I post this, not because I’m a world class debater (I’m not), but because the conversation is instructive in several ways. First, it shows the kinds of arguments skeptics out there are using and some ways to combat those arguments. Notice that I provide evidence and refer to evidence that he can verify elsewhere if he takes a little effort to do so.
Also notice that I do not always do all the looking for him. If he is interested, I have provided enough evidence to start him in the right direction. If he is only interested in ridiculing Christians, I have better uses of my time. Thus, I am under no obligation to ferret out every possible evidence for my position until he shows some signs of being a true seeker. My responsibility is to defend my position and provide a start for his own personal search, should he wish to undertake it.
The topic of the conversation itself is also instructive. There actually are still people out there claiming that the Jesus of the Bible never existed or that there is no evidence of him. My responses here include just a tiny intro to some of the evidences to contrary.
Another thing to notice here is how often Andy makes broad, sweeping claims with no evidence or refuses to look into sources I provide. This is typical. People like this like the idea of being atheists or agnostics and they like looking down their noses at Christians and pretending that we are the ones who are ignorant and backwards, yet they won’t even read an article or semi-lengthy comment on the evidence for our side, much less a book or scholarly publication. This conversation makes that clear.
Anyway, here’s the conversation, slightly cleaned up for clarity, but given in its entirety. The background is that Andy was having a conversation about the existence of God with someone else named Jan when I jumped in.
Andy: How real do
you have to believe your imaginary friend is to consider it a relationship?
Jan: Andy, how
real do you believe the air is that you breathe? You can't see it, but you know
it is there.
Andy: When I put
my head under water and breathe out, yes I can see it.
Me: And if you
get to heaven, you'll be able to see God.
Andy: If I get to
Valhalla I'll get to see Odin, which has as much likelihood.
Me: Except that
Christianity has far more evidence for its truth than Norse mythology.
Andy: You're only
saying that because Christianity is the dominant religion is your part of the
world. You'd be saying something completely different if you lived in ancient
Egypt, medieval Constantinople or modern day India.
Andy: I must
point out that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and even if there
were any to be found it still wouldn't verify any of his miracles or magic
powers.
Me: I'm not talking about what religion I prefer to be true. I'm talking about which religion has objective evidence for its truth claims. Only Christianity has that.
Me: I'm not talking about what religion I prefer to be true. I'm talking about which religion has objective evidence for its truth claims. Only Christianity has that.
Just for starters, do some research on:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Minimal Facts Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
The number of fulfilled OT prophecies
The Teleological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Minimal Facts Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
The number of fulfilled OT prophecies
The first 3 are logical arguments for the existence of God
and could apply to any personal monotheistic God. The last 2 are specific to
Christianity.
As for the claim that there is no evidence for the existence
of Jesus, that is patently false.
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that
Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the
theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30] In
antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed
Christianity.[31][32] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars
on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on
the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of
the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial,
and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many
disciplines.[28] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that
Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact
"astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time – more so
than any of his contemporaries – with numerous books, stories and memoirs
written about him."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Andy: Your copy and pasting skills are astounding. I'm not going to read something you've lazily C&P here, I want to hear these so-called objective evidences in your own words.
Andy: Your copy and pasting skills are astounding. I'm not going to read something you've lazily C&P here, I want to hear these so-called objective evidences in your own words.
Me: Um, copying and
pasting from a source, with a link, is called supporting your argument. You
should try it sometime.
Me: The rest was
my words and the information on those arguments is out there, easy to find if
you look. If you want to know what evidence there is for Christianity, you'll
have to do a little work. I have no incentive to provide information that you
can just as easily find for yourself.
Andy: Firstly, if
we're going to agree on the existence of Jesus' existence, we must first agree
on a few standards Jesus must meet. What do qualifications should Jesus have?
Me: Read the link
I provided. It's not a Christian source and it gives the basic facts that the
majority of historians and scholars agree on. If you can't read a single
Wikipedia article, I have nothing more to say. My explanation would be much
longer and I don't plan to write it if you can't read that much.
Andy: I can
accept there was a man running around Palestine 2000 years ago who claimed to
be the messiah because there were literally hundreds doing that very same
thing. So if you that's the only prerequisite that Jesus had to do, then yes,
Jesus did exist.
Me: You still
didn't read the link.
Andy: No, because
we haven't decided on what standards Jesus would have to meet in order to
determine if he did exist.
When you say Jesus, what do you mean?
Me: The accepted
facts about Jesus include his baptism by John the Baptist, his crucifixion near
Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate, that he had disciples, he was from Galilee, and
that after his death his disciples were persecuted and killed. That sounds like
the same person described in the Bible.
Andy: Then no,
there is absolutely no evidence for that Jesus.
Me: Lots of
historians disagree with you. Not just Christian historians, but atheists and
agnostics as well.
Me: The
historians Josephus and Tacitus, writing during the period, confirmed several
details of Jesus' life, including his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
Andy: No,
historians say that at the most they can say is that it's likely that a man
called Jesus who claimed to be the messiah existed around Palestine 2000 years
ago. They say nothing about his teachings, miracles or divinity.
You're wrong about the crucifixion; it's only been proven
that Pilate existed and he probably had people executed.
Me: From Tacitus,
a Roman historian, circa AD 117:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened
the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name
had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at
the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea,
the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become
popular."
Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15, Section 44
Andy: I didn't
read the word 'crucifixion' at all; it doesn't even say he was executed.
Me: "the
extreme penalty" could only be death. The extreme penalty among Romans was
crucifixion.
Andy: Even if I
grant you this as evidence, this has proven nothing about his miracles,
divinity or resurrection.
Me: We weren't
talking about those. We were talking about whether or not the Jesus of the
Bible was an actual historical person.
Andy: You said:
"The accepted facts about Jesus include his baptism by
John the Baptist, his crucifixion near Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate, that he
had disciples, he was from Galilee, and that after his death his disciples were
persecuted and killed. That sounds like the same person described in the Bible."
You have to provide evidence for all those points. Just
having one source saying there was a chap called Jesus proves very little. You
haven't shown evidence for John the Baptist, his hometown or that he was even
executed.
Me: All of those
facts are listed in the Wikipedia article I linked to as being accepted by most
historians. There are references there. I don't have time to dig out everything
I ever saw about the evidence for these things. Do a little research on your
own. I provided one source for you, but I'm not going to write a book for you
right now. It's already been done.
Andy: OK, for
argument's sake, let's say you're right about those statements, so what? It
doesn't mean anything.
Me: If you're
interested, you can check out this blog post, which has a good summary of the
evidence for the resurrection and links to more information:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/what-criteria-do-historians-use-to-get-to-the-minimal-facts-about-the-historical-jesus-2/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/what-criteria-do-historians-use-to-get-to-the-minimal-facts-about-the-historical-jesus-2/
Me: Of course it
means something. If I'm right, and there is evidence for a Jesus who was
crucified by the Romans, baptized by John the Baptist, etc then that means the
Biblical accounts of these things match known facts. That means the Biblical
accounts have proven accurate and trustworthy on those points.
If the Biblical accounts (multiple accounts, written by
different people at different times in different places) are accurate on these
points, perhaps they are accurate in other places. A source that has been shown
to be accurate in some places warrants further consideration as a primary
source of information. Thus, the Biblical accounts form a historical record
that provides information about the life of Jesus.
Andy: All things
being equal, IF Jesus did exist and a two claims were made, firstly that Jesus'
followers took the body, and secondly, Jesus rose from the dead, the most
likely explanation is that the first claim is true. If the second were true is
raises more questions than it answers. Why was it only known to a small number
of people up until Constantine and how did he rise from the dead?
Me: In any historical
document, there is always the risk that the writers made up what they were
writing rather than recording what actually happened. That is true for any
historical event or document out there, religious or not. However, there are
several clues that historians look for in order to determine if the writers
were likely to be telling the truth or not. They look for things like multiple
attestation (i.e. multiple sources verifying one another), early records (i.e.
written near the time they record), matching with known facts of the time
period, dissimilarities between sources (i.e. different sources verifying a
fact have differences to show that the accounts are independent, and not copies
of one another), embarrassment of the writers (people tend not to make up
things that are embarrassing to themselves and thus embarrassing details are
good evidence that an account was recorded accurately), and linguistically
accurate to the time period and area they are supposed to come from. All of
these apply to the accounts found in the Bible and form good evidence that the
writers of the NT documents were recording history accurately.
Andy: Yes, so
what's more likely? These extraordinary events actually happened or the writers
made them up?
Andy: If I said
there was historical evidence for King Arthur, AND that he drew a sword from a
stone and received Excalibur from the Lady in the Lake but I only provided
evidence that he actually existed, would you accept the other two claims?
Me: The claim
that Jesus' followers took the body seems not to fit as well with the facts.
Why would they die for a story they made up? We know that Christians were
persecuted and killed for their insistence on the resurrection of Jesus. Why
face all that instead of admitting you lied?
Also, if the body had been stolen, in spite of the Roman
guards, why weren't those guards put to death? It's not like the Romans had a
big tolerance for negligence in the line of duty.
Also, the accounts of the resurrection contain details that
would have been embarrassing for the writers and early Christians. For one
thing, the empty tomb was discovered by women. In those days, women were not
considered reliable witnesses and were not allowed to testify in a court of
law. If people of that time were making up a story, they would have made it men
that discovered the tomb - probably Peter or John. Similarly, they claim to
have seen Jesus after the resurrection, but Thomas didn't believe it at first.
Again, that's an embarrassing detail. Plus, the idea of a bodily resurrection
was foreign to Jewish belief.
Andy: Your
argument falls apart at the instant you claim that Jesus' body actually
disappeared. You've presented no evidence for it.
Me: It seems to
me that if Jesus' body didn't disappear it would have been easy to debunk the
early Christians' claims of resurrection. All they would have to do is take
people to the tomb and point to the body. The story that the disciples took the
body would never have been invented if the body was still there. Historians
generally agree that the body was missing for these reasons.
Andy: Where can
we find the claims that any of this actually happened outside of the Bible?
Me: As far as I know, the claims of resurrection are found only in Christian writings, including several early documents known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, these are historical documents with good evidence of their historical accuracy elsewhere, and which are written near the time of the events they claim to record, which agree on the important details and yet are independent sources and not copies of one another, and which contain details that would be embarrassing to the writers and early Christians, and for which claims the early disciples refused to recant, even on penalty of death. I didn't say there was proof positive, but there is definitely some evidence here, and far more than you'll ever find for any other religion.
Me: As far as I know, the claims of resurrection are found only in Christian writings, including several early documents known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, these are historical documents with good evidence of their historical accuracy elsewhere, and which are written near the time of the events they claim to record, which agree on the important details and yet are independent sources and not copies of one another, and which contain details that would be embarrassing to the writers and early Christians, and for which claims the early disciples refused to recant, even on penalty of death. I didn't say there was proof positive, but there is definitely some evidence here, and far more than you'll ever find for any other religion.
Andy: I'm glad
we've established that your claims are baseless.
Me: That's not
what I said and not true. They might be false (though, obviously, I don't think
so), but they aren't baseless.
Andy: There is
nothing outside of the bible that mentions Jesus' resurrection, let alone
verifies it.
Me: So why don't
you consider the testimony of the accounts in the Bible? They are historical
records, just like Josephus or Tacitus.
Andy: The same
reason you don't accept accounts of alien abductions (hopefully poi don't
anyway). I have no good reason to accept anything without decent evidence.
The bible is not a historical text because the amount of
verifiable things in are of such a small percentage that it's virtually
worthless, and certainly not reliable enough to be a commentary on any real
events.
Me: Actually, the
amount of information in the Bible that has been verified historically is
great. Obviously, not everything in the Bible is verifiable. But where it can
be verified, it matches well with what we already know about history.
Unlike Norse mythology or Mormonism, the events of the Bible
take place in a real historical setting, with real people that are known to
exist in history, with historically accurate details that match the time
period. Unlike tales of alien abduction, there was no incentive for the early
Christians to make up such stories, and in fact every reason not to considering
that they were being killed in some of the most brutal ways for their claims.
And the separate accounts from the different gospels agree
with each other in the important details while still incorporating different
aspects, which shows that they are independent accounts and not copies of each
other or written by conspirators. These writers show every indication of doing
their best to recount an accurate account of their experiences, even including
embarrassing details that might have made them look bad. It doesn't look like a
made-up story. It looks like the people who were there really believed it.
Andy: Would you
mind relaying a few?
Me: You want me
to relay a few details of historically verified information in the Bible? Sure.
There's lots and lots and lots. I couldn't possibly list it all, but I can give
some idea of the scope.
Just talking about the life of Jesus, there are details
about the geography and names of Roman officials that are well-known. Pontius
Pilate, for example. And he was only short-term governor (AD 26-36), so that
gives historical setting. Other historical figures mentioned in the NT include
Herod the Great, Herod Antipas and wife Herodias (who had formerly been married
to his brother, Philip), Governors Felix and Festus, "King" Agrippa,
and others. The existence of places like Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem,
Jerusalem, etc are confirmed. The Bible isn't written as a fable with
"once upon a time, long, long ago." It happens in a real, historical
place and time.
Crucifixion is described accurately and matches what we know
from elsewhere about this Roman punishment. We also see other similar cultural
details such as the practice of stoning, the common use of wine as a beverage
at that time, many Jewish sayings and practices, the special status and rights
reserved for Roman citizens, and lots of other details of the period.
In other areas of the Bible the same sort of thing applies.
We know of Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Moabites, and many other people
groups from the Bible and from other sources. The history of the Israelites
given in the OT also matches several things known from outside sources (such as
King Omri of Israel fighting against Moab, King Hezekiah of Israel being
besieged by Sennacherib of Assyria, but then Sennacherib leaving without
sacking the city, etc). There is every reason to believe that the Bible as a
whole is an accurate historical record of events of the time, even if you
disbelieve the religious claims.
Andy: So it names
some historical locations; Spider-man mentions New York, is Spider-Man real?
As for the crucifixion, an execution like that often lasted
for days, not just three hours.
Me: There is much
more to the Bible than simply mentioning real place names. That is simply one
type of historical detail that has been verified. Also, people didn't have the
time, inclination, or resources to simply write fiction back then, as we do
today. Parchment or papyrus were expensive and difficult to obtain, few could
write, times were tough and everyone had to work hard to survive, and these
precious resources of scribes and writing materials were generally reserved for
important documents, not wasted on fanciful things. Not that all documents were
historically accurate back then, but the fanciful ones were usually obvious in
their flight from reality, not carefully crafted hoaxes with a little
make-believe inserted in a grim, historical setting.
As for the crucifixion, the Bible agrees that crucifixions
usually took a long time. That is why it records the surprise of the soldiers
at finding Jesus dead so soon, the spear being stabbed into Jesus' side to
check this, and the legs of the remaining criminals on crosses being broken to
hurry their deaths.
Andy: That's one
of my problems with the bible, it gets so many things wrong. Too many things
wrong for it to be the work of an all-knowing being.
Me: What sorts of
things wrong? Can you give any examples? You can't just claim the Bible gets
stuff wrong. You have to at least provide some examples. While there are many
apparent contradictions, all of them can be resolved with a little study so
that there are no actual contradictions in the Bible. Or at least I have yet to
find one. So if you have real examples of things that are false in the Bible, I
would like to hear them.
Andy: OK, Sodom
and Gomorrah never existed. There is no evidence that points to a large amount
of people just leaving Egypt. In Exodus it states that the Egyptian army was
drowned in the Red Sea; not a single artefact has ever been found to back this
up. There is no evidence to suggest a large number of people invaded Canaan,
result in the eradication of most of the indigenous population. In fact,
evidence points to quite the contrary. Evidence shows that Judaism started in
ancient Palestine. They borrowed beliefs and developed into another monotheism
in the area.
Me: Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, you can't possibly have evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah never existed. At most you can claim that they have never been found. But to fail to find two cities that old is not exactly surprising, especially considering the Bible's claim that they were completely destroyed. So while you could claim it was made up, you haven't proven that. You have merely said that there is no evidence for the Bible's account. There are lots of points where the Bible hasn't been or can't be verified. But where it can be, it often has been.
Me: Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, you can't possibly have evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah never existed. At most you can claim that they have never been found. But to fail to find two cities that old is not exactly surprising, especially considering the Bible's claim that they were completely destroyed. So while you could claim it was made up, you haven't proven that. You have merely said that there is no evidence for the Bible's account. There are lots of points where the Bible hasn't been or can't be verified. But where it can be, it often has been.
As for the rest of the things you mentioned, you should
probably learn a principle called "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence." These things may not have been verified completely, but there is
no evidence that the Biblical account is false.
While these events may not have been confirmed entirely,
there is work being done to reconcile the Biblical accounts with other known
chronologies such as that of Egypt.
Here's an article about an Egyptian papyrus that seems to
indicate plagues that are very similar to those in Exodus: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/passover-in-egypt-did-the_b_846337.html
Me: As for the
Canaanites, it is clear in the Bible that the Canaanite populations were not
wiped out since it speaks of various Canaanite cities that existed intact long
after the Israelites invaded. Some cities were wiped out and perhaps some whole
tribes, but not all Canaanites in the region.
Andy: Do you have
any idea how asinine that statement was? You're pretty much saying that because
there is no evidence then it must be true.
That's why I don't believe in God(s); I see no evidence for
one/any. If you used the argument that if the lack of evidence is evidence in
itself, you'd rightly be laughed at.
Me: No, I didn't
say the lack of evidence makes it true. I said that you haven't proved the
Bible is false. That's a completely different thing.
Me: The Bible itself is a set of historical documents that are better preserved and better attested than any other comparable ancient text. That alone is pretty noteworthy. And it has been verified in many instances, though evidence is still lacking for many of its claims (which is what one would expect since having independent confirmation of every claim in an ancient text would be beyond belief considering how little we can verify from that era).
Me: The Bible itself is a set of historical documents that are better preserved and better attested than any other comparable ancient text. That alone is pretty noteworthy. And it has been verified in many instances, though evidence is still lacking for many of its claims (which is what one would expect since having independent confirmation of every claim in an ancient text would be beyond belief considering how little we can verify from that era).
Andy: If there's
no current evidence for it, then we must assume the position that until it is
proven, it probably doesn't exist. It's called skepticism and critical
thinking.
I'd be willing to change my mind if compelling evidence were
put forward, but until then I have to say that Exodus and the like, never
happened.
If we're talking about the Biblical Jesus, I'd expect to see
as strong evidence for his existence as we have for Julius Caesar.
Me: You expect to
have the same amount of evidence for a homeless Jew in a backwater country with
no political power as you do for the Emperor of the known world at the time?
That's asking a little much.
Andy: That's a
fair point, but I think Jesus' ability to raise people from the dead, walk on
water, cure diseases, conjure up food from nowhere and even come back from the
dead puts him back in the game for requiring evidence.
Me: How about fulfilling dozens of prophecies in ways that no one ought to be able to fulfill them? Like where he was born and how he died.
Me: How about fulfilling dozens of prophecies in ways that no one ought to be able to fulfill them? Like where he was born and how he died.
Me: As for the
miracles, it is rather difficult to prove a miracle unless you happen to see it
with your own eyes. If someone, even today, were to feed 5 thousand people from
a small lunch, how could you prove it after the fact? You could only rely on
eye witnesses. Which is what we do when we believe the Bible.
Me: Of course,
one should ensure that such eyewitnesses are trustworthy as much as possible,
but when you have multiple eyewitnesses saying the same things, some of which
are embarrassing to them, but with enough different details to show they didn't
collude in their stories, it's worth looking into further.
Andy: That's true. I'd need to see something that verifies the event. Nothing pops up anywhere regarding Jesus' miracles outside of the bible.
Andy: That's true. I'd need to see something that verifies the event. Nothing pops up anywhere regarding Jesus' miracles outside of the bible.
Not one single Roman scholar thought "Hmmm, I heard
there's this chap in Judea raising people from the dead. Perhaps I should write
this down."
Regarding the prophecies, that's pretty easy to discount
when you realise the writers of the bible could just write whatever they like.
Me: The deal with
the prophecies is that we have evidence that the prophecies were written
hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Take a look at Psalm 22, for example.
It looks, at first glance, like the writer (King David) is talking about his
own troubles, but then you realize that he is giving a very accurate
description of crucifixion (though in poetic form), which was unknown at that
time. Jesus quoted the first lines of this psalm on the cross to indicate that
he was fulfilling it right then. The parallels are astounding. Specifically,
verses 12-18 are very interesting:
"Many bulls have
compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me
with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like
water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in
the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs
have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my
hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They
part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."
A crowd around him, staring and gloating. Bones out of joint
(hanging on a cross, suspended by his arms). Thirsty (Jesus said he was thirsty
on the cross). Pierced hands and feet (what other torture or method death
produces that, and how could someone ensure they experienced that in order to
try to fulfill the prophecy). No bones broken (Jesus died before they could
break his legs as they did with the others on the crosses next to him). Casting
lots for his clothing. How could one man make his own death match all those
details? And how could the writer of the Psalm know anything about crucifixion
- with its pierced hands and feet, bones out of joint, thirst from exposure,
and people standing around watching - hundreds of years before the practice was
invented?
Other prophets of the OT also foretold the death of Jesus.
Isaiah 53:2-12 is very compelling.
"For he shall
grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he
hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that
we should desire him. He is despised and
rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it
were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne
our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for
our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have
gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and
he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his
mouth. He was taken from prison
and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out
of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave
with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no
violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the
LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the
pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the
travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered
with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for
the transgressors."
This was known to be a prophecy of the Messiah long before
Jesus was born. Notice the parallels to Jesus. It talks of the Messiah being
wounded and having stripes (whip marks). Led like a sheep to the slaughter, but
did not open his mouth (Jesus was silent before his accusers and did not
respond to their charges). He had no children. Died with criminals, but was
buried by a rich man.
Micah 5:2 is another prophecy fulfilled: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto
me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting."
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
These are just a few examples. There are others as well. It
would be quite a feat for one man to make his life conform to these prophecies
from hundreds of years before.
Andy: Too long.
Didn’t read.
Me: As for the miracles, there weren't too many historians in Palestine at that time. They tended to regard the great deeds of Rome as more interesting to record. But the historian Josephus did speak of Jesus in his Book 18.
Me: As for the miracles, there weren't too many historians in Palestine at that time. They tended to regard the great deeds of Rome as more interesting to record. But the historian Josephus did speak of Jesus in his Book 18.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it
be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9]
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them
alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and
ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
Me: Too long, huh? I guess you don't really care to know the evidence. You'd rather spout borrowed cliches about "no evidence" than actually educate yourself about the topic.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
Me: Too long, huh? I guess you don't really care to know the evidence. You'd rather spout borrowed cliches about "no evidence" than actually educate yourself about the topic.
Andy: Look, you're
banging on about Josephus and after a little research, it turns out that he
wasn't even that reliable. He was born after Jesus had allegedly lived, so he
never even saw the guy. He wrote down accounts, third hand might I add, from
people who could just make up any old shit about Jesus.
Me: Welcome to
studying history. That's quite normal. It's tough to try to find any decent
historical records from that long ago, especially in some areas. Modern
historians have to invest a lot of work in sifting through old documents trying
to piece together the past from the writings of people who may or may not have
actually seen what they are describing and who may or may not have an interest
in modifying the accounts for their own purposes.
That's why the Bible is such an exceptional group of
historical records. It is better than the vast majority of sources out there
because it was written primarily by eyewitnesses, contains multiple sources
that agree with one another, and has good evidence that it hasn't been altered
over the years because we have multiple copies from different time periods that
all say nearly exactly the same thing, some of which date to within 200 years
of the original writing. There are few, if any, historical documents of that
era which can even come close to comparing.
Andy: I'm at a
loss as to why to insist on claim the bible is a historically reliable
document. If it is a historical document then the universe is only 6000 years
old, which, as we all know, is wrong.
Me: Look, if
you're waiting on a picture and an article about Jesus in the Jerusalem Times,
you're going to be out of luck. They just didn't record things that way back
then. They didn't have the wealth of information we have at our fingertips all
the time. The existence of Jesus and his life and death are about as well
documented as one could imagine for a poor Jewish man with no political power
living in a poor area with no political importance. The fact that we even know
anything about him from outside sources is rather amazing.
As for the Bible records themselves, people like you tend to
discount them immediately without ever considering them, but they are actually
valuable historical records. Perhaps because people place these documents in a
single volume and call it "The Bible" people often think of it as
just one book. It isn't. It's a collection of 66 books, written by about 40 people
over a period of about 1600 years. These books are exceptionally well-preserved
and well-documented as to their origin and history. There are literally
thousands of documents and document fragments of books in the NT from the 3rd
and 4th century AD through about the 14th century, in the original languages or
from early translations. And, amazingly, while there are many minor variations
of a word or sentence between these documents, it is quite possible for
scholars to reconstruct the original words of the entirety of the NT to a high
degree of certainty. That is unheard of.
As for the text itself, it has a very high degree of
agreement within the text, contains things the people of that time would have
found embarrassing to themselves and are not likely to have made up, and which
they themselves had every reason not to spread considering that they were persecuted
and killed for it. Why would they do this? Maybe they were all part of a big
conspiracy and they were willing to die so that they could trick millions of
people like me who believe their accounts into believing some made up story
about a poor man in Palestine who did miracles and was crucified by the Romans,
but who rose again because he was God. Maybe they were far-sighted enough to
think up an idea that would live on for thousands of years beyond them and that
people of all backgrounds throughout history would come to believe. Maybe it's
all a big scam and I'm a sucker to believe it. Or maybe, just maybe, they died
for this story and spent their lives travelling the world to tell others about
it and refused to be quieted because it was true.
To get back to my original point, I never claimed to have
absolute proof for Christianity. There is no absolute proof. But to say there
is "no evidence" is false. There may not be enough evidence to satisfy
you. Fair enough. That's your choice. But at least be honest enough not to
claim there is no evidence or that Norse myths are equally supported by
evidence. That is just false.
This is an example of a person refusing to seek the truth because he has *chosen* to believe the LIE. People are not atheist because there is no evidence. They are atheist because they have chosen NOT to believe in God. Read from Romans Chapter One:
ReplyDelete18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"If it is a historical document then the universe is only 6000 years old, which, as we all know, is wrong." As we all know, he says... what a classic. The arrogance with which people state their own beliefs as fact, without realising that those beliefs in themselves require just as much faith as belief in God. As far as I can see, it requires much less faith to believe God made everything than to believe that we all came from a big bang and evolved from some single-cell things, yet these things are regarded as proven fact by many people.
ReplyDeleteinteracting with a seeker is energizing. doing so with a skeptic who's looking for reasons not to believe is exhausting. You were a champ! :)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting reading! I am very much a newbie at having these kind of conversations with friends--it was a bit of a light bulb for me when you mentioned not doing all the work for them, but pointing them in good directions to find evidence. The search for truth is hard-work research, just like in any other field, and it's difficult for me to know how to break that down in a real conversation. Also feeling the need to revisit some of it for my own sake--I had studied a little about the formation of the Biblical canon a few years ago, but a friend's remarks have pushed me to think about it again--I would like to understand the evidence better myself. Any directions you might point me? :) Thanks very much for your thoughts on here!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear you are informing yourself so as to inform others. We need more people doing that. Yes, it is hard work and often very time-consuming. I'm certainly not an expert yet and have many things still to learn. It's a never-ending journey.
DeleteOne book I can recommend is "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot. My husband and I read it together not long ago and it was very informative. It explained a lot about the transmission of the Biblical texts and the evidence we have that our Bible has been faithfully transmitted throughout history. It also has a chapter on the selection of the canon. It's easy to read and not too long, so it's a good introduction to the topic.
Another resource is this post, which lists 10 blog posts about the NT canon that were written by a New Testament expert. Pay special attention to numbers 8-10.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/07/22/10-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize/
I hope that helps. Keep up the good work.
Lindsay, what a beautiful, well-presented argument you gave! Your patience and poise were commendable. I'm guessing God is well pleased with your attempts. Too bad the other side of the argument was being presented by a chimpanzee with a keyboard. Not once did he actually consider or refute a single, well made point. Pearls before swine, I'm afraid...
ReplyDeleteMade me tear up. because I have an uncle like Andy, who ALWAYS has a rebuttal and chooses not to believe. The proof is there, your responses were great. This blog is great, such diverse topics.
ReplyDelete"Andy: OK, for argument's sake, let's say you're right about those statements, so what? It doesn't mean anything."
ReplyDeleteNobody talks like that. This is a diatribe which you have dressed as a dialogue.
No, this conversation really happened exactly like this. I only fixed a few typos and wrote abbreviations out long form for clarity.
Delete