me?
You write:
"I think this explains your misrepresentations and constant vague appeal unrelated other discussions where supposedly I've 'left the discussion'."
You use the term "supposedly", as if the matter is doubtful. I've repeatedly given you URLs for discussions you ignored or left, as in the thread linked above. Here are some of many examples that could be cited:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-wrote-gospel-of-john.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/did-jesus-and-earliest-christians.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/healthy-and-unhealthy-skepticism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/jon-currys-false-and-misleading-claims.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-testimony-of-irenaeus-not-positive.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/moral-standards-of-earliest-christians.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-trust-jon-curry.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/ignatius-of-antioch-and-infancy.html
Why would I post material in response to you if I didn't want you to interact with it when you wrote a reply?
ReplyDeleteBecause some points that you are making are probably more important to you than others. We both have to ignore some of what the other has said. You do it. I do it. But I don't do it to ignore the issue. I do it because practical necessities require it. I want to focus on what is important. I don't want to waste time on irrelevancies. But you and I may disagree about what is important, which is why I say that if there is something critical that you think is important I'll take a second look at it. You are ignoring something that I think is critical and I think you should take a second look at it. Your repeated false charges of inconsistency on my part have been rebutted and I want you to take a second look and either withdraw your charge of inconsistency or demonstrate it.
Besides, you've often continued to ignore my material even after I've specifically asked for a response. I repeatedly asked you to interact with my comments on Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 2:8, and you refused.
Your repeated fallacy of bringing up off topic irrelevant issues is a fallacy that generally shouldn't be pursued because staying on topic is important to me in a discussion. But you've brought up supposed inconsistency on my part that is relevant to the discussion. When rebutted you make it one of those issues that you ignore in response. Why is that?
Notice again, I explain why I ignore things you bring up. Your only excuse for ignoring important points is "you do it too." That's not the reasoning I use, because I recognize that excuse for what it is; a genetic fallacy.
At that time, you were claiming that there was only one thread in which you "left arguments unresponded to". Now you're acknowledging that you did it in other threads as well, but the explanation you're now giving us is that you need me to make a request for you to respond to these arguments before you'll respond to them.
It's the one thread I recall that I didn't respond that didn't involve repeated red herrings on your part. I leave other conversations when the horse is dead or when your repeated fallacies of bringing up off topic issues runs the thread into the ground. Kind of like this thread. Remember the topic? It was about whether the gospel portrayal of the disciples and Mary is realistic. I suppose you think that if you get the last word here, focusing on who has ignored what and ignoring my argument about the unrealistic portrait in the gospels, you'll later talk about how I "left the conversation." You leave the conversation by ignoring my arguments and talking about topics that are not part of the discussion.
I've responded to far more of your material than you've responded to of mine.
More verbiage, but less content. More red herrings and ad hominem fallacies, but less arguments. You certainly have more words down. But notice the pattern. As in this thread you veer from the topic under discussion after a few posts.
I spent months replying to you at length. You left many of the threads on Greg Krehbiel's board, and you eventually left the board entirely.
And the reasons have been explained to you before, and you ignore them again. I've even re-posted my reasons verbatum for you to get you to interact with them and you wouldn't. See, for you, repeating the same refuted mantra constitutes a response, and when I give up on trying to get you to interact with me you say I "left the discussion." You are truly the one that leaves the discussion by ignoring the arguments and bringing up a host of fallacies.
Why should I keep responding to what you want me to respond to when you've been far less responsive to me?
As I said (repeatedly) I explain why I don't respond to some of what you offer. My reasons are valid. If you disagree you should interact with them, rather than repeating the same thing you've said so many times before.
You use the term "supposedly", as if the matter is doubtful.
It just depends on what you mean by "leave the discussion." Though you get the last word in all the threads you cited, I don't think that means I left the conversation. You can leave the conversation by failing to deal with the arguments I offer. You can leave the conversation by changing the subject of the conversation to something totally different. Kind of like what has happened here.
Jon Curry wrote:
ReplyDelete"We both have to ignore some of what the other has said. You do it. I do it."
As I said earlier, I've done it far less than you have. I began responding to you to a lesser degree in recent days because of your lengthy pattern of ignoring such large portions of what I had written for more than a year. You did it first and to a much larger degree.
You write:
"But I don't do it to ignore the issue."
I doubt your claim about what your intentions have been, but, even if you didn't intend to "ignore the issue", your behavior has resulted in large portions of the evidence against your beliefs being ignored for more than a year.
You write:
"I do it because practical necessities require it."
What "practical necessities require" what you've done over the past several months? You frequently choose not to respond to me when I post arguments about matters of Biblical authorship, the textual record, the moral standards of the early Christians, whether Polycarp was a disciple of the apostles, and so many other issues of such significance. Yet, you repeatedly take the time to involve yourself in other threads in which nobody had mentioned you or in which the discussion is about something much less significant.
You write:
"But you and I may disagree about what is important, which is why I say that if there is something critical that you think is important I'll take a second look at it."
Again, even when I've asked you to address portions of my posts that you originally ignored, you've continued to ignore what I wrote.
You write:
"You are ignoring something that I think is critical and I think you should take a second look at it. Your repeated false charges of inconsistency on my part have been rebutted and I want you to take a second look and either withdraw your charge of inconsistency or demonstrate it."
You've ignored far more of my material than I've ignored of yours. If you wanted me to respond to more of your latest claims, you shouldn't have ignored so much of what I wrote for more than a year.
You write:
"Your repeated fallacy of bringing up off topic irrelevant issues is a fallacy that generally shouldn't be pursued because staying on topic is important to me in a discussion. But you've brought up supposed inconsistency on my part that is relevant to the discussion. When rebutted you make it one of those issues that you ignore in response. Why is that?"
I didn't say that you have to discuss Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 2 in this thread. If you've been refraining from interacting with what I said about those passages only because doing so would be off-topic, then why didn't you go back to the thread where those passages were originally discussed and respond? Or why didn't you address those passages in the other threads I started that were relevant to that subject? I didn't say that your responses to my arguments that you've ignored have to be posted in this thread. You haven't been posting responses anywhere, even in threads where the responses would be relevant.
You write:
"Your only excuse for ignoring important points is 'you do it too.' That's not the reasoning I use, because I recognize that excuse for what it is; a genetic fallacy."
I didn't just say "you do it too". It isn't "a genetic fallacy" to punish bad behavior, nor is it "a genetic fallacy" to decide to respond to a person less once he's demonstrated a lengthy pattern of unreasonableness and doesn't seem to have much credibility in the eyes of other people reading the forum.
You write:
"I leave other conversations when the horse is dead or when your repeated fallacies of bringing up off topic issues runs the thread into the ground."
No, you've frequently left discussions when you were refuted on issues that were on-topic. Your arguments have often been "dead horses", but you left the threads without acknowledging that fact, and you would go on to try to use the same dead horses again in other discussions. I gave many examples in my last post. In this thread in particular, you failed to interact with what I said about the early Christians' high view of James, failed to interact with what I said about scholarly views of what influence the gospels had on each other, failed to interact with what I said about the difficulties involved in getting people to accept unhistorical gospel accounts at a time when apostles and their contemporaries were still alive, etc. For you to suggest that such issues are "dead horses" or "off-topic" is absurd.
You write:
"More red herrings and ad hominem fallacies, but less arguments. You certainly have more words down."
Who do you think you're deceiving? I'm not the one who rarely documents his claims, has to frequently consult Wikipedia to get basic facts about church history, denies that Jesus existed, claims that the phrase "I, Paul" in Paul's letters is a "dead give away" of forgery, placed Eusebius in the Easter controversy of the second century, claimed that no gospel manuscripts had the authors' names for 400 years, believed Wikipedia's ridiculous Horus article, etc. I do have "more words down", in part because I know more about the issues and their complexities than you do, I make more of an effort to include documentation, and I haven't been leaving discussions as often as you have.