From:James
Patrick Holding
To:Steve Locks
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Howdy,
>>> I've left it a while since that suits us both
(and I've had lack of time syndrome!)
Who has not? My own response time is reliant on a long
list of factors I won't bore you with...this time you got "lucky"
though. Next time maybe not. Who can say? :-)
>>>I'm always worried in conversations with Christians
that offence will be taken -
No worries here. It's really impossible to offend me;
after years of prison work there's little that can be done to offend me,
if anything. I'm not regarded by friends as an iceberg for no reason.
:-)
>>>Yes I'd like to see the quote since you claim that
this was a change in human psychology,
I thought this would be hard to find again, but it
wasn't....
Portraits of Paul, 155: "In today's world, Triandis
observes that 70 percent of the world's population remains collectivist,
while the remianing 30 percent is individualist." The Triandis reference
is to:
Triandis, Harry C. 1990. Cross-cultural Studies of
Individualism and Collectivism. pp. 41-133 in Nebraska Symbosium on
Motivation 1989.
>>> Grief induced hallucinations are to be expected under
the conditions of the traumatic death of a charismatic leader, whatever
the local cultural conditions. Since nearly 50% of people have grief
related hallucinations
Are you sure that's relevant here? I checked for that
figure and found places that say 50-75% of parents and spouses
have such:
and another that said 25-50%, though neither appears
to be by a scholarly source. I wouldn't mind some documentation of this
as an "everyone" phenomenon. (Seems odd too that I have never met anyone
who has had one, with that high of a figure...)
>>>(paraphrasing you) "the difficulty moderns have in
understanding the Christian message is caused by our own arrogance and
ignorance." Have I understood you correctly?
Yes. Though obviously I do not mean this as an
all-points, all-persons condemnation.
>>'m content to believe in my own
ignorance, even though I think I am probably better educated in
Christian matters than the average Christian in the pew.
Probably true, though the level of "average Christian"
ignorance is so sorrowful that it's not much of a compliment.
:-)
>>> If I am going to be condemned for "ignorance" at
the pearly gates though then I think that is rather unjust!
Shrug. Obviously I am in no position to guess how
responsible you are, think you are, or should be, so I can't
comment further. Price's demand for a "curve" strikes me as little more
-- from him -- than an excuse. His contrivances and conspiracy theories,
and that he had to start his own journal to get a venue for his
theories, speaks for him having serious problems with objectivity
and getting past peer-review. And I am sure his constant refrains about
spin-doctoring don't help.
>>>Far worse though for your claim is what I can tell
you about ex-Christians (since that is the subject of my website). I
know from my own experience and from hundreds of heart felt and
anguished deconversions that "arrogance" is so far off the mark that I
would like to know what leads anyone to such erroneous conclusions?
How could correct beliefs and sound reasoning lead to false
conclusions?
Correct beliefs are worthless if not suitably
informed. "Sound reasoning" can be devastated by a similar lack of
information. I won't speak of "anti-Christian" intentions...I will
simply deal with declared reasons for disbelief and as yet I know of no
"deconverter" who has shown a suitable range of knowledge to show that
they made a fully informed decision. But I keep
looking.
The arrogance I speak of is of a far more common
variety. It is the sort of arrogance that believes that it is possible
to make decisions about complex issues without adequate study. It
happens in many fields (just think of how many reject sound medical
advice by physicians in favor of crystals and New Age tactics!) and is
seldom perceived as arrogance because it is baptized with the
justification of individual rights and alleged capabilities to make an
informed decision, and thus also baptized with the name of "critical
thinking" as a prop and an assurance at worst, or a misinformed
evaluation at best. (Good heavens, man -- people you and I would BOTH
disagree with would claim to be paragons of critical thinking; does
the claim have any meaning by itself?) As an article I often link
to notes, however, those "incompetent and unaware of it" will more often
than not overestimate their capabilites. Thus sincerity isn't
really a matter of issue for me. I'll take for granted that people
are/were sincere until I find demonstrable evidence to the
contrary.
>>> Or would you claim that a Muslim who rejects
Islam is being arrogant?
I well might if that is indeed the case. You won't pin
me for inconsistency if anything else. :-)
>>>How a Christian of the order of Geza Vermes "arrogantly
and ignorantly" deconverts through study requires an explanation if you
want to claim that people "misunderstand" the bible
I was not aware of Vermes' inclinations in this
regard, but after reading the interview he gave it seems clear that it
was perceived (of whatever genuineness) anti-Semitism and personal
interactions that effected his deconversion -- not any sort of scholarly
effect. But what I read also seems quite vague. Perhaps you can point to
what specific fact(s) led to his deconversion.
>>o not only does the world authority on
the ancient Jews disagree that their culture must imply the literal
truth of the "impossible faith" (rather his scholarship caused him to
leave Christianity) but even the writers you use (Malina, Pilch etc.)
are << of what would be called a "liberal" to "moderate" bent"
>> to quote yourself. i.e. even they do not find the study
of ancient culture leads to your kind of Christianity.
What "kind of Christianity" is it you think I offer,
exactly? :-) You're not making assumptions, are you? I don't consider
myself far from Malina and Pilch. And if Vermes has ever addressed the
specifics of TIF, please point me in the right direction.
Of interest. Of the few scholars listed, they include
persons whose works have been widely criticized by other scholars (even
those not of Evangelical persuasion). Crossan in particular I find
incapable of a single logical thought, and have noted his inability
to defend himself when his inadequacies are exposed (as he did in a
recent exchange with Wright). I see someone in him more interested in
political correctness than sound scholarship.
>>>Since you believe Price has committed an error
easily dealt with have you discussed this with him? If so what did he
say?
Edski told me some time ago (back in the Jury days)
that Price wasn't interested in what I had to say, so I have made no
effort to contact him. Why? Do you hold some confidence that
he could retort with a devastating answer? :-)
>>>So why do you take the single
example of Price (even without his feedback) as if that (even if he is
in error) would explain the whole phenomena of scholarly Christians
leaving Christianity?
I don't. Using an example simply was a way of
illustrating a much larger phenomenon.
>>>familiar with, although they are a world wide network
now. Another famous UK member of the SoF is ex-nun and author Karen
Armstrong who as you probably know occasionally appears on
TV/radio (at least in the UK).
Not here. But I'm not surprised to see names of
persons whose work (esp. Armstrong) I have previously found to be
lacking in the scholarship department. From her own account it appears
she deconverted because she didn't have the "experience" of God she
thought she deserved.
And you surely do not expect me to include Farrell
Till in that lot who deconverted out of serious scholrly intent, now, do
you? ;-)
>>>engage, which is something I have always found strange
about your writings if you are serious about engaging and convincing
professional scholars, as surely you know that would put them off. From
your more recent discussions (e.g. http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin03.html)
it appears this behaviour is something you are admirably trying to
dissociate yourself from.
It depends on the person. If you hang about long
enough you will learn that my tactics serve specific purposes. Kyle
realized that, and that is why we get along famously. But no, I don't
write for scholars, actually. Many of them are snobs who won't soil
their hands helping the average person. Others will gladly but are too
busy (not to their discredit, because it is in part because of the
inaccessibility and snobishness of their peers).
>>>Another possibility for you is to
join "Crosstalk" which I think you are aware of
The great demon Kronos has forbidden. :-) I will have
to contrive a way to put together a test for such persons. It may not be
practicable as an experiment. The questions I have in mind may be too
obvious in their intent, and there would be a natural tendency to
baptize one's past experience with a veneer of scholarship, which means
the experiment would be worthless.
>>>any particular version of the) Christian God, but
rather it points away from Christian beliefs. Bonhoeffer's point remains
though - why do you bother to do what God is not interested in
doing?
I don't hold that I am -- hence that pistis is indeed
based in evidence. And I hold that what we have is
sufficient.
>>> I am unaware of any apologetics in the bible,
least of all from Jesus.
What we call "apologetics" was evangelism in the NT.
The missionary preaching of Acts apepals to evidence (the empty tomb,
miracles performed, accord with the OT) -- there is not a single
personal testimony in sight. Jesus did perform apologia appropriate for
his setting; obviously though we no longer have Pharisees and their
arguments to rebut. :-)
>>>something more! So, how are lots of books
the (or "an") answer, especially when it was lots of books (Christian
books at that) that led so many of us out of Christianity?
In any field one may select good sources or bad
sources to consult. If I choose all bad sources about flight
aerodynamics, I will end up incompetent in the field and it does no good
to claim that more study will not help.
>>>This is why I made the point a number of times that I
am always being sent elsewhere for answers by Christians. I have been
led to believe by others and you yourself that you are different! I have
been told that you have the answers - indeed you even make a
boast of this at your website saying that skeptics are upset that they
can't find a problem you haven't answered. So, to be still be sent
elsewhere only strengthens by belief that Christianity cannot withstand
scrutiny.
Why should it do this, rather than show you that the
issues are not to be simply resolved? Isn't this a decision you make
arbitrarily or based on experience?
>>>Neither is AiG, but you recommend it.
Of course they would have something to say about
that... ;-)
>>> It is Christians and other theists who don't agree
with you though.
I have fronts on that zone as well. :-)
>>>In a previously correspondence with me (a couple of
years ago) you castigated me (as you have others) for referring to
encyclopaedias which you dismissed as "summary works." So are summary
works okay now and their conclusions as valid as they are in the works
they summarise?
As I classify "summary works," no -- by these I mean
almanacs and encyclopedias, not works by scholars or reputable
authorities that condense the issues into everyday language. On the
other hand I doubt if the authors would approve of using their summaries
by themselves, or reading only the summaries as a way of reaching an
understanding.
>>> So far you won't give a summary, whereas Ed
would of anything I ask him and what's more he even sends
interesting book reviews and article summaries unbidden based on
noticing something I'm interested in.
Which, as I see it, bespeaks Edski's unfortunate
tendency to think he can make expert pronouncements at any instant and
reduce complex issues to sound bites. :-)
>>>Probably not dissimilar to yourself - i.e. how inclined
are you to read scholarly works on Islam, or ancient Hindu society
feeling the need to drill down into arcane matters in
ancient Sanskrit incase you have missed something that could
convince you of the truth of the Upanishads etc.?
If it were my area of specialty and I wanted to make
authoritative pronouncements on the subject, I would be more than
inclined to do so. It may yet be something I delve into. At my age
there's still plenty of time.
>>> Do you read the best apologetics you can find for
every non-Christian religion and put the importance of apologetics
for religions you don't believe are true above the importance
of reading about Christianity?
I certainly did for Mormonism before I wrote my book.
Know anyone who wants to buy a used copy of Ed Watson's thick
book?
>>>>Christianity. Do you acknowledge then the problem
with your statement " we perform no service any time that we so much
as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the
result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and
arrogance, and nothing more." http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html
What "problem"? There is no honesty of questioning in the
Christ-myth thesis. It is a thesis of contrivances and I would consider
it the product of egotism and arrogance even if I were an atheist. In
fact were I an atheist I would probably spend a great deal of time
correcting misinformed atheistic arguments even as I do now.
>>re you aware of the anti-evangelical nature your
hostile tone has had? I have received a few emails like the following
out of the blue:
I can only shrug. Persons who allow themselves to be
controlled by an "emotional blockage" are openly admitting to
irrationality and to subservience to the spirit of the age, and
certainly cannot provide any sound Biblical warrant against my methods,
if they wish to take that route. ("Laodecian"? Lukewarm? An exegetical
justification would be interesting for that.) I do not see that such an
excuse will pass muster in any situation where truth has hold. Therefore
it concerns me not in the least, and indeed I judge it more likely to be
a controrted rationalization for not changing one's mind. And if they
are still in your contact you may tell them I said so.
Beyond that, this carries little weight compared to
the hundreds of letters I get every year that find my methods
encouraging, invigorating, and interesting -- including a few skeptics.
So, what then? Do I change my methods and my person simply because of a
small number of malcontents with "emotional blockage"?
>>>As for answering difficult questions your website gives
the impression that you do this, whereas in debates and personal
interaction I've seen people complain that you don't match up to this
promise.
Of course the debate format does not allow for the
sort of depth report an article allows, between character limits and
response time limits, but nothing in any reply I offer is not adequately
supported in more depth by other material on hand. Email poses its own
problems, as we have already discussed -- I'd like to devote three hours
to every message. It won't happen as long as I get up to 125 a week.
But:
>>>Anthropology" and as far as I can gather frequently
makes chapter and section summaries in his other books too. So
would you agree it is inconsistent to believe Malina's arguments can't
be summarised since he himself makes summaries of his arguments?
No, because that is not what I believe. You have asked
for summaries followed by the breeding questions. How can a summary
be made to include questions yet asked? And do you think Malina would
approve of reading only his summaries and nothing else, and then
debating topics based only on what was read in the summaries? From what
I know of him, I very much doubt it.
>>>My suspicion is that it might be
that the arguments you use from these books you refuse
to summarise do not stand up to scrutiny when used for the purposes
you lift them for.
My suspicion in turn is that you are engaging in
wishful thinking. :-) And that you're still assuming to know what I
believe, thus:
>>>ce Malina et al are Christian liberals what
do you think they would make of your using their material to
argue for your understanding of Christianity?
"Liberals"? I don't see that at all. Moderates
perhaps...if they have objections they can send them my way. They have
been criticized by others on some points, so I hardly would be crushed
by any assessment of theirs. However:
>> For instance Malina argues that
it is rather certain that Jesus proclamation of the kingdom of God was
political, not metaphorical, much less “spiritual.”
I agree it was political. Religion and politics was
inseparable for these people, as he also says elsewhere. The
proclamations about Jesus in the NT clearly intend for the Lord to be a
competitor to Caesar.
>>> I also notice that he discusses the language of
the early Christians was such that "believing into Jesus", "abiding in
him", "loving him", "keeping his word", "receiving him", "having him",
and "seeing him" all meant the same
thing!
So what are you trying to argue? That the rez
sightings were not "real" on this basis? That's rather a stretch. (If
you refer to the likes of 1 John 3:2, the retort is that context defeats
any attempt to universalize this to narrative formats like the Gospels
or creedal statements like 1 Cor. 15. But feel free to provide detail.
Moreover how does this establish the nature of what was "seen"? It
seems that seeing a real, resurrected Jesus would in such a context
be considered believing, and with that belief comes loving and abiding
in him, per the Hebrew intercalcation of thought and action as though
one.)
>>>Meanwhile, I like potato chips (we call then "crisps")
but I'm not am addicted to them in any way (maybe you guys have
nicer ones than ours...). ;-)
Based on the international food store here, it's
pretty well the same: 100% fat. :-D
>>>wrong. Maybe you have records of conversions to
Christianity during your own email discussions?
I would if I kept emails. I don't.
However:
>>>If so that is something I doubt you would characterise
as unwieldy and unmanageable.
I would, if the discussion has been from Day 1 of the
person's explanation. Those I get usually involve only specific targeted
questions.
>>> Indeed if the NT culture was as invariant as you
portray then how did it ever eventually change?
It didn't -- for hundreds of years. Cultures like that
of the Palestinians are still closer to what it was then than what we
are now.
>>>Since you said that Goodacre's points on Q are not are
not inextricably linked to his other ideas, would it be a problem for
you if they were?
Not necessarily, because Q may not offer the only
background explanation for his ideas. (I have replied above re the
political matter. Remember, I don't disagree with that at
all.)
>>>Since you thought you didn't use Goodacre when in fact
you did, is there any consequence to you being wrong about this? If not
why was it important enough to say you didn't use him?
Was it "important"? I don't think it was. Merely
because I mentioned it?
>>>However it should still make you respect and take
seriously the other arguments since the author is obviously one you are
convinced is capable of proper research and sound argument.
What makes you think I don't? My familiarity with the
literature on Q, for example, is broad enough that I can see where and
why I should agree with, disagree with, or suspend judgment about
something a Goodacre or anyone else writes.
>>>How would bones have been identifiable as a particular
individual to NT peoples?
1) Location of the body. 2) In this case, signs of
crucifixion. 3) Appropriate height. 4) Teeth. 5) Occupation of a
particular ossuary. Not that it needed to go this far, since any
body pointed to by the Sanhedrin would by their authority require a
response apologetic.
>>>cultural necessity arguments that you use. If you have
an essay arguing against Carrier's case I will be happy to read it.
(Make sure it is Carrier's current version you are referring to).
I'm sure you know of Miller's reply; I haven't kept up
beyond that -- I try not to duplicate Glenn's efforts.
>>>Do you agree that McCane's thesis is that Jesus was
buried in a criminals' tomb?
But of course.
>>> Is this the grave depicted in the Gospels?
Yes.
>>> How is this compatible with your views?
Joseph as a secret disciple took advantage of his
prerogative as a Sanhedrin member to claim the body, knowing he could
provide only a dishonorable burial, but making the best of it he could
by allowing (and helping with) more honorable burial rites.
>>>It wasn't clear to me that by "called up" and "raised"
you meant different things, so maybe there is a misunderstanding there
of your position. What do you mean by "called up"?
Necromancy after the form of the witch of
Endor.
>>> It is unclear to me why a
claimed vision of Jesus would be understood as a "called
up" entity, such as necromancers would engage in doing and
therefore not socially viable.
The dead were believed not to come up unless called.
Therefore any Jesus seen after death would have had to have been "called
up" by somebody.
>>>appearances) then clearly people were accepting "not
socially viable" statements as truth without evidence!
Er, excuse me? One of my major points in TIF is that
people did NOT do this, but believed because of evidence -- empty tomb,
testimony of witnesses.
>>> Do you believe that they all went to see the
empty tomb, had convincing evidence that it was the right tomb and were
convinced that an absence of a body implied a miraculous resurrection
and no other possibility?
"All"? No. A sufficient number, beside the apostolic
band, which would include numerous Jews who were regular pilgrims to
Jerusalem, along with the socially pretentious set of persons with the
means and the motive to investigate.
>>> Did no Christians of the time
believe without evidence?
Not by this account.
>>>"not socially viable." Yet here was Paul, a
hater of Christianity and murderer of Christians having a vision that he
should by all rights have thought was a temptation of the devil and yet
he acquiesces on a say so.
I'm afraid you miss something here: Acts is considered
to have a far from complete description of Paul's experience. 2 Cor. 12
is regarded as indicating a much more substantive experience than Acts
describes, and 1 Cor. 15 indicates that he saw a resurrected personage
and not a called-up spirit.
>>>unacceptable position as you say, and yet Paul is
easily persuaded against all he believes. I guess your reply will be
that I don't understand the power of seeing Jesus!
No, my answer is that you have an incomplete picture
of what Paul saw.
>>>Also Stephen didn't think he saw an angel, but Jesus
standing next to God at Acts 7:55-56. How was this possible if such
a thought was "not socially viable and a hallucination of Jesus
would have never been understood as Jesus himself."
You see no difference between seeing Jesus in heaven and seeing him
eat with you? Besides, that he was next to God in the setting described
forbade any "angel" idea. You may be left with conveniently
hypothesizing such things as, "All the visions may have been of Jesus
next to the Father" (which is mysteriously missing from all such
testimony).
>>>disguise, why did Peter, James and John believe they
saw Elijah and Moses with Jesus during the transfiguration? Remember
that you said << the dead could only be called up via
necromancy, which was
Um... :-)
Was Elijah dead?
No. And traditions of this period, despite the OT,
believed the same of Moses. Can't have "necromancy"
when the folks ain't dead, can we? ;-)
>>>>Did any readers of John's Gospel believe
Lazarus was raised, the transfiguration and the resurrection happened
even though they had not seen these things? If Christianity is so set
against the "many set beliefs of the Jews of the period" then
it wouldn't have been accepted by those who accepted it only
on being preached to.
Sigh...but here again, you are not providing me with
"resurrections". Neither Lazarus nor Moses nor Elijah was "resurrected".
They were not returned in glorified bodies.
>>>Again, whatever the local beliefs, about 50% would have
had grief induced hallucinations (probably more in such traumatic
circumstances) merely by virtue of being human beings!
Aside from my question about that figure above, my
reply again is that even IF such hallucinations were had, there is
absolutely no room for them to be interpreted as a resurrected Jesus.
Beyond that it is always my understanding-- correct it if need be --
that a hallucination can only be rooted in what a person thinks is
possible. If this culture did not believe that appearing in this world
from the aferlife was possible -- except by means forbidden -- then how
could they have such a hallucination? It seems to be that "powerful
emotional experiences" become all-purpose explanations and are also
virtually worthless, being unfalsifiable.
>>>Jesus? It is no use saying there were physical "signs"
(or "substantial and undeniable proof by the Risen Jesus" as
you put it) when hallucinations can include visual, auditory and even
tactile experiences
To the point of sitting down and watching your
hallucination eat a meal? And leave fish bones behind? Yes, I know the
"evolution" theories; they completely ignore that the concept of
resurrection was already fully developed, as I noted to Holtz. There is
nothing to "evolve" from.
>>>After Paul's speeches in Acts where is the text that
says people went to check out what he said
None is needed. The claims contrary to the values, as
I note in TIF, presuppose that this will happen. Of course it is also a
matter to note that the empty tomb in this scenario was as likely a
public given as 9/11 is to us in the West. Your objection is a
low-context one. Beyond this I am not sure why you expect Acts to
mention such things, given its purpose (a defense brief for Paul, or
perhaps a "biography" of the early church, written for Christians, not
unbelievers).
>>>Meanwhile before Acts (i.e. before the resurrection
being preached), as Holtz pointed out, the gospels themselves
repeatedly admit [Mt 11:20, Lk 10:13, Jn 6:66, 10:32, 12:37, 15:24] that
eyewitnesses to so-called miracles sometimes remained unconvinced.
And you know well my reply: that contrivances were
made in reply that Beelzebub was behind it all. That's not a retort that
means they were skeptical of miracles being done; indeed it admits to
their genuineness. In short it does not serve your argument well to cite
persons who admit to real miracles being done. They were considered
convincing AS miracles, which is not to your purposes.
>>>We could investigate the coherence of the idea that an
omniscient being could be described as simple. How could such
intelligence and knowledge be housed in something simple?
I do not view God's omniscience as the result of a
"storehouse" method but as an "access" method. In other words God is not
a database but has unlimited and immediate search
capabilities.
>>>second century BCE to the second century CE have been
discovered in recent decades which indicate that Judaism of the first
century was more diverse than had previously been thought.
Yes, and I also know that not one element of that
diversity affects any argument of mine. I also know that most scholars
do not consider the Nag Hammadi docs useful for knowing anything about
Judaism (those, um, are rather late, for anything I'm concerned with?)
and that the DSS represent an independent but similar stream to
Christianity. :-)
>>>>Well, even if being unable to replace the loss of
your children is a little "sentimental" to some people, my point was
that the result of modern apostasy has sometimes been the loss
of access to your children.
By what means? Are not visitation rights available?
And another issue:
>>> Since modern people can care very much about losing
access to their children and yet they still deconvert this is an
argument against the truth of Christianity given your contention that
threats of social ostricization
I rather doubt that, unless you can show me that loss
of children was among foremost things in the mind of those "deconverts"
as they made their ideological journey. All testimony I have seen
indicates that they only come to such a realization near the end of the
road or after deconversion -- when it is too late for them to turn back
or cease. In short, such loss amounts to poor foresight rather than
something that would prevent deconversion.
>>>If a conversion truly is based on a triviality or
misunderstanding then obviously it is not careful and considered.
Very good then....other than that, what would you say
if I did a "Brian Holtz" and started analyzing some of your deconverts?
:-)
>>>people may come to the conclusion
that Christianity is incoherent and unbelievable. e.g. everything at http://www.infidels.org and
more!!
And everything at tektonics.org and
christian-thinktank.com that replies to it, of course, as a
response. :-)
>>>>How then do you love God, or have spiritual
feelings?
As I explore in http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html
love of God means service of His interests and that of His
group/Kingdom. Feelings are not part of this. Value is based upon
service to the greater good.
>>>Without an emotional basis to a decision, how have you
concluded that the Christian God is good?
Why is emotion required to make such a
determination?
>>>Is it really just a sterile
philosophy? Could a computer be a Christian?
"Sterile" seems something of a value judgment that
presumes emotionalism to be a value. A computer could certainly reach an
evidential decision if advanced enough, but how does this equate with
"sterility" -- how do you define this?
>>>>How exactly can anyone make a "decision" to be a
Christian? How can anyone honestly choose their beliefs? How is
it even psychologically possible to believe things you don't
believe?
I don't see the relevance of these questions in
context.
>>>Anyway, despite your resistance to
emotional bases you will not be able to escape them.
I am nevertheless able to subvert them and control
them. I know of being a psychological being. Working in a prison setting
can bring more realizations of that sort than you may realize, for every
day of life there is composed to some extent of psychological
interaction and (yes) warfare.
>>> It is a psychological truth that people are
resistant to change in worldview.
It is apparently a psychological generality since I am
not resistant to change at all. In the past 4 years I have changed --
with ease -- several of my core views. Eschatology was one of these;
most recently see http://www.tektonics/org/2muchshame.html
in which I dropped, with no hesitation, an argument I had used for
years. I have no pains when it comes to changing. Indeed I relish
chances to do so.
Lest you say that this is not worldview-level, be
assured that it would bother me little if Jesus' body turned up
tomorrow. I could of course not maintain Christian faith, but I already
know what my alternatives are and what I would choose -- a nominal
deism. I also would not care if it were solidly proven that there were
no afterlife. (I could frankly use the sleep.)
>>>>like a computer. But as I said, it is not our
fault that we were born into the here and now. Are we really to be
dammed through ignorance and being born into the wrong culture?
No, we are damned for remaining ignorant when we don't
have to. The misinformed I believe get more leeway, though I am not
going to be able to lay that out in more than general terms without
discussing specific cases.
>>>>. And yet for merely being born human we deserve to
be tortured.
"Tortured"? In hell you mean? You'll want to see my
article linked just above. No torture. Just shame.
>>>What evidence is there that the authorities were
worried about this at all, let alone in the time when a recognisable
body would have been available?
The social mores provide all the evidence that is
needed. I gave an answer on recognizing a body above.
>>>>What passage are you referring to here? Even so you
are again using the NT to prove the NT.
Which is wrong, how? This is not against what is
otherwise known about the world, as your Herodotus example. The book of
Galatians provides the main evidence for this thesis, as does Acts 15,
and the content of Jewish privilege accorded by Rome, and how a
Christian faith that surrendered the uniqueness for which Jews were
accorded privilege, provides the contextual background.
>>>>means mountain ant, leading to a report of ants
bigger than foxes" is << a very simple matter of textual
criticism >>. The points is that the writers can be mistaken
about what they report
But by your explanation, some original writer was NOT
mistaken at all. Therefore the problem is solved. And your attenpt
here:
>>>. And that this does not amount to
lying, just misinterpretation of reports they have heard. Paul may have
heard on the grapevine that 500 "saw Jesus" when this was nothing more
than an emotional gathering.
"Grapevine"? 1 Cor. 15 is in the format of a
creedal statement, something accepted by the church a large, and Paul
indicates that this is something that the Corinthians have heard before.
To get around this you need to assert (though it isn't in the text! --
rather inconsistent of you!) that this was not only hearsay Paul
accepted without thought, but that it was also an emotional gathering
and that all these people (hmm, 50% all together like that?) had
hallucinations, and even perhaps that Paul just heard and ran, creating
something new out of whole cloth. Where is the evidence for this which
is not merely presumed?
It seems to me that you go to a great deal of
trouble, based on non-evidence, to explain away the
problems.
>>>So maybe Paul read more into "seeing Jesus" than he
should have.
See above. Your determination here begs the question.
Carr's use of the Catholic example is quite frankly absurd and the
sort of analogical misapprehension he often puts out. The context
of Catholic doctrine informs us of the meaning. Where is the same
"context" proving that "see him" means a vision (or what have you) as
you want it to be? It is not in the NT. It is not in Judaism. You have
to contrive it.
>>>I was also surprised to see that you had never heard of
this example about Herodotus and his giant ants.
I have, but I never saw the "marmots" explanation. I
also think Kyle Gerkin told me of the passage in Herodotus before I saw
it in Carrier.
>>>>Josephus avidly recounted the exploits of the
supposed miracle workers of those times and doesn't commit all the other
religions he disapproves of to silence.
Which only proves at best that he did not disapprove
of them to the point that he thought they deserved to be shamed. Who do
you have in mind here?
>>To avoid mentioning astonishing events
that would have been the talk of the town is pretty lousy for a
historian of his calibre.
Here again, merely your own value judgment as a
modern. This is not an answer to what I said about Josephus either not
believing the reports or wishing to discredit them by silence. You have
merely reasserted the modernist "golly gosh" mentality without negating
the response.
>>>Maybe it is an interpolation (let me know what Price
says to your point about 1 Cor. 15:3ff being an interpolation falls
on a simple point of Greco-Roman rhetoric - If you don't want to
contact him let me know and I'll get in touch).
My answer to Price is at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_05_02.html
and there's of course more to it than that. His contrivances have flaws
on nearly every point and are contrary to all principles held by textual
critics. Not even Ehrman would go that far that I can see.
>>>Maybe they just felt moved
religiously.
How does this make them see a resurrected Jesus? This
sounds like a hallucination theory restated.
Who looked, talked, taught like Jesus? Do you endorse
the "evil twin" thesis that fellow has?
>>>Maybe it was a demon sent to
mislead the world from following the true religion that was to come
(Islam).
I am sure you would believe THAT. :-)
>>>Maybe it was one person getting excited and the others
following suit.
Sounds like the hallucination theory
again...
>>>Maybe they were having some magic
mushrooms (I have a friend who did this with a group of mates and when
one person said he saw something they all suddenly saw it!)
What species of magic mushroom grows in Palestine and
what evidence do you have for recreational use of it?
>>>Maybe it was like Malina suggests,
a redundant euphemism.
See above.
>>>As you know Geza Vermes (the world exert on the ancient
Jews) and E. P. Sanders disagree with you ( http://www.tektonics.org/gauvin02c.html).
Various resurrection ideas were in the NT culture and there was much
cultural contamination, a phenomena you recognise for yourself in modern
parallels.
I have read Sanders and Vermes on these points and
none of the variants has any bearing here. Moreover there was no
contamination of core ideas in Judaism; as Tacitus says, the Greeks were
unable to "improve" the Jews at all.
>>>Maybe something else...
It was Elvis? :-D
>>>So where is the evidence that the myriad of cults in
and around Jerusalem at the time were being debunked?
Like which ones? The Essenes? They made no testable
claims (other than by the passing of history).
>>> Where is the evidence that
the authorities looked for Jesus body and found it missing? If you're
claiming that they looked for the body but couldn't found it so kept
quiet about that embarrassing fact, aren't you using the "argument from
silence" that you so deplore?
No, because that social background is too loud of a
noise to ignore.
>>>Looks quite complicated to me. Could you look up groups
for ex-Christians in the bible belt for me as I don't have access to
this resource and you did say that this skill was taught in elementary
schools in your country.
I'm not sure what to say, since what you call
"complicated" is to me a natural activity. I've put a note down to look
in it the next time I get to the public library.
>>>The fact that you think I must have typo'd here shows
how little you know about what you've been criticising regarding the
relative ease of apostasy for moderns compared to ancients
No, it means you asked for resources for ex-Christians
and that's what I figured you to be talking about. Are you telling me
that ex-Christians will be glad to meet with non-Christian (Islamic,
Bahai, etc.) groups?
>>>>I don't think you've understood that Christians do
not seek deconversion. They fight doubts to the end.
Perhaps some do, but that is of little matter to
me and I hardly expect an admission that they were looking for a way
out.
>>>also raises the worrying question of why all those
prayers for guidance were not answered.
>>>it were virtuous or responsible to do so! Can you make
a decision to believe Allah is the one true God?
I certainly could if the evidence demanded
it.
>>>them with you one day - but if you are going to
reply to Holtz again I guess one thing at a time!
>>>nd as others say not for reasons of the winners being
correct!
Yes, I know of the contrivances and excuses made by
the likes of Pagels -- exactly the sort of presumption against evidence
that Jenkins writes about. :-)
>>> Anyway, you haven't answered
my question regarding the point that Christians clearly were making up
false stories about Jesus
I believe I did, but I couldn't answer until you gave
specific docs to talk about. Now then:
>>>. Are the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of
Nicodemus Gnostic?
Peter: Not that is clear. No one knows who wrote it or
why, however, so it's not of much use for claiming fabrication of
stories about Jesus. If someone picked up Marjorie Holmes' Two From
Galilee, they might conclude, "Aha, lies told about Jesus" 2000
years from now.
Nicodemus: Same deal here as far as I can tell, though
if written in the 4th century it certainly doesn't extend guilt to 300
years in the past. That's like using forged photos by Communist
dictators to indict Marx.
>>> Are the later infancy Gospels?
Which one(s) in particular? I see listings for Thomas
and James and as far as I can see were never intended to be read as
history.
>>> Are all of the non-canonical Gospels that contain
material you do not believe is historical Gnostic? If not then will you
admit that Christians clearly were making up false stories about
Jesus?
Not unless you can also show that the intent was to
spread false stories as though true. Otherwise you may as well hang Mel
Gibson right now. :-)
>>>As soon as there are more than a
few non-unity probabilities then the whole edifice rapidly becomes
extremely unlikely
Naturally I disagree that they are such. Indeed I
consider of your list all to be either sound or rooted in data, except
for c) which I do not recall arguing anywhere (though the last one I
find to generalized).
>>>Jesus commanded those present to stay at (Acts 1:4).
Which did Jesus think more important? Seeing Jesus one last time (I
don't know whether seeing Jesus is a purely sentimental purpose though),
or spreading the Gospel?
Um, being baptized with the Holy Spirit to make their
preaching more effective in the long run. :-/ To say nothing of the
effect of the public acts that came of that in the midst of a Jewish
festival that hundreds of thousands, at least, attended.
>>>What exactly then was your point in saying that
fundamentalists have a "fallacious black and white mentality"?
Recollection: That they have been taught that what
they believe must always be right, and nothing else can be, not even
something that still supports their general worldview. Example in mind
would be KJV Onlyists.
>>Do you agree that the NT authors had
erroneous thought processes since they were fundamentalists?
No.... :-/ I don't see that they were "fundies" at
all.
>>>How exactly can someone rebel against something one
doesn't believe is real?
Choosing to believe that the authority does not exist
would seem to me to be an ultimate rebellion against that authority. And
yes, I do consider myself a rebel where Allah is concerned.
Have I had time? No. :-) My only "evidence" amounts to
an intuitive adherence to the design argument.
>>>talk about the resurrection with you. I hope he is
enjoying watching our interaction.
Actually I have not heard from Jordan in quite some
time and I'm a bit concerned. Have you heard from him?
Take care,
JP |