From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:37 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: De-lurk Jim Humphries wrote > > > > Jesus of Nazareth was a faith healer [..] > > > > the evidence about Jesus is less likely to have resulted from > > > > divinity than from misinterpretation, exaggeration, > > > > rationalization, delusion, deception, and mythologizing. > > > You present two interpretations which potentially > conflict: thus if Christ was a faith healer, then > presumably the reports in NT are genuine reports > of the activities of a faith healer. Some of the NT healing reports may indeed stem from actual instances of faith-healing. But that all NT healing reports are accurate simply does not follow from the notion that Jesus was a faith-healer. > Simply listing > a series of different interpretations ( faith healing, > mythology etc) and saying that the events are axccounted > for by one or more of them is not an explanation. It's an admittedly brief explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. > And you are (again) begging the issue. How so? > You have provided no *evidence* that [the Gospels] are > the result of misinterpretation. Demonstrably false. The section "Naturalistic explanations" in my book gives evidence for misinterpretation of Jesus' miracles, divine status, and resurrection. > I submit that you are simply not able to make a case here. You asked what part of my argument you haven't addressed, so I told you (repeated hereinafter). Now you ignore my identification of these unaddressed arguments and instead baldly claim I am "simply not able to make a case here". LOL. you have ignored most of what I say about #1 and have not addressed #3 and #4 at all. > >Arguments Against Christianity > >The main reasons not to believe the Christian doctrine > >of a divine Jesus are: > >1. the alternative naturalistic explanations of the evidence; > >2. the cascading implications of accepting such evidence; and > >3. the implausibility of such divine activity. > >4. In addition, the Christian gospels themselves are suspect > >because of their sources, contradictions, and apologetics. > > I don't define 'mythologizing' to exclude any possible > > kernel of truth, as you seem to here. A report of actual > > faith healing can indeed acquire mythological elements > > over time. > > > But you have no evidence of that? Are you claiming that a report of actual faith healing *cannot* acquire mythological elements over time? > And you are just > begging the issue by assuming that the events can be > accounted for in some non-religious manner. I don't assume it; I conclude it. In my book I describe the kind of events and evidence that could not be "accounted for in some non-religious manner." The NT events and evidence fall far short. > > The gospels were written 30 to 60 years after Jesus' execution, > > and display mythologizing in progress. > > > Which is not long enough , I argue, for a process of > mythologising to take place "Do you have evidence of that?" > (there would be actual > witnesses alive to correct such accounts). We don't know that they didn't. Indeed, the Gospels themselves indicate that they did, as I note in my book: Matthew [27:64] alleges an order by Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded to prevent his disciples from secretly removing his body. Matthew 28 reports a widespread story of such a secret removal > And again you have the problem of lack of evidence. This claim is contradicted by the long paragraph of evidence that you immediately quote: > > In order of writing, the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrected > > appearances become increasingly elaborate. Original Mark > > claims an empty tomb but describes no appearances. Matthew > > says simply that the two Marys and later the Eleven "saw him" > > but "some were dubious". The Longer Ending of Mark says Jesus > > appeared "in a different form" to two disciples, and simply > > "appeared" to the Eleven. Luke elaborates on both of these > > episodes, building the latter into an account that approaches > > the full Doubting Thomas story finally told in John. Thus, > > reports of the resurrection become more assertive as the > > accounts grow more removed from the actual events. > > > Arguably the different accounts lend greater credibility to > the event egwhen a road accident occurs, witnesses frequently > give slightly different accounts If those witnesses give ever more-elaborate details over time, and those elaborations blatantly advance the witnesses' agenda, then those elaborations weaken the witnesses' credibility, rather than strengthen it. > the differing accounts in NT are what one > might expect of a genuine event. No, one would expect accounts to differ more in minor details but much less on the miraculous aspects of the event. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net