Discussion - J.P. Holding (Bob Turkel)
I'll make this page prettier with more links and further explanations ASAP, although there is currently the occasional email from another person included below. The current state of this page is for those who were interested in my end of this interaction with JPH. I'll update it as new emails are sent and received.
These emails were sent to a list including James Patrick Holding, Ed Babinski, G. Zeinelde Jordan and others. I have not included the list in the "To" field in the emails reported as a quick fix in order to keep email addresses hidden from spammers. (Easier for me just to delete the list of names rather than edit out all the addresses for now!)
Otherwise these emails are all unedited.
For those confused by the dates of the first few emails, I have inserted Bob's replies after the relevent emails from myself even though I sent the first few all at once.
Simple.
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html
STEVE
For rebuttals:
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ThePossibleFaith.htm
http://exposed.faithweb.com/faith.html
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "James Patrick Holding"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:49 PMSubject: Re: Why did Christianity succeed in a world of polytheism (and Judaism?)For destruction of alleged rebuttal see
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose_CC1.html
From: Brian HoltzSent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:31 AMSubject: RE: Why did Christianity succeed in a world of polytheism (and Judaism?)[J.P. Holding] (whose real name is a big secret) wrote:For destruction of alleged rebuttal see
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose_CC1.htmlFor an evisceration of this response to my rebuttal, see http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ThePossibleFaith2.htm
Bob, it's been almost a year since I posted my Atheist Cage Match Challenge (and cc'd you on it). Let me know if you're ever up to it -- or if you ever come up with the answers that in Oct 2001 you said you'd give to my questions for theists. Also, let it be known when you're satisfied with your most recent response in our Trilemma debate. Then again, the increasing weakness and incontinence of your multiple responses have been a good way to forestall the final edits on my pending reply...
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:27 AMSubject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s), Bob>>Tell me than: What is Christianity? Belief in Jesus? Come on, if this
will be your reply, than I hope you can do allot better!
BOB:
I already have to the tune of 1300+ articles.
STEVE:
Bob, do you have a reply to http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=242 on
your site?
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "James Patrick Holding"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:47 PMSubject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s), BobYes -- http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith_CC1.html
----- Original Message -----From: Steve LocksSent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:28 AMSubject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s), Bob> ED: The most obvious question is why anyone would believe and seek to
> defend every miracle, every science-related point, the veracity of every
> point related to history, and otherworldly doctrines no one can directly
> verify like "a Trinity,"
BOB:
Because it is true? Isn't that the obvious answer?
STEVE
Because it is true?? If something's in the Bible then will you automatically
defend it? How else do you explain this:
From http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm
Turkel's Software Blunder
This is actually an essay from The TEKTONICS.ORG EXPOSED site. The essay details a very revealing mistake Turkel made when, in a discussion with Farrell Till, he tried to explain a repeated word in the book of John. Turkel claimed that the author of the book repeated the word twice for emphasis:
"First let's understand exactly what is in John here. The words are 'rise again from the dead' -- 'rise again' is the Greek anistemi used twice for emphasis. In fact this we will see is the key to the whole issue; the word is commonly used for anyone just getting up from their place."Unfortunately for Turkel, the word was not actually repeated twice. Software that Turkel was using repeated the word and he didn't catch the error. Turkel's explanation of why the author repeated the word is simply bogus-something he made up off the top of his head. This reference has now disappeared from Turkel's site.
See here for article
http://web.archive.org/web/20021205031149/http://exposed.faithweb.com/blunder.html
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From:James Patrick HoldingSent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:48 PMSubject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s), BobOld news, Steve --
Tell me what happened to the body of Jesus.
STEVE
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm concludes with:
"The evidence has shown that even though Roman authorities like Pilate might
sometimes have left crucifixion victims hanging, they often allowed bodies
to be buried. Such allowances, in fact, were all the more likely during a
religious holiday, or when the crucifixion was not part of a mass operation
to suppress an open and armed revolt, or when the request for the body came
from a person who was cooperative with Rome. The evidence has further shown
that the Jewish leaders who participated in the proceedings against Jesus
had strong religious and cultural motives for seeking to bury him in shame.
Such motives came not from any secret allegiance to Jesus, but from
observance of traditional law and custom. Finally, the
evidence has also shown that the early followers of Jesus described his
burial in terms which were dishonorable. They dignified it as much as
possible but did not deny its shame.
On the basis of the evidence, then, the following scenario emerges as a
likely course of events for the deposition of Jesus' body: late on the day
of his death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem--later
personified by Christian tradition as Joseph of Arimathea--requested custody
of the body for purposes of dishonorable burial. These leaders, having
collaborated with the Romans in the condemnation of Jesus, had both the
means and the motive to bury him in shame: means, in their access to Pilate,
and motive, in Jewish law and custom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant
dishonorable burial to one of their condemned criminals. Only the most
rudimentary burial preparations were administered--the body was wrapped and
taken directly to the tomb, without a funeral procession, eulogies, or the
deposition of any personal effects. By sunset on the day of his death, the
body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminals condemned by
Jewish courts. No one mourned.
The shame of Jesus' burial is not only consistent with the best evidence,
but can also help to account for an historical fact which has long been
puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did the primitive church
not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it
inconceivable (undenkbar) that the primitive community would have let the
grave of Jesus sink into oblivion. [36] Yet the earliest hints of Christian
veneration of Jesus' tomb do not surface until the early fourth century CE.
[37] It is a striking fact--and not at all unthinkable--that the tomb of
Jesus was not venerated until it was no longer remembered as a place of
shame. [38]"
In What Really Happened to Jesus Lüdemann says "given the significance of
tombs of saints in the time of Jesus, it can be presupposed that had Jesus'
tomb been known, early Christians would have venerated it, and traditions
about it would have been preserved." He quotes Joachim Jeremias: "The world
of sacred tombs was a real element of the environment in which the earliest
community lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could
have allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten." If a tomb location is
unknown then it could not have been seen empty. Don Cupitt said poignantly,
"the Easter faith preceded the Easter events."
Rabbinic law specifies that criminals may not be buried in tombs; rather, it
instructs Jews to bury criminals in a common grave. Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8;
Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7. m. Sanh. 6:6 says that criminals condemned by a
Jewish court were not interred "in the burial place of their fathers," but
in a separate places kept by the court specifically for that purpose.
(http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/two.html#10)
However, Ludemann's "What really Happened to Jesus" claims that Jesus was
not likely to have been buried in a criminals' grave (a Jewish practise)
because he was not executed by the Jewish authorities (Ludemann also doubts
the historicity of the Jewish condemnation of Jesus - due to his other
criticisms of anti-semitism in the NT). However, others point out that an
ignoble burial in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin would have been
necessary, if the passion story is to be believed, because Jesus was
condemned by the Jewish authorities in the NT as discussed at
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm. (Also see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#maet).
St. Paul explicitly says Jesus was condemned by the Law, (which would invoke
the ignoble burial code), quoting the Torah law: "Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written,
cursed is everyone who hangs on a post" (Galatians 3:13). And in accord
with the Torah law condemning blasphemers to death (Leviticus 24:16), three
of the four Evangelists state unequivocally that Jesus was condemned to
death for blasphemy by the Jewish high council (Mark 14:64, Matthew
26:65-66, John 19:7). Mark (10:33) and Matthew (20:18) even have Jesus
predict he will be condemned to death by the Jewish council.
Therefore if Joseph of Arimathea (or another Jew/Jews) really buried Jesus,
then he/they would have had to follow the code in the Mishnah Sanhedrin
above. Since at least a few of the Jewish leaders had been involved in the
condemnation of Jesus, they had an obligation to bury him in shame.
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
I should have included a highlight in anticipation of a possible response
from Bob (such as at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_03_01.html#g). This
is that footnote 9 at http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
addresses such criticisms as to the value of the Mishnah Sanhedrin in the
matter of the burial.
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "James Patrick Holding"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:09 PMSubject: Re: A note to Bob and HarryI'm asking what happened AFTER burial, Steve.
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:30 AMSubject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking themBOB
My argument has been that the language of the text is equivocal on such
matters -- open so that no one can find a specific view clearly stated
there.
STEVE
Bob, are the following from the bible equivocations or literal?
Creationism
Adam and Eve
Noah's Ark
Did Paul think these things actually happened? Did Jesus?
Bob, at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html you attempt to make it
look like ancient people did not have ancient notions of cosmology and
astronomy, so we can take it that incorrect scientific ideas in the bible
are not ideas you would be happy to see there. Unfortunately by your stand
on creationism, etc. you have undermined your whole thesis.
But even if we admit that Christianity does not fall due to the insistence
of the inclusion of beliefs such as those at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
(there are other Christian interpretations on the market) it surely even
worse than this. Christianity is predicated on the idea that mankind is
fallen and in need of atonement with God. For most of Christian history
this was based on a literal belief in the Adam and Eve story. Despite all
the mythical and liberal interpretations of the Adam and Eve story in
recent times, the originators of Christianity (Christianities) thought
Genesis was literally true.
As Mark McFall (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/) said to me:
"So you see, if you cast aspersions on the historical record surrounding
Adam and Eve, you must also question the inspiration and authority of the
Bible, the genealogical and archaeological accuracy of Scripture, the
problem of sin, Christ's vicarious atonement, salvation by the grace of God
alone, and much more. I've been laugh (sic) at before for holding this view.
But you know what, that's what the Bible teaches."
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "James Patrick Holding"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:08 PMSubject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking themYo Steve,
I see no reason to think they were not understood literally. Josephus sure
thought so.
I have taken no "stand" on creationism beyond a bare minimal, fideistic
endorsement. What in the world are you talking about?
From: "Steve Locks" <slocks@globalnet.co.uk>Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:50 PMSubject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking themThanks Bob,
I am sorry if I have misrepresented your position. I know your policy is not
to take much of a stand on or defend creationism etc. which I wasn't meaning
to get into the technicalities of, rather I wish to make a point about the
implications of a theology built on a false view of the world. Given your
linking to AiG and pages such as http://www.tektonics.org/evologic.html I
think I am correct not to characterise you as a fence sitter, despite your
policy of not wishing to be drawn on areas you outside your speciality.
Since you mention that your stance is a "fideistic endorsement" then I take
it that you see such views as important to have as part of Christian faith
and therefore could cause problems for faith if not accepted. Therefore
if Creationism, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark did not really happen
then this should not be a neutral issue for you or for the veracity of
Christianity both in your opinion and more generally.
On a previous version of your site at least, I remember seeing you linking
favourably to a Noah's ark apologetic site. (Rummage...) here - found it at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000929025428/www.tektonics.org/lynks.html where
you linked to a number of creationist sites including the Noah's ark
apologetic I was thinking of
http://web.archive.org/web/20001017071102/www.users.bigpond.com/webfx/cyber/crsbk21.htm
That said, your own particular stance on this, whilst relevant to the
grounding of your apologetics, is not the most important thing. (Surely
a Christian apologist could make mistakes and yet Christianity remain true).
Rather it is what the writers of the biblical texts took as literal that is
so damaging to Christianity.
Assume, for the sake of argument at least, that Adam and Eve story,
Noah's ark, creationism etc. are not true and yet St. Paul, Jesus etc.
thought they were absolutely so and built their whole system of sin
and redemption on such tales.
This would mean that their theology was based on a literal reading of
things that didn't happen. Mark McFall represents the view (and goes to some
pains to biblically prove it) that the whole thing would then collapse as
built on sand, "therefore" we must take Genesis literally (see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mark_mcfall2.html#mr).
Whilst I have (or at least had) some sympathy for the more psychologically
based liberal readings of Genesis, this is (as you agree) not what the
originators of Christianity (Christianities) had in mind. Rather they would
have been pretty cross (to the point of heretic burning) had anyone dared
suggest that there wasn't really a talking snake. So Christianity is all
predicated on a gross falsehood.
So, in response to your question: << What in the world are you talking
about? >>
What I am talking about is:
Would you agree that beliefs predicated on a gross falsehood are likely to
be erroneous?
As an addendum, since you agree that "I see no reason to think they were not
understood literally" why do you see the need to imply at
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html that the writers did not have
a false cosmology/astronomy?
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:10 PMSubject: Re: Ground control to Jesus Christ: "We Have Lift Off"Did you know that Jesus recently miraculously appeared before 6,000 in
Nairobi? There are even photos of him and testimonies to his miraculous
appearance and disappearance. http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html
This time he went off in a car though, but then vanished without ascending.
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:17 PMSubject: Re: A note to Bob and HarryIf Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at the URL I gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty tomb with the attendant appearances
as per the Gospels.
As I said previously:
"If a tomb location is unknown then it could not have been seen empty."
You asked "What happened to the body?"
The body rotted. It must have because it was buried in a shameful way in a
shameful place, not the known tomb portrayed in the Gospels.
Do you have a rebuttal of
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm ?
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: "James Patrick Holding"Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:05 PMSubject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking themSteve,
> it that you see such views as important to have as part of Christian faith
> and therefore could cause problems for faith if not accepted. Therefore
> if Creationism, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark did not really happen
> then this should not be a neutral issue for you or for the veracity of
> Christianity both in your opinion and more generally.
I don't deny that it would for some people. It would not for me.
> This would mean that their theology was based on a literal reading of
> things that didn't happen.
If so then we just end up with a Bible like any other historical or other
text that makes claims that must be independently evaluated on their own
merits. The "slippery slope" of "if we can't trust it here, then we can't
trust it anywhere" is logically fallacious and would not enter my mind.
> understood literally" why do you see the need to imply at
> http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html that the writers did not
have
> a false cosmology/astronomy?
Because the data offered does not indicate it.
>>>If Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at the URL I gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty tomb with the attendant appearances
as per the Gospels.
Why not? Those who saw him and went to the tomb are those who would wish out
of love to make any effort to restore his honor.
As for Kenya, get back with me in 5 years and let me know how the movement
that surrounds this event is doing.
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:30 PMSubject: Can't "Adam and Eve" it. (That's Cockney rhyming slang).Thanks for your reply Bob,
STEVE WROTE
(regarding your (Bob's) statement that you take a bare minimal, fideistic
endorsement of creationism):-
> Since you mention that your stance is a "fideistic endorsement" then I
> take it that you see such views as important to have as part of Christian
> faith and therefore could cause problems for faith if not accepted.
> Therefore if Creationism, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark did not really
> happen then this should not be a neutral issue for you or for the veracity
> of Christianity both in your opinion and more generally.
BOB
I don't deny that it would for some people. It would not for me.
STEVE
Okay, I don't want to dwell on your personal beliefs overmuch, but the fact
that you think creationism is worth believing (is it a fact you think so?)
must mean that you see some value in it surely - why else do you endorse it?
If not and you really are not on the creationism side of the fence then I
think your website is a bit misleading and you should make your position
clearer if you wish to reduce misunderstanding of your position. I take it
you disagree with Mark McFall's analysis at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mark_mcfall2.html#mr ?
Since you said:
<< I don't deny that it would for some people. It would not for me. >>
How would you see the fall and atonement if Genesis is mythical rather than
literal?
Also what would you think of the biblical writers for taking the stories in
Genesis literally? (You did say << I see no reason to think they were not
understood literally. >>)
STEVE
> This would mean that their theology was based on a literal reading of
> things that didn't happen.
BOB
If so then we just end up with a Bible like any other historical or other
text that makes claims that must be independently evaluated on their own
merits. The "slippery slope" of "if we can't trust it here, then we can't
trust it anywhere" is logically fallacious and would not enter my mind.
STEVE
Not just their own merits - as I think you really agree, as you have to
understand how a text was written, the times it was written in etc. etc.
etc. just as you do yourself at length. The bible is not the only book you
have read to understand the bible better. Also, it really is relevant to
check the claims of Genesis against modern science, even if you want
to argue about it. Who was it of one book who said "if it's in the Koran
we know it already, if it's not then we don't need it!"
Now, if the atonement is predicated on something that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This is not a "slippery slope" argument. If
someone hasn't eaten poison then they don't need an antidote.
BOB
"if we can't trust it here, then we can't trust it anywhere" is logically
fallacious and would not enter my mind.
STEVE
I did not say that we can't trust the Bible anywhere. In a large
diverse book it is unlikely that the whole thing is without any human
insight. Indeed, contrary to what we're led to believe as Christians,
for most ex-Christians deconversion comes as a feeling of awakening
and spiritual enrichment, rather than the feeling of empty nihilism that
we are led to expect. No baby out with bath water, although the
transition can be painful initially for some.
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/posts.html#trauma
BOB
"if we can't trust it here, ...."
STEVE
Unfortunately if the bible claims things which didn't happen did, and those
things are the very heart of the matter (for supernatural believing
Christians e.g. St. Paul), then the central message of Christianity (that
Jesus died for to rectify the fall) is false. The reason this is so
problematic for Christianity is because St. Paul was not a liberal but
rather intended his theology as a consequence of a literal reading of
Genesis. Hence if there was no talking snake then St. Paul was
mistaken in his interpretation of what Jesus was about. That is not
the "whole thing." It is the difference between evangelical/fundamentalist
Christianity and liberal Christianity or beyond.
So Adam and Eve doesn't destroy a less supernatural Christianity
as plenty of liberals and leftish mainstream Christians get on fine without
a literal belief in Genesis or even a physical Resurrection, as you know
(so why were you worried that this might be a "slippery slope" argument?).
They would argue that there is still plenty of room for manoeuvre.
So back to my question (about literal Genesis and its supernatural
solution). Yes or no, would you agree that beliefs predicated on a
gross falsehood are likely to be erroneous?
Another point about my question:
(Reworded for clarity) "If creationism is false, would that cause a problem
for Christian belief?"
You replied:
<< It would not for me.>>
So to what are you referring when you wrote:
<< claims ... must be independently evaluated on their own merits.>>
If it doesn't matter about creationism for Christian beliefs (for you), why
do you present creationism favourably on your apologetics website?
Do you think it would have upset St. Paul if he was shown that the Adam and
Eve story did not happen? Didn't he therefore not have a real problem (the
fall) requiring a solution (the atonement) but rather a pseudo-problem for
which a solution is therefore not required?
STEVE
> understood literally" why do you see the need to imply at
> http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html that the writers did not
> have a false cosmology/astronomy?
BOB
Because the data offered does not indicate it.
STEVE
Would it cause any embarrassment to Christianity if the biblical authors
*did* literally have false astronomical and cosmological notions?
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: Steve LocksSent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:49 PMSubject: Tomb and bodySTEVE
>>>If Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at the URL I gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty tomb with the attendant appearances
as per the Gospels.
BOB
Why not?
STEVE
Because there would not have been a known tomb for them to go to.As I said previously (twice):
"If a tomb location is unknown then it could not have been seen empty."
As per the argument at
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
Do you have a rebuttal to
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm ?
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: Steve LocksSent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:52 PMSubject: Christ seen by 6,000 in KenyaBOB
As for Kenya, get back with me in 5 years and let me know how the movement
that surrounds this event is doing.
STEVE
That was 1988 and they're still talking about it. The movement is
Christianity BTW. At least it was 6,000 Christians who were calling him"Jesus." Although others later claimed him to be Maitreya, the crowds werecalling "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus of Nazareth!". As it says on the website 6,000believed they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight. They are not the onlyChristians who have claimed to see Christian figures to the embarrassmentof other Christians as I know you are well aware.
http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html was for light relief mostly, but
with one serious point which I wondered if anyone would pick up on. That is
the gullibility of crowds. 6,000 puts 500 to shame - and see how easily they
believed this was Jesus. First hand witnesses even testified with multipleattestations and photographs which is far more impressive than what 1
Cor. 15:6 gives us.This is of course quite apart from a point Ed makes in his book:
Viz.:
"...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over 500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed before Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only 120 "brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22). So by the Bible's own admission, whoever or whatever may
have "appeared" to "over 500 brethren" could not have been a physically
resurrected Jesus, since his body left the Earth before that many
"brethren" existed."
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply3/emails1.html
I know you have lots of URLs for rebuttal, but it would be more interesting
to see your specific answers, although give URLs as well of course!
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
Christianity BTW"Still talking about it" means very little sociologically. And it does not appear to be any sort of new movement from what you describe, just a slathering onto an old one.
>>>"...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over 500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed before Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only 120 "brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22).That's a very poor reading. It only says that 120 brethren were assembled at the place, not that this was the whole of the ekklesia. The vast majority would be Galileeans who would need to stay home and farm.>>>>Okay, I don't want to dwell on your personal beliefs overmuch, but the fact
that you think creationism is worth believing (is it a fact you think so?)
must mean that you see some value in it surely - why else do you endorse it?It is closer to the truth than materialistic versions of origins. I would also endorse ID and refer people to articles on that subject.>>>f not and you really are not on the creationism side of the fence then I
think your website is a bit misleadingHow so? What specific statement is misleading?
>>>Now, if the atonement is predicated on something that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This is not a "slippery slope" argument.It certainly is. There is no problem with the idea that Genesis 1-3 represents an ideological fact about human nature.>>>\Jesus died for to rectify the fall) is false. The reason this is so
problematic for Christianity is because St. Paul was not a liberal but
rather intended his theology as a consequence of a literal reading of
GenesisThen we are still left with something that must be evaluated on individual merits.>>>(so why were you worried that this might be a "slippery slope" argument?).I am not worried that it is, as I think I made clear. :-)
>>>solution). Yes or no, would you agree that beliefs predicated on a
gross falsehood are likely to be erroneous?No. That's far too simplistic a statement.>>>Would it cause any embarrassment to Christianity if the biblical authors
*did* literally have false astronomical and cosmological notions?Not really. We are again left with a need to evaluate individual claims. Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black and white mentality.JPH
From: "Steve Locks"Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:14 PMSubject: Anyone has accessBOB
Because the matters central to salvation do not rely on such a high level of
expertise. Anyone has access.
STEVE
I occasionally get Muslims writing to me who tell me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it a bit, open my heart and all will be
clear!
"[ I ] knew why Muslims are the hardest people in the world to convert
to Christianity. Why? Because there is nothing to offer them!! (In
Islam) There is a relationship with Allah, forgiveness of sins,
salvation and promise of Eternal Life." ... "I also like very much the
rule of forgiveness in Islam and the direct relationship between God and
His servants."
["Former Christian Priests and Missionaries who have Embraced Islam"
http://www.thetruereligion.org/priests.htm]
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: Steve LocksSent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:54 PMSubject: FundiesSTEVE
>>>if not and you really are not on the creationism side of the fence then I
think your website is a bit misleadingBOB
How so? What specific statement is misleading?STEVEI guess it is not misleading since you've admitted being on the ID side of the fence. It just appeared that you were ambivalent from earlier emails, but it seems that is not the case after all. I would like to be clear though - is it irrelevant (as far as you are concerned), for the truth of Christianity whether or not we evolved as mainstream science teaches, and if Adam and Eve and the Flood literally happened or not?
STEVE
>>>Now, if the atonement is predicated on something that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This is not a "slippery slope" argument.BOB
It certainly is. There is no problem with the idea that Genesis 1-3 represents an ideological fact about human nature.STEVEI have already agreed that liberals have room for manoeuvre. It is fatal for fundamentalists if Genesis is not literally true though. It is no good asserting this is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve are mythical then there was no literal talking snake QED and Paul was mistaken to believe that there was. However if you want to reinterpret Genesis 1-3 as an ideological "fact" about human nature then you're more of a liberal than I had you down for - my apologies (no sarcasm meant!)It is also a problem for non-fundamentalists who seek to see Paul as inspired, or indeed knowing enough to be our guide in theology. Since you do not think that beliefs predicated on a gross error are likely to be erroneous, how about: "The chance of being right when your system is predicated on a gross falsehood is less secure than the chances of being right when predicated on an accurate picture of the world." Will you at least consent to that?
STEVE>>>\Jesus died for to rectify the fall) is false. The reason this is so
problematic for Christianity is because St. Paul was not a liberal but
rather intended his theology as a consequence of a literal reading of
Genesis.BOB
Then we are still left with something that must be evaluated on individual merits.STEVEWe are left with the fact that Paul believed something false. There is a difference between St. Paul's belief that Adam and Eve were real people and those who do not. This is the difference between fundamentalism (Paul would have been a fundamentalist) and the non-fundamentalist view. If you take Genesis 1-3 as representing an ideological rather than a literal view then would you be happy to disagree so fundamentally with St. Paul? i.e. does it not disturb you that the most important thing in the universe to you has a literal falsehood at its very core?STEVE
Yes or no, would you agree that beliefs predicated on a gross falsehood are likely to be erroneous?BOB
No. That's far too simplistic a statement.STEVEIf we evolved from animals with a gradually changing consciousness over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly something we need to be condemned for. So no it's not too simplistic to say that if it is a gross falsehood that we have (paraphrasing common Christian claims) "deliberately chosen to go our own way rather than (the Christian) God's" (whether believed to be through our psychology or the false tale of Adam and Eve) then the remedy of Christianity is an unnecessary and erroneous cure looking for a pseudo-disease. There is no need for the Christian God to be so condemnatory of us in the first place - He really should be more understanding and less touchy about being defiled by our presence! (Generously) "if" creationism, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc. are false then aren't we justified in saying "Get a grip on reality you deities!" Okay - I know you'll disagree... maybe instead you could give your interpretation of the fall?
STEVE
>>>Would it cause any embarrassment to Christianity if the biblical authors
*did* literally have false astronomical and cosmological notions?BOB
Not really. We are again left with a need to evaluate individual claims. Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black and white mentality.STEVEThe modern Christians in Kenya would know that above the clouds lie miles of atmosphere and billions of light years of space. Therefore they saw Jesus just disappear, whereas the ancients saw him rise up in the air - but to where? False astronomical and cosmological notions are clearly belying made up stories, so they should be an embarrassment to Christians who believe in a supernatural God.BOBOnly fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black and white mentality.STEVEBut weren't the biblical authors fundamentalists - with a literal belief in Genesis? Did they therefore likely have a fallacious black and white mentality?
Regards,Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.htmlP.S. I'm not personally an ex-"fundie", but I know lot's of nice ones!
From: Steve LocksSent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:57 PMSubject: 6,000 see JesusRegarding the 6,000 Christians who took photos of the person they believed was Jesus miraculously appearing, walking amongst them, talking then disappearing, you wrote:BOB"Still talking about it" means very little sociologically. And it does not appear to be any sort of new movement from what you describe, just a slathering onto an old one.STEVEIt was yourself (not me) who initially referred to this as a "movement" and I who pointed out it was not a new movement, but Christianity, so there is no need to pick me up on that. Anyway, the point is that large Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can believe they see Jesus (complete with materialisation miracles) when it is not really him. Do you agree?STEVE
>>>"...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over 500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed before Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only 120 "brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22).BOB
That's a very poor reading. It only says that 120 brethren were assembled at the place, not that this was the whole of the ekklesia. The vast majority would be Galileeans who would need to stay home and farm.STEVEGood point that 120 might not the whole lot. I should have spotted that and I accept it for now. Also I usually check your "Apologetics Encyclopedia" before asking a question of you but I forgot to here - apologies! To firm this up, is there any way we can be sure that's what the passage means or if it's reliable and how large the whole of the ekklesia was before the ascension? Do you have a reference?Why though (assuming the Gospels are reliable and your point about Galilean farmer brethren is correct) would the majority of the Galilean brethren who had recently known Jesus to have been crucified and entombed, and then upon surely hearing some of their fellow brethren talking about him appearing to them all over the holy land for the last few weeks, want to stay on the farm? Wouldn't they feel like giving the farming a miss for a while? Wouldn't they more likely go to stay as nearby the others as possible (begging off the streets if necessary if you claim food is the issue) in the hope of seeing Jesus alive again? "Shall I go see the risen Christ or muck out the pigs?..."I guess you'll claim the disciples kept it quiet until Pentecost, but they were clearly telling each other (they told Thomas) the Women told the men (according to some versions). The brethren were the "in crowd" already - not the target of the "Great Commission." So it just doesn't seem plausible that they would prefer pigs, or even making food, to the chance of seeing Jesus risen.500 also doesn't sit well with Acts 10:40-41"But God raised him from the dead three days later
and caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from death."I've checked all the versions I can find on this at http://www.ntgateway.com/ and it does look like this is an exclusive eating group - indeed of just the apostles.
This seems to imply that unless there was a mass banquet, there wasno 500 appearance. Or in other words, the writer of Luke-Acts knewnothing of the 500 as purportedly written by Paul.Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
>>>Because there would not have been a known tomb for them to go to.
BOB
Beg pardon, but McCane's thesis is exactly the OPPOSITE, that there would be a known tomb.
STEVE
Quoting from McCane's thesis (my italics):
"Accordingly, this chapter will draw upon evidence from archeology and literature, along with theory from anthropology and sociology, to argue that Jesus was indeed buried in disgrace in a criminals' tomb.......The Jewish leaders in first-century Jerusalem would have thought of it as only natural and right to take Jesus' body down from the cross at sunset. They would not have thought it natural and right, however, to bury Jesus like most other Jews. For there was also a long-standing that some bodies ought to be buried differently from others.......m. Sanh. 6:6 says that criminals condemned by a Jewish court were not interred "in the burial place of their fathers," but in a separate places kept by the court specifically for that purpose.......Jewish religious cultural norms would have prompted them to see that Jesus was buried in shame at sunset on the day of his death.......ancient texts often depict extravagant preparations for the burials of important people. In both of these cases, John has added details which advance a theological purpose, and that in a nutshell is the basic historical problem with the burial narratives.......the well-known fact that the Gospels embellish and glamorize the burial of Jesus. Many scholars have already commented on this tendency in the Gospels.......Virtually all studies agree that as the tradition develops, every detail in the story is enhanced and improved upon....Indeed, the evidence from Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources all coheres around a single conclusion: Jesus was buried in shame. Someone from the Council approached Pilate about the body and put it in an underground tomb reserved for Jewish criminals.......On the basis of the evidence, then, the following scenario emerges as a likely course of events for the deposition of Jesus' body: late on the day of his death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem--later personified by Christian tradition as Joseph of Arimathea--requested custody of the body for purposes of dishonorable burial. These leaders, having collaborated with the Romans in the condemnation of Jesus, had both the means and the motive to bury him in shame: means, in their access to Pilate, and motive, in Jewish law and custom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant dishonorable burial to one of their condemned criminals. Only the most rudimentary burial preparations were administered--the body was wrapped and taken directly to the tomb, without a funeral procession, eulogies, or the deposition of any personal effects. By sunset on the day of his death, the body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminals condemned by Jewish courts. No one mourned.
The shame of Jesus' burial is not only consistent with the best evidence, but can also help to account for an historical fact which has long been puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did the primitive church not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it inconceivable (undenkbar) that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion. [36] Yet the earliest hints of Christian veneration of Jesus' tomb do not surface until the early fourth century CE. [37] It is a striking fact--and not at all unthinkable--that the tomb of Jesus was not venerated until it was no longer remembered as a place of shame. [38]"
So how have you come to the conclusion that:<< McCane's thesis is exactly the OPPOSITE, that there would be a known tomb. >> ?Do you agree that McCane's thesis is that Jesus was buried in a criminals' tomb? He does explicitly say so. Do you mean that it was the criminals' tomb that was known? Is this the grave depicted in the Gospels?Even worse, this whole argument also fits in neatly with Richard Carrier's suggestion athttp://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=125 (revised May 2002).McCane suggests that the tomb was not venerated because it was a shameful place. Only when this was forgotten did Christians start venerating it (in two different places eventually). But even this is not enough if this is what you mean by "opposite" of unknown, as McCane also mentions how "Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it inconceivable that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion." Easy though if they didn't know where he was which would be the case if he was in the criminals tomb (presumably not the only body there and so how to find him?) or he was moved from a less ignoble place as he would have to have been before the tomb visits (Mishnah law) and the subsequent triggers to the assumption of resurrection as perAnyway, all this puts too much emphasis on the historical validity of the Gospels and my money's on Cuppit's understanding of what happened.Too much to read though on both sides, I know....Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: Steve LocksSent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:45 PMSubject: Re: Bob-non-answers, and Holy Exaggerations> ED: Non-answer. Anyone has access to Mormonism too. The book of Mormon
BOB
There you go again with misdirections. That's not an answer to the point
that research on matters of centrality is a piece of cake. Pointing to
another instance of "accessibility" isn't relevant.
STEVEThis is not a misdirection (on Ed's part). Ed has correctly pointed out a case of special pleading.Remember that Ed's comment about Mormon accessibility was in response to the following:*********************EDAnd how can people be blamed eternally simply for relying on experts to
fill in the gaps concerning things in which none of us has thorough expertise?BOBBecause the matters central to salvation do not rely on such a high level of
expertise. Anyone has access.*********************
STEVEi.e. Bob said the reason people can be blamed eternally is because they could easily have found out about matters central to (Christian) salvation (despite unmentioned difficulties regarding such "ease" such asChristianity (Christianities) is (are) not the only religion (s) do damn outsiders (and other Christians) for not believing "easily found out" things. (Just how do people believe things they do not believe anyway?)It is easy to find out that you must not believe in the trinity:Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers. Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution. [Koran 005:072-73]
It is easy to find out that you must believe in Allah and His Apostle:
"And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers." - The Koran
It is easy to find out that you must love and have your rest in Krishna who is the way and the seed of eternal life, known only by love but hated my malignant men destined for hell:
"He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from everlasting the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows me not...all beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves me shall not perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down the path of hell".
Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)
From "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H. Thouless:- "There is a common fault in argument arising from the influence of prejudice which may be employed deliberately as a dishonest trick but which is more commonly used unwittingly by a speaker who is mislead by his prejudices. This is the use in one context of an argument which would not be admitted in another context where it would lead to the opposite conclusion. This is special pleading." Many Christian claims are special pleading and therefore at fault. To claim something for Christianity (e.g. the reason you're damned is because you could easily have found out what was important to Christian salvation) that you would not accept for another religion (e.g. the reason you're damned is because you could easily have found out what was important to Muslim/Hindu etc. salvation) is special pleading.Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
and caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from death."That sits fine with 500. The ekklesia would have been a table fellowship group, and it is not at all unlikely that the appearance to them involved table fellowship, per Jesus' normal mode of operation on earth. So yes, a mass banquet is not out of the question. Such banquets were typical for fellowship groups.>>>concerned), for the truth of Christianity whether or not we evolved as mainstream science teaches, and if Adam and Eve and the Flood literally happened or not?I can live with a situation in which that would be the case.>>> It is fatal for fundamentalists if Genesis is not literally true thoughWell, thankfully, I am not one.>>>However if you want to reinterpret Genesis 1-3 as an ideological "fact" about human natureI do not, but I am saying it would not bother me to have to resort to such a view.>>> theology. Since you do not think that beliefs predicated on a gross error are likely to be erroneous, how about: "The chance of being right when your system is predicated on a gross falsehood is less secure than the chances of being right when predicated on an accurate picture of the world." Will you at least consent to that?Perhaps not in context. we can hardly expect Paul to know if Gen. 1-3 was fiction. He could still be right about the need, while being wrong about the nature of the reason for it.>>>If we evolved from animals with a gradually changing consciousness over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly something we need to be condemned for.The rub of this is that I do not accept that as a possibility either. Let me be clear: If Gen. 1-3 is not literally true, I do not consider that "evolved from animals" is the only option open otherwise. What I would next consider -- unattested, obviously -- is some other special creation model not in line with a literal view of Gen. 1-3. The fall would then be represented by a general rebellion of all humanity.>>>But weren't the biblical authors fundamentalists - with a literal belief in Genesis? Did they therefore likely have a fallacious black and white mentality?If they did, there was not much they could do about it, not having disproving arguments at hand.>>Quoting from McCane's thesis (my italics):Yes, I have read it. McCane agrees that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb, even though he does not agree on the particulars of the extravagance. He does not say the tomb was unknown.>>Even worse, this whole argument also fits in neatly with Richard Carrier's suggestion atWell, I think you have seen Miller's detailed answer to that...I know Carrier has issued a summary retort, but so far most of Miller's reply remains untouched, last I checked...>>> occasionally get Muslims writing to me who tell me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it a bit, open my heart and all will be
clear!That's not quite what I am talking about. My point is that these are not difficult issues to get answers to, whether you become a believer in them or not. For Ed to answer my point he needs to show that, in the example given, it is hard to figure out the plan of Christian salvation. Your cites from the Quran only illustrate my point: How hard are those passages to grasp?Bob
From: Steve LocksSent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:39 AMSubject: Re: 6,000 see JesusHi Bob,
Thanks for your friendly reply. I read your discussion with Kyle Gerkin a few months ago and know that friendly, diplomatic exchanges are possible.
BOB
Can I ask you to please compress all replies into one letter?
STEVE
If it helps, although I prefer topics were separated to stay focused. Unwieldy emails tend to get points lost in my experience, but I guess you're suffering from too many emails - so okay then as much as possible!
STEVE
>>>It was yourself (not me) who initially referred to this as a "movement" and I who pointed out it was not a new movement, but Christianity, so there is no need to pick me up on that.
BOB
Then what was the point of bringing it up at all? If that is so then it is no parallel.STEVE
The point is as I say next (i.e. it's Christians)
STEVE
>>Anyway, the point is that large Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can believe they see Jesus (complete with materialisation miracles) when it is not really him. Do you agree?
BOB
No, because all this proves is that one large crowd in one part of the world at one particular time was credulous. Anachronistically arguing as though the social and practical situation were the same is nothing but an assumption.
STEVE
Social and practical situations are second order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so changeable over cultures and time periods. I had already pointed out in an earlier email that Christian groups had throughout history claimed to have visions. Richard Carrier points out there were also reports of multiple and widespread reappearances of Jesus at later times that were clearly hallucinations which were an embarrassment to the Church and had to be suppressed. As you know other groups through history have seen things as well, from the talking statue of Tyche, through those who saw Sabbetai Sevi describing visions in which they had seen him seated upon a throne. In Daniel Defoe's description of the great plague of London he draws on his own experience to tell how all it took was for one person to say they saw a vision of an angel clothed in white in the clouds brandishing a fiery sword for whole crowds to gather round and testify to "seeing" the same thing. Throughout Christian history there has been a litany of visionaries and mystics. Even during the funeral of Princess Diana people in the crowd reported visions of her looking down from heaven. On the TV coverage I saw one bystander say "this reminds me of when Jesus died" (I'm not making this up!) Similar descriptions of crowd behaviour in NT times (even assuming that the 500 is historical) is hardly an anachronism since such behaviour is seen across cultures and time periods. The early Christians were humans and humans have "seen" things that were not there across cultures and time periods - even in groups. So no anachronism there. If you still don't believe me that Christians "see things" then remember St. Paul and St. Stephen's visions. Also Christians clearly made stories up about what was "seen" and we know Christians made stories up about Jesus to suit their theology, so why could the "500" not be one of them? We have the false ending of Mark and the gospels considered apocryphal (although some are not apocryphal to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) some with quite fantastic stories about Jesus that you wouldn't entertain as true for a minute. But the point is that Christians clearly were making up false stories about Jesus!Regarding whether 120 was not the whole ekklesia I asked:
STEVE
>>> To firm this up, is there any way we can be sure that's what the passage means or if it's reliable and how large the whole of the ekklesia was before the ascension? Do you have a reference?
BOB
The surety only lies in that 1) it does not name this as the whole party;
STEVE
That's a possibility, not a surety. Indeed it is an assumption and above you implied that you were against assumptions.(Quote: "Anachronistically arguing as though the social and practical situation were the same is nothing but an assumption").
BOB
2) practically, most of the brethren could not be there, having other commitments (like farms).
STEVE
I've already argued against this. Who out of the Christian brethren would prefer farming to the chance of seeing the risen Christ?
BOB
To argue otherwise is to argue from silence.
STEVE
I've argued not from silence but from criticising the scenario as implausible.
BOB
The 500 reference is the only one that hints at the size of the ekklesia at that time.
STEVE
Then you have a circular argument - using the bible to prove the bible which is a fallacy. Even worse you are using the only text on this to "hint at" *itself*! Would you let anybody outside of the bible get away with an argument like that?
STEVE
>>>and entombed, and then upon surely hearing some of their fellow brethren talking about him appearing to them all over the holy land for the last few weeks, want to stay on the farm?
BOB
Because presumably, they still had to eat. :-)
STEVE
I anticipated that response in the email you're responding to - i.e. where I wrote:
STEVE
>>> Wouldn't they feel like giving the farming a miss for a while? Wouldn't they more likely go to stay as nearby the others as possible (begging off the streets if necessary if you claim food is the issue)
BOB
As shameful as begging was to do, that is unlikely to have happened.
STEVE
Why? Would you give up the chance of seeing the risen Christ even if it meant begging or even fasting for a few weeks? Jesus managed 40 days without food and David Blaine managed 44. The world record is a Hindu called "Heras" who managed 80 days in 1953.
STEVE
>>>in the hope of seeing Jesus alive again?
BOB
AFTER he ascended?
STEVE
Remember that they wouldn't have known that the ascension was going to happen when they were already gathered and my point is that surely they would have gathered rather than gone farming. The speech to the 120 happens immediately after the ascension and so the ekklesia wouldn't have know that the ascension would have happened by then. The whole Ekklesia should have still been there. According to Acts1:12-15 they all went to the same place afterwards - there is nothing there about 380 going back to the fields. If you are going to argue that Acts 1:15 ("in those days...") implies a break in time then remember they had been told (commanded) by Jesus (Acts 1:4) to not depart but wait for the Holy Spirit to come upon them, so why would 380 of them go off to muck out the pigs? (Always assuming the NT is reliable!)I was perplexed the first time I saw a Christian claim that 500 people saw the ascension, as I was always under the impression that only the apostles were meant to have been there (reading from the implication in Acts 1:2). However if a Christian is to accept the 500 vision as historical then I see how they would be forced to argue that 500 must have seen him ascend. Unfortunately this then makes the whole thing even more implausible as I've been attempting to explain. If 500 saw him ascend them since they were commanded to stay in Jerusalem by Jesus, why did 380 not do so?If you are going to say that 500 did not see him ascend, then why would they have not been there at the ascension given that news of Jesus resurrection appearances should have been going around? You yourself said they would have been having table fellowship at the time and that is how the 500 saw Jesus - i.e. before the ascension. Why then would they have returned to their farms and miss out on the chance of another visit? Hence they must have been there at the ascension and commanded by Jesus not to leave Jerusalem. So why did only 120 stay?Hence your options are
- there were only 120 before the ascension - hence no 500 vision, it's an interpolation as e.g. per http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html
or
- 380 brethren disobeyed Jesus command.
Which is more likely?
STEVE
>>>500 also doesn't sit well with Acts 10:40-41 "But God raised him from the dead three days later
and caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from death."
BOB
That sits fine with 500. The ekklesia would have been a table fellowship group, and it is not at all unlikely that the appearance to them involved table fellowship, per Jesus' normal mode of operation on earth. So yes, a mass banquet is not out of the question. Such banquets were typical for fellowship groups.
STEVE
Why do you think the Gospel authors failed to mention a banquet of 500 brethren with the risen Jesus? It is no use just replying that's an argument from silence if there is no plausible alternative. Do you have a reference that the ekklesia would have been a table fellowship group? At http://www.ntgateway.com/ it does look like this is an exclusive eating group - indeed of just the apostles according to the commentaries on Acts 10:40-41 which refer me back to Acts 1:8 which refers to the "witnesses" who are identified at Acts 1:2 as the Apostles (e.g. http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_26). Indeed at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=ac&chapter=10&verse=41 it even explicitly states that this was just the apostles.even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead;
namely, to the apostles, with whom he familiarly conversed by times, for the space of forty days after his resurrectionNot now to all the people - As before his death; to us who did eat and drink with him - That is, conversed familiarly and continually with him, in the time of his ministry.Who was conversing familiarly and continually with Jesus in the time of his ministry - the apostles of course.So once again, no 500 vision.BOB
...not out of the question...that is unlikely to have happened....and it is not at all unlikely that...STEVE
I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at your website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon possible scenario. Whilst some of these could be accepted for the sake of argument the overall scenario is a multiplication of hopeful, but less than unity, possibilities. These are "AND statements" all required for your apologetic to work. Multiply a lot of numbers smaller than one together and you soon get close to zero.
STEVE
>>> Since you do not think that beliefs predicated on a gross error are likely to be erroneous, how about: "The chance of being right when your system is predicated on a gross falsehood is less secure than the chances of being right when predicated on an accurate picture of the world." Will you at least consent to that?
BOB
Perhaps not in context. we can hardly expect Paul to know if Gen. 1-3 was fiction. He could still be right about the need, while being wrong about the nature of the reason for it.
STEVE
Yes, that's the interpretation I had as a Christian too. Unfortunately Paul reasoned from the false premise therefore his argument is invalid and we cannot rely on him.STEVE
>>>If we evolved from animals with a gradually changing consciousness over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly something we need to be condemned for.
BOB
The rub of this is that I do not accept that as a possibility either. Let me be clear: If Gen. 1-3 is not literally true, I do not consider that "evolved from animals" is the only option open otherwise. What I would next consider -- unattested, obviously -- is some other special creation model not in line with a literal view of Gen. 1-3. The fall would then be represented by a general rebellion of all humanity.
STEVEI'm glad you want to be clear so I hope you'll bare with me as I'm afraid that's not clear to me at all. What could the "general rebellion of all humanity" actually be and how does it hold up if mainstream science is correct? And what is the "special creation model?" Is the "special creation model" a necessary part of your beliefs to make the fall and atonement work? Is any of this predicated on evolution as understood by mainstream science being false?
STEVE
>>>But weren't the biblical authors fundamentalists - with a literal belief in Genesis? Did they therefore likely have a fallacious black and white mentality?
BOB
If they did, there was not much they could do about it, not having disproving arguments at hand.STEVEThe points remains that as guiltless as they were for their fundamentalist condition they nevertheless had a fallacious black and white mentality by your own description of fundamentalists. (Quote: "Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black and white mentality.") We should therefore not trust their judgements. You did say their (i.e. fundamentalists' - hence all bible authors') mentality was fallacious!
STEVE
>>Quoting from McCane's thesis (my italics):
BOB
Yes, I have read it. McCane agrees that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb, even though he does not agree on the particulars of the extravagance. He does not say the tomb was unknown.
STEVE
He argues that the tomb was a criminals' common grave and gives good reason for that from Jewish law. Do you agree with that? If not why not? Now if the tomb was a criminals' common grave then there are associative problems of how to locate it. If its location wasn't known to the disciples then they would not have been able to go to it to see it empty.
STEVE
>>> occasionally get Muslims writing to me who tell me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it a bit, open my heart and all will be
clear!
BOB
That's not quite what I am talking about. My point is that these are not difficult issues to get answers to, whether you become a believer in them or not. For Ed to answer my point he needs to show that, in the example given, it is hard to figure out the plan of Christian salvation. Your cites from the Quran only illustrate my point: How hard are those passages to grasp?
STEVE
Exactly - they are easy to grasp. The point is that your reply to Ed (see my other email "Re: Bob-non-answers, and Holy Exaggerations" 24 January 2004 21:45) was not initially about "is the Christian salvation plan easy to understand" but about the reason people can be blamed eternally. i.e. the whole point of mentioning that it is (allegedly) easy to understand the Christian salvation plan is that such ease justifies our damnation for not accepting it. Since the reason is the same for a number of religions then your answer is a case of special pleading and hence a fallacy. If your point is merely to say the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, then the obvious reply is - so what? So is the plan for other religions. i.e. it is irrelevant that (or if the) plan for Christian salvation is easy to figure out.Anyway given the kind of arguments such as http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192, the 60,000 current Christian denominations and the litany of schisms, mutual ex-communications and heretic burnings throughout church history, I'd say that the plan for Christian salvation is anything but easy to figure out - or at least there are many different "clear and easily fathomed views" of what that plan is!Now if the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, why do you think people leave Christianity? From my website:Nobody really "chooses" to disbelieve in Christianity whilst a Christian - as if they were looking for a reason to reject it - quite the opposite is the case! How we can testify to pouring over books of apologetics and asking in prayer for guidance as our faith was crumbling! It is a gut-wrenching discovery that Christianity is untenable. Plenty of current Christians appear to have enormous difficulty understanding this. Most people become ex-Christians because their closer examination of Christian claims convince them that supernatural Christianity is unwarranted. We neither choose to disbelieve in Christianity nor are we responsible for the beliefs that happen to us.What's more this also frequently happens within a Christian environment when one is looking deeper into Christian issues in an attempt to deepen ones faith, that the problems become convincing, rather than debates with critics. People being debated out of Christianity (although it happens) is actually a much rarer exit scenario than personal exploration from my collecting of deconversion stories. Since we leave Christianity despite our attempts to deepen our faith then Jesus' purported exhortation "Seek and ye shall find" is false. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.htmlChristians often exhort people to believe. Do you know how someone can choose to believe things they don't believe? Since not believing easily understood plans will lead to our damnation then there ought to be an answer to that one!Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: James Patrick HoldingSent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:13 PMSubject: Re: 6,000 see JesusHowdy,>>>If it helps, although I prefer topics were separated to stay focused. Unwieldy emails tend to get points lost in my experience, but I guess you're suffering from too many emailsAbout 100 a week, yes, not counting all the virus emails that I delete from the server before using Outlook. Had 90 of those yesterday. The compression is appreciated.>>>Social and practical situations are second order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so changeable over cultures and time periodsI have to say that such a claim is, at the very least, uninformed. Human psychology is vastly different in modern, Western society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the world today. The interaction of collectivist thinking, and honor and shame, are the two most prominent differences. Of the things you named I only know much about Sevi, and because of his apostasy, there can really not be a comparison to Christianity because his movement never entered into a serious "trial" phase. I ask you: What social pressures were on those who would have seen Defoe's angel or Diana? Would they have been threatened with social ostracization? Was it shameful and dishonorable to believe in seeing such a thing? (I know it was not: Those two examples are Western ones, where honor and shame play virtually no role!)>>> We have the false ending of Mark and the gospels considered apocryphal (although some are not apocryphal to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) some with quite fantastic stories about Jesus that you wouldn't entertain as true for a minute.Yes, but for reasons of the late date of the material, not because of any philosophical presupposition.>>But the point is that Christians clearly were making up false stories about Jesus!"Christians"? By what route are Gnostics, for example, so declared?>>>That's a possibility, not a surety. Indeed it is an assumption and above you implied that you were against assumptions.I feel that my assumption accords with available evidence.>>>(Then you have a circular argument - using the bible to prove the bible which is a fallacy.I don't see how this is any different than making an appeal to any other claim in a secular document.>>> Would you let anybody outside of the bible get away with an argument like that?Yes. Why? Though of course I also rely on external vectors of reliability.
>>Why? Would you give up the chance of seeing the risen Christ even if it meant begging or even fasting for a few weeks?In an honor and shame society, no. Besides, it would not just be for a "few weeks" -- agriculture at that time was fairly primitive; you didn't have sprinkler systems or fertilizers, and if you missed the growing season, you'd be likely to be starving for a year or more, to say nothing of your family doing it with you.>>>Jesus managed 40 days without food and David Blaine managed 44. The world record is a Hindu called "Heras" who managed 80 days in 1953.The latter, I note, a professional faster; the first, by my paradigm, divinity incarnate; the middle one, a professional illusionist. Certainly representative experience of typical Galileean peasants of the first century who were already on the edge of survival as is. :-)
>>>Remember that they wouldn't have known that the ascension was going to happenUm, John 20:17? Besides, you are assuming here a modern obsession with sentimental personal interaction. These people's lives were governed by more practical concerns; they had a "present orientation" and far less concern for the future, and truly "knowing"someone as an individual was practically unknown. If anything a table fellowship meeting would have been a far more substantive experience for them, given that this was the premier means of personal interaction for the period.>>>there were only 120 before the ascension - hence no 500 vision, it's an interpolation as e.g. per http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.htmlYou actually think Robert Price has it on here? Um -- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_05_02.html>>>Why do you think the Gospel authors failed to mention a banquet of 500 brethren with the risen Jesus?Because the Gospels are biographies of Jesus written for people who are already believers, not kerygmatic documents trying to provide as much verification as possible to those who do not believe.>>> Do you have a reference that the ekklesia would have been a table fellowship group?Any social group, whether a Jewish synagogue or a Mithraic assembly or a funereal club, practiced table fellowship in the ancient world. Acts 10:41 only indicates that the apostles were part of that group, not that they were the sole members.>>>I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at your website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon possible scenario.Such is the necessity of the practice of historical reconstruction: Inferences drawn from background data. What you need to do is show that they are not "less than unity" which I do not see happening. :-)>>>Yes, that's the interpretation I had as a Christian too. Unfortunately Paul reasoned from the false premise therefore his argument is invalid and we cannot rely on him.You merely say so but do not explain why a second reason unknown to Paul cannot be supplied.>>>I'm glad you want to be clear so I hope you'll bare with me as I'm afraid that's not clear to me at all. What could the "general rebellion of all humanity" actually be and how does it hold up if mainstream science is correct?If you mean about evolution, I think I have made clear that it would not. The general rebellion I speak of would be historically unrecorded.>>>And what is the "special creation model?" Is the "special creation model" a necessary part of your beliefs to make the fall and atonement work?No, but the issue does not even get that far since I can in no way conceive of "mainstream science" being correct about materialistic evolution.>>>The points remains that as guiltless as they were for their fundamentalist condition they nevertheless had a fallacious black and white mentality by your own description of fundamentalistsI find quite a difference between being "black and white" because one chooses to ignore colors, and black and white because one is color blind. Lack of trust is earned only by those who fit the former condition, and for the others, does not invalidate the whole of their arguments.>>>He argues that the tomb was a criminals' common grave and gives good reason for that from Jewish law. Do you agree with that? If not why not?I can agree that Joseph's tomb was used under such constrains. Indeed I'd consider it likely that he took advantage of the procedure to give Jesus a better burial than he otherwise may have gotten.>>> If your point is merely to say the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, then the obvious reply is - so what?That is indeed my point, and thus as well that Ed's original remark, to which I replied, deserves a "so what" as well.>>>Anyway given the kind of arguments such as http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192, the 60,000 current Christian denominations and the litany of schisms,>>>Now if the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, why do you think people leave Christianity?I don't make broad judgments about people as a whole. On particulars I have found ignorance of their own alleged belief system to be a prime cause, with bad behavior by the likes of televangelists a second.Bob
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: James Patrick HoldingSent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:29 PMSubject: Re: 6,000 see JesusHowdy,>>>I just wanted to check something with you. How many people do you believe were at the ascension?I see no reason to think more than the 11 were.You have the TheologyWeb address right. It is co-founded by one of Tekton's most ardent readers, though Tekton is not officially associated with it.Bob
From: Steve LocksSent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:19 PMSubject: Re: 6,000 see JesusThanks Bob,Yes, 11 disciples (well, 10 I guess - no Judas) is what I've always taken the text to mean, as I said earlier, although I still think there are some internal difficulties as I've also discussed (more later).Jordan - you mentioned a number of times on your website that there were 500 at the ascension. In your "Birth and Death of an Atheist" http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/birth_files/02birth.htm you wrote "I also reject that the apostles and the 500 witnesses to His ascension into Heaven experienced joint hallucinations." I was wondering how you personally got the figure of 500?If I understand you correctly I appreciate that you no longer hold as much sway with the 500 as you initially appeared to, (you wrote later: "Understand that I neither accept nor reject the 500 passage") but what I want to know is how did you arrive at your original "500 witnesses to His ascension" figure?(For background to this conversation see http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply3/emails1.html)Thanks to all,Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
From: Steve LocksSent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:53 PMSubject: Re: 6,000 see JesusOops 12-1=11.my mistake!Steve
======================================
Leaving Christianity
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
>>Anyway, the point is that large Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can believe they see Jesus (complete with materialisation miracles) when it is not really him. Do you agree?
BOB
No, because all this proves is that one large crowd in one part of the world at one particular time was credulous. Anachronistically arguing as though the social and practical situation were the same is nothing but an assumption.
STEVE
Social and practical situations are second order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so changeable over cultures and time periods. I had already pointed out in an earlier email that Christian groups had throughout history claimed to have visions. Richard Carrier points out there were also reports of multiple and widespread reappearances of Jesus at later times that were clearly hallucinations which were an embarrassment to the Church and had to be suppressed. As you know other groups through history have seen things as well, from the talking statue of Tyche, through those who saw Sabbetai Sevi describing visions in which they had seen him seated upon a throne. In Daniel Defoe's description of the great plague of London he draws on his own experience to tell how all it took was for one person to say they saw a vision of an angel clothed in white in the clouds brandishing a fiery sword for whole crowds to gather round and testify to "seeing" the same thing. Throughout Christian history there has been a litany of visionaries and mystics. Even during the funeral of Princess Diana people in the crowd reported visions of her looking down from heaven. On the TV coverage I saw one bystander say "this reminds me of when Jesus died" (I'm not making this up!) Similar descriptions of crowd behaviour in NT times (even assuming that the 500 is historical) is hardly an anachronism since such behaviour is seen across cultures and time periods. The early Christians were humans and humans have "seen" things that were not there across cultures and time periods - even in groups. So no anachronism there. If you still don't believe me that Christians "see things" then remember St. Paul and St. Stephen's visions....***********End Recap************BOB (quoting STEVE's line "Social and practical situations are second order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so changeable over cultures and time periods")I have to say that such a claim is, at the very least, uninformed. Human psychology is vastly different in modern, Western society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the world today. The interaction of collectivist thinking, and honor and shame, are the two most prominent differences. Of the things you named I only know much about Sevi, and because of his apostasy, there can really not be a comparison to Christianity because his movement never entered into a serious "trial" phase. I ask you: What social pressures were on those who would have seen Defoe's angel or Diana? Would they have been threatened with social ostracization? Was it shameful and dishonorable to believe in seeing such a thing? (I know it was not: Those two examples are Western ones, where honor and shame play virtually no role!)STEVEWhere is your source of information that human *psychology* (not culture) is "vastly different in modern, Western society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the world today"? Grief, love, hope, fear, aggression, competition etc.? I have never encountered such a claim in any psychology book, including psychology of religion texts. Indeed quite the reverse, including those which seek to explain many of the peculiarities of our behaviour in the modern world by human psychology that was evolved over the vast time periods h