Mark McFall
Feedback discussions - Mark McFall
asks my opinion on whether Jesus was a myth. This becomes a long discussion, covering much diverse ground including the historicity of Jesus, reliability of the NT, evolution and other matters!
Two years later I re-contacted Mark to update my link to his website. He asked for my response to a piece he recently wrote on "the need for quality apologetics." Click here for Mark's piece, my response, and any subsequent discussion that may ensue.
----- Original Message -----
From: mark mcfall
To: <Steve Locks>
Sent: 08 January 2000 05:25
Hello, I am a Christian and I frequently surf ex-Christian websites, but in coming to your website I came through Steve Carrs "UK leading Atheist homepage". I checked your FAQ and did not find anything on the Historicity of Jesus Christ as a man. I am interested in your positition on this issue. I have pasted some research that I have done on this and I was wondering how you view it. (a overview response would be good).
IS THERE REALLY EVIDENCE THAT JESUS CHRIST LIVED
By mark mcfall
The Old Roman Apostles Creed written before A.D. 341 encapsulates the central message of the Historic Christian Faith. It states:
"I believe in God The Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting)".(The Creeds of Christendom Vol. 2 pg.47-48 by Philip Schaff).
Why did the writers of the Apostle Creed pen the words "crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried"? The new Christian phenomenon had it’s beginnings in the Roman Empire. Pontius Pilate was the 5th procurator (government representative) , of Imperial Rome in Palestine at the time of Christ, holding the office from A.D. 26 to 36. The writer’s of the Apostle Creed knew that Jesus Christ could be traced back through secular history to the Roman Empire.
I have chosen to quote from Non-Christian references, I have done this because of the mountain of evidence that exist from Christian writer’s like, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius who already confirm the Historic Christian Faith.
The first source of evidence comes from a pagan historian named Cornelius Tacitus, a great Roman historian who wrote in 115 A.D. He writes:
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home".
The next source of evidence comes from the pagan historian Pliny the Younger, he wrote in A.D. 111. He writes:
"....they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this; they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adulterer, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honor it".
Seutonius in about 120 A.D. connects the name of Christ with 1st century Jewish disturbances in Rome. These same disturbances are mentioned in the Bible (Acts 18: 1-2). In 52 A.D. a historian named Thallus mentions the darkness which occurred at Jesus crucifixion. In A.D. 73 a man named Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a letter to his son referring to Jesus, the wise King of the Jews, and to his execution. All of these sources are of pagan origin, and are important for the skeptic who has a open mind.
I will now present evidence from Jewish sources which are hostile to the Christian cause. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes in 70 -93 A.D:
"Now at this time, Jesus arose. He was a wise man (if he must actually be described as a man), for he was a doer of remarkable deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with delight. He persuaded both many Jewish people and many of the Greeks as well. He was the Messiah. And after Pilate had punished him with a cross at the instigation of high ranking men among us, those who loved him at first did not stop because he appeared to them living again on the third day - the divine prophets had predicted these and countless other marvelous things about him. Even now, the group named after this man, the Christians, has still not disappeared".
The Talmuds, written early in the 1st century to 200 A.D. contain many references to Christ. Sanhedrin in 43 A.D. writes:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover!".
Jesus’ life and actions are confirmed by sources both friendly and hostile to Christianity. The Biblical record of his life is accepted as authentic by historians throughout the ages. The major sources for our knowledge of Jesus are the canonical Gospels. These Gospel are divided generally into two groups: the Synoptic Gospels (the look-alike Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and John. These Gospels are authentic Historical documents that were written by eye-witnesses with the exception of the historian, Dr. Luke. He writes: (A.D. 59-62 ? A.T. Robertson).
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught". (Luke 1:1-4).
The Apostle Paul when writing Timothy told him: "As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith". (1Tim 1:3-4).
Those who say that Jesus Christ never existed might as well say that the Roman Empire never existed, and those who advocate that Jesus Christ is a myth, is it’s self a myth.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
To: mark mcfall
Sent: 09 January 2000 00:36
Subject: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your question. I too think it is always a good idea to surf sites
and read material that have different opinions from ones own. I have read a
lot of Christian material in my time, and continue to read Christian sites
and apologetics to see if there is anything I am being unfair about.
Regarding your question, I think it is all interesting stuff and I'll give
you some resources at the end for the other side of the argument. However,
you might be asking the wrong person, as personally I am inclined to believe
that Jesus did exist as a historical figure, which I think is also the
position with many people who are not Christians. Not that I am sure that the
evidence is 100% but on balance it seems likely to me. However for many
reasons I think that the religion that is named after him is something that
evolved largely due to St. Paul and later the Roman empire under Constantine.
The supernatural claims about Jesus are, I think, the crucial ones -
separating the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history - i.e. how did the
Jesus figure (whether he existed or not) become the Christ figure that
Christians make supernatural claims about? You will find a lot of discussion
of this in the URLs below.
Although I largely agree with the non-Christian sites I link to, it is
unlikely that I agree with everything and I might be wrong in some matters -
and I might change my mind later! So don't be too surprised if I disagree on
some matters with some of the material in my links and the URLs given in
this email. Indeed, on the "ex-tian" (i.e. ex-Christian) mailing list there
was a thread some time ago about the existence of a historical Jesus. Those
who thought he was not a historical figure were in a minority amongst us,
and as far as I remember they were slightly won over by the arguments of
those who thought he did exist. I'm not claiming any particular view is
right, just that it is not unusual to find ex-Christians, and other
non-Christians, who do think there probably was a historical figure,
even if we do not believe in the religion that is claimed to be based around
him.
Before I direct you to some URLs I have two comments on what you wrote.
Firstly, alarm bells really should ring when a non-Christian (e.g. Josephus)
writes about Jesus in such glowing terms. If Josephus really wrote that then
he would have been a Christian. This and other passages that you quote are
discussed in detail in the URLs below. Secondly your statement <<These
Gospels are authentic Historical documents that were written by eye-witnesses
with the exception of the historian, Dr. Luke. >> makes me guess that you
have not read much of the literature critical of this claim, or otherwise you
would have tried to back this up. Am I correct? I was particularly surprised
that you wrote this bald statement after having been to Steven Carr's site if
you read his interesting pieces on this at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm and
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you do have good reason to think
that they are eye-witness accounts after reading Steven Carr's pages then you
really ought to discuss that with him as he invites his readers to do. I'm on
his list to be notified when he updates his site, so if you do have something
to pull him up on then I will get to hear about it.
Here are some sites that I found that tackle the question you asked. There is
masses of material here and they go into the subject in more technical detail
than I can ever remember. I've read quite a bit of this lot, but by no means
everything, so again there may be some material I personally don't buy (but I
might be wrong of course!)
Most of these links could eventually be found by surfing from my starting
point at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#n5 Nevertheless,
here are some links that should be of most interest to you and you can find
here the people that you may want to contact when you have read some of
their material.
Historicity Of Jesus FAQ
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html This may answer
most of your points.
PBS frontline - "From Jesus to Christ"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ This site is anchored
by the testimony of New Testament theologians, archaeologists and historians
who serve as both critics and storytellers. They address dozens of key
issues, disagreements and critical problems relating to Jesus' life and the
evolution of Christianity. This site has been acclaimed by Christians and
non-Christians.
Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html this also
discusses many of your points.
The Real Jesus http://www.disinfo.com/rev/rev_jesus.html You might find the
links here to be gentler criticism than some of the others.
The Whole Bible - New Testament history
http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm A lot of this may interest you.
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm Again, very relevant to some of your
quotes.
The Jesus Seminar Forum http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/ caused a lot of
fuss! See my quotes page at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html to find out how this
effected one of the members of the ex-tian mailing
list when he was an "all-knowing Christian apologist." (Do a text search on
that page for "I had a rather").
Christianity: Jesus http://atheism.about.com/culture/atheism/msubxjes.htm
Much discussion here on your question and related subjects.
The Jesus puzzle http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm The writer here is
pretty convinced that there was no historical Jesus. You can pick a fight
with him if you wish! He discusses Josephus at great length here
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/supp10.htm
The Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus' Ant., XVIII, III, 3)
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml Loads more on Josephus!
Christian 'bias' in the NT Writers--
Does it render the NT unreliable or inadmissible as evidence?
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/nuhbias.html This is a response by a Christian to
some of the arguments given at the sites above to give you some balance, and
to help you decide who has the better argument (I'm sure you know other sites
like this).
Well, that's a lot of material for you. If you do come to a firm conclusion
I'd be interested to know what you found.
Meanwhile I'm also doing some research, and if you can help me out with my
question at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html from any
of your Christian resources, then I would be very interested.
Thanks again for your interest and I'm sure you'll find the study of this
period of history a fascinating enterprise, whatever conclusions you come to.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):
----- Original Message -----
From: mark mcfall
To: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
Sent: 09 January 2000 03:46
Subject: Re: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure
Thank you for your kind response Steve. I would like to continue the dialog
just alittle bit further (although I will visit some of reference sites)
because you are on my mind.
Steve wrote:
However,
>you might be asking the wrong person.
Mark reply:
Perhaps, but as you know from being an ex-Christian, perhaps not. (you know
what mean)
Steve wrote:
personally I am inclined to believe
>that Jesus did exist as a historical figure, which I think is also the
>position with many people who are not Christians. Not that I am sure that
the
>evidence is 100% but on balance it seems likely to me. However for many
>reasons I think that the religion that is named after him is something that
>evolved largely due to St. Paul and later the Roman empire under
Constantine.
>The supernatural claims about Jesus are, I think, the crucial ones -
>separating the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history - i.e. how did the
>Jesus figure (whether he existed or not) become the Christ figure that
>Christians make supernatural claims about?
Mark reply:
I to, believe Christianity evolved largely due to St. Paul (and other NT
writers) and Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus,Tertullian, Origen,
Cyprian, Anthony, and then finally as you stated, the conversion of
Constantine in A.D. 312.
The Jesus of faith should not be separated from the Jesus of history, in
fact the Jesus of faith is rooted in the Jesus of history. Howard Clark Kee,
professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions
from the sources outside of the New Testament:"The result of the examination
of the sources outside the New Testament that bear directly or indirectly on
our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm his historical existence, his unusual
powers, the devotion of his followers, the continued existence of the
movement after his death at the hands of the Roman governor in Jerusalem,
and the penetration of Christianity into the upper strata of society in Rome
itself by the later first century." ("What Can We Know about Jesus? Kee.
Pg.19) Kee continues"In spite of this range of ways in which the tradition
about Jesus has been transmitted, we have available a clear and remarkably
consistent array of evidence about this figure whose life, teachings, and
death have continued to have such a profound inpact on the subsequent
history of the human race." (Ibid Pg. 114)
Christians were not the only ones who claimed that Jesus did supernatural
works. In the Babylonian Talmud we read: "It has been taught: On the eve of
Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for
forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery
and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor,
let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his
favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a; cf.t. Sanh.
10:11;y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). Interesting in another version of this
text it reads, "Yeshu the Nazarene." (but thats another subject).
Steve wrote:
>Firstly, alarm bells really should ring when a non-Christian (e.g.
Josephus)
>writes about Jesus in such glowing terms. If Josephus really wrote that
then
>he would have been a Christian.
Mark reply:
Good point, I am aware of this. I have a part 2 to the previous article, I
have pasted it below for you and then I will continue the discussion after
that. (it is shorter than the last article)
Part 2 of "Is There Really Evidence That Jesus Christ Lived"
The Josephus Passage
By Mark McFall
In Part 1 of "Is There Really Evidence That Jesus Christ Lived," I quoted
Josephus who was a
very important Jewish historian of the first century. Critics of the
Christian era are going to
immediately point out a problem with this passage, but before we get into
that I just wanted to
give my readers a little back ground on Josephus.
He was born in A.D. 37, and he wrote most of his four works toward the end
of the first century.
In his autobiography he defended his behavior in the Jewish-Roman War, which
took place from
A.D. 66 to 74. He had surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian during the
siege of Jotapata,
even though many of his colleagues committed suicide rather than give up.
Josephus being the
interesting character that he is, decided to be a defender of the Romans
rather than follow his
former colleagues example. His most ambitious work was called The
Antiquities, which was a
history of the Jewish people from Creation until his time. He probably
completed it in about A.D.
93. It is in this book where there is collaborating evidence of the
historical Jesus. In this book we
read:
"Now at this time, Jesus arose. He was a wise man (if he must actually be
described as a
man), for he was a doer of remarkable deeds, a teacher of people who receive
the truth with
delight. He persuaded both many Jewish people and many of the Greeks as
well. He was the
Messiah. And after Pilate had punished him with a cross at the instigation
of high ranking men
among us, those who loved him at first did not stop because he appeared to
them living again
on the third day - the divine prophets had predicted these and countless
other marvelous
things about him. Even now, the group named after this man, the Christians,
has still not
disappeared".
This is probably the most hotly disputed passage in ancient literature
because on its surface it
appears to provide sweeping corroboration of Jesus' life, miracles, death,
and resurrection. It has
all the essential components of the Biblical accounts. But is it authentic?
When I first heard of this passage I was delighted that this was more
confirmation of the
historical Jesus. But it wasn't until I was reading in the magazine
"Biblical Archaeology Review"
that I noticed that this passage is "spurious" according to the magazines
founder Hershel Shanks.
Then sum months later I was listening to Dr. James Kennedy who is Chancellor
of Coral Ridge
Seminary who "then" re-enforced my view that this passage is authentic by
stating that "there is
no manuscript evidence that demonstrates that this passage is not genuine
and that all
manuscripts contain this entire passage". So the question arises, why do
these two well learned
individuals disagree on the authentic of this passage?
Well, it seems that scholarship has gone through three trends about it (each
trend I went through
to). (1) For obvious reasons, the early Christians thought it was a
wonderful and thoroughly
authentic attestation of Jesus and his resurrection. They loved it and
frequently quoted it.(2)
Then the entire passage was questioned by at least some scholars during the
Enlightenment.(3)
But today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian
scholars that the
passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations
(Christian copyists
inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have
written).
The earliest quote out of Josephus is found in Eusebius' Book 1 Chapter 11
written sometime
between A.D. 260-340 where a word for word rendering is written down by the
Christian historian
Eusebius. Eusebius probably had access to documents that were older in
nature, therefor unless
an over jealous Christian copyist inserted any portion of the verse it had
to be very near the
original. In this case Dr. Kennedy is right, there is no manuscript evidence
that this passage is
not authentic.
But let's take a closer look at this passage with the help of a world class
historian Dr. Edwin
Yamauchi PH.D. of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
Dr.Yamauchi comments: In the first line it is stated, "About this time there
lived Jesus, a wise
man." This phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems
authentic for
Josephus.
[Dr. Yamauchi] But in the next phrase it is stated, "if indeed one ought to
call him a man." This
implies Jesus was more than human, which appears to be an interpolation.
[Dr. Yamauchi] The passage goes on to say, "For he was one who wrought
surprising feats and
was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many
Jews and many of
the Greeks." This phrase seems to be quite in accord with the vocabulary
Josephus use
elsewhere, and it's generally considered authentic.
[Dr. Yamauchi] But then there's the unambiguous statement, "He was the
Christ. That seems to
be an interpolation because it is unlikely that Josephus would have flatly
said Jesus was the
Messiah here, when elsewhere he merely said he was considered to be the
Messiah by his
followers.
[Dr. Yamauchi] The next part of the passage which talks about Jesus' trial
and crucifixion and the
fact that his followers still loved him, is considered genuine. Then there's
this phrase, "On the
third day he appeared to them restored to life." But this again, is a clear
declaration of belief in
the Resurrection, and thus it's unlikely that Josephus wrote it. So these
three elements seem to
have been interpolation3.
According to Dr. Yamauchi this passage was originally written about Jesus,
although without
those three points. I have put together the parts that are considered to be
genuine by most
scholars:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought
surprising
feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won
over many
Jews and many of the Greeks. And after Pilate had punished him with a cross
at the
instigation of high ranking men among us, those who loved him at first did
not stop".
But even so, with-out those key elements of doctrine, this passage still
stands as a testimony that
Jesus Christ lived and walked in that window of time. My readers may do well
to remember that
Josephus does mention Jesus in book 20 Chapter 9 in "Antiquities of the
Jews" where it is
stated:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinius was but upon the road; so he assembled
the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,
whose
name was James, and some other, and when he had formed an accusation against
them as
breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
It is here in this passage that we are on solid ground. Dr. Yamauchi goes on
to say "that he was a
wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the
fact that he had been
crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders".
According to Dr.
Yamauchi, "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage.
So here you have a
reference to the brother of Jesus who had apparently been converted by the
appearance of the
risen Christ, if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corithians 15:7 and
corroboration of the fact that
some people considered Jesus to be the Christ, which means "the Anointed one
or Messiah."5
So where are we all at in this, despite the interpolations of Christian
copyist in favor of proving
that Jesus did arise from the dead, the fact remains that Jesus Christ did
live and walk the earth
and a more detailed account can be found in the four biographies of his life
where their are four
independent accounts of his resurrection not to mention Pauls account.
Steve wrote:
Secondly your statement <<These
>Gospels are authentic Historical documents that were written by
eye-witnesses
>with the exception of the historian, Dr. Luke. >> makes me guess that you
>have not read much of the literature critical of this claim, or otherwise
you
>would have tried to back this up. Am I correct? I was particularly
surprised
>that you wrote this bald statement after having been to Steven Carr's site
Marks reply:
I have read critical discussions on this, but I disagree. The writers of the
N.T. wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. (maybe I will
taylor my article to the last phrase). The books of the N.T. makes such
claims to this in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John
19:35, Luke 3:1, Acts 26:24-26.
F.F. Bruce, the former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis
at the University of Manchester, says, concerning the primary-source value
of the NT records: "The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value
of...first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are
witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And
it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent
words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples
were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. And it was not
only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with;
there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main
facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciple could no afford to
risk inaccuracies (no to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which
would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On
the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching
is the confident appeal to the knoledge of the heares; they not only said,
'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know'
(Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any
material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience
would have served as a further corrective. (Bruce, NTD, 33-46).
Now you might be saying "Come on Mark, that's only what the writers claimed.
A pseudo-author writing a century or more after the fact can claim
anything". Well, the fact is, however, that the books of the NT were not
written down a century or more after the events they described, but during
the lifetimes of those involved in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the
NT must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document
from the first century (History and Christianity by John Montgomery. Pg.
34-35).
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world's foremost Biblical
archaeologists, said "We can already say emphatically that there is no
longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80,
two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more
radical NT critics of Today" (Albright, RDBL, pg 136). I will pick back up
discussion after this list, with one more response.
Conservative and liberal scholars listed below have provided the
following opinions as to when in their view the various New Testament
books were penned.
Matthew
Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. 60s or 70s AD
W.D. Davies, Ph.D. 80 to 100 AD
James M. Efird, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-55 AD
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD -
Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America
Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic
Studies
Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor
Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament
Origins
Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre 70 AD
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 63-66 AD
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD
Professor of New Testament at Drew University
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 80 to 100 AD
Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D 75 to 85 AD
Professor of New Testament at Princeton University Chair of the Editorial
Board for the
UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New
Testament
of the NRSV Translation Team.
(Probably THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University
(Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the
events
following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD
Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 AD
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist
University
(Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the
Luke-Acts
Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)
J. Wenham, Ph.D. 40 A.D.
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD
Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary
G.A. Wells, sometime after Mark which is dated the MIDDLE of 70 to 135 AD
in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986
G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11
G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend
1996, p. 71.
Mark
Allan Black, Ph.D. early 60's AD
Raymond E. Brown, Ph.D. 60 to 75 AD, most likely between 68 & 73 AD
James M. Efird, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 66 or 67 AD
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 60 to 70 AD
Robert A. Guelich, Ph.D. 67 to 70 AD
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 40 to 65 AD, with the earlier date favored.
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 70 AD
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 70 AD
William L. Lane, Th.D. 60 to 70 AD
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 65 to 75 AD
N. Perrin, Ph.D. after 64/65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 60 to 70 AD
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 70 AD
J. Wenham, Ph.D. 45 A.D.
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD
G.A. Wells, the MIDDLE of 70 to 135 AD in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986
G.A. Wells, about 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, pp. 11 &
107
G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend
1996, p. 71.
G.A .Wells, not earlier than 90 AD in The Jesus Myth 1999, p. 17
Luke
Mark C. Black, Ph.D. 65 to 85 AD
Hans Conzelmann, Th.D. 80 - 100 AD for Luke-Acts, with a likely range of
80 - 90 AD
Professor of New Testament at Gottingem, ThD from Tubingen (Yet again, the
recognized HEIGHT of European liberal Bibliccal-Critical Scholarship)
Author of one of THE BEST Critical, Academic Commentaries on Acts.
James M. Efird, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Before 62 AD, perhaps 58-60 AD
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. 62 to 64 AD
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 61-63 AD
John Holland, Ph.D. 68-78 AD
Professor of New Testament at Trinity College, Bristol England
Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. 80 - 85 AD for Luke (perhaps a bit earlier ...
he hedges toward 75 CE at times) - Professor of New Testament at Emory
University, Candler School of Theology
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 85 AD
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 70 to 90 AD
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD
John Nolland, Ph.D. late 60's to late 70's
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD
Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
Professor of New Testament at the University of Zurich (Again, about as
Critical and liberal as they come)
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD
G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11
G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend
1996, p. 71.
John
W.F. Albright, Ph.D. late 70's or early 80's, not after 90 AD
George R. Beasley-Murray, Ph.D. 80 AD
Raymond Brown, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD, re-edited 85 to 95 AD
Beauford H. Bryant, Ph.D. 85 to 95 AD
James M. Efird, Ph.D. 90 to 95 AD
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 90 AD
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 90 AD
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 80 to 98 AD
B.P.W. Stather Hunt, Ph.D. pre. 70 AD
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 90 AD
Mark S. Krause, Ph.D. 85-95 AD
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 90's AD
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 90 AD
Leon Morris, Ph.D. pre 70's AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 65 AD
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 95 AD
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 90 to 95 AD
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 90 AD
G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11
G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend
1996, p. 71.
Acts
F.F. Bruce, Ph.D. 66 AD or shortly thereafter appears attractive.
Joseph S. Exell, Ph.D. 63 AD
James M. Efird, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Between 62 to 64 AD
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 85 AD
Dennis Gaertner, Ph.D. 63 AD
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. Between 62 to 64 AD
John Holland, Ph.D. 68 to 78 AD
Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. 85 AD
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 85 AD
Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. prior to July 19, 64 AD
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD
William J. Larkin, Jr., Ph.D. early 60's
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 85 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 95 AD
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD
Romans
Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., early 56, 57, or 58 AD
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 56 AD
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 57 or 58 AD
1st Corinthians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 54 AD
Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. 55 AD
2nd Corinthians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 55 AD
Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. 56 AD
William R. Baker, Ph.D. probably 56 AD
Galatians
Kenneth L. Boles, M.A. 50 AD or later
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 48 AD
J.B. Lightfoot, 56 to 57 AD
Ephesians
Kenneth L. Boles, M.A. 62 AD from Rome, 58 to 60 if written in Caesarea
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD
Philippians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ph.D. While Paul was in prision in Caesarea about 59-61
AD.
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD
Colossians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD
1st Thessalonians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-52 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 50 AD
2nd Thessalonians
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-52 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 51 AD
1st Timothy
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 62-65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Autumn 55 AD
2nd Timothy
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Autumn 58 AD
Titus
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 62-65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring 57 AD
Philemon
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD
Hebrews
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 64 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 67 AD
James
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 55-56 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 48 AD
1st Peter
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring 65 AD
2nd Peter
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 61 to 62 AD
1st John
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD
2nd John
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD
3rd John
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD
Jude
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 75 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 61 to 62 AD
Revelation
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 95 AD
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Late 68 or early 70 AD
Steve wrote:
>The Jesus puzzle http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm The writer here
is
>pretty convinced that there was no historical Jesus. You can pick a fight
>with him if you wish! He discusses Josephus at great length here
Mark reply:
I will visit some of the other website you listed, but this Early Dougherty
charector is quite interesting. I have dialoged with him before. As you
stated their are not to many who hold to his view, and he has admitted to me
that his view is bias for him to come out where he is. Let me quote from
Professor FF. Bruce again for you:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christian-myth,' but they do not
do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as
axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It
is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."
As I've said on other occasions, "You learn more from somebody who does not
think the way you do, than from somebody who does".
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
To: mark mcfall
Sent: 09 January 2000 23:41
Subject: Re: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure
Hi Mark,
You wrote:
<<
Steve wrote:
> However, you might be asking the wrong person.
Mark reply:
Perhaps, but as you know from being an ex-Christian, perhaps not. (you know
what mean)
>>
Actually I'm not too sure what you do mean here, I'm afraid. Maybe it's a bit
late and I'm feeling a bit dim at the moment!
You wrote:
<< The Jesus of faith should not be separated from the Jesus of history, in
fact the Jesus of faith is rooted in the Jesus of history. >>
I think that is begging the question. If you insist that the Jesus of faith
must be the same as the Jesus of history then you will have not be able to
look at the evidence with an open mind and you may end up engaging in
casuistry rather than historical research. If a Muslim claimed that the
historical Mohammed should not be separated from the Mohammed
of faith then you might make a similar objection too. Nevertheless, the
evidence may become so overwhelming that your mind changes anyway.
That has happened to many erudite and previously convinced Christians.
If the Jesus of faith is not the Jesus of history then the separation is
indeed valid. Once I thought that the Jesus of faith was the Jesus of
history but I read and thought enough to change my mind. Also the
historicity of Jesus that was not the only factor in my deconversion. But
of course you can see the summary of my story on my website.
You must understand something else though, at least about me (I don't speak
for all ex-Christians here, but I do speak for some from my conversations on
this). The work on the historical Jesus is long and complicated and although
I have read much more than the average person, I am certainly not enormously
erudite. When I became an ex-Christian it was due largely to being exposed to
enough thought and experience from the other side to be able to really
perceive that it was indeed possible that Christianity was due to the
complexities of history, sociology, psychology etc. When that happened
Christianity became completely untenable for me. I doubt any history scholar
has all the facts that all the others have, and so we can always be asked yet
another question. However to answer every technical question of yours I would
have to delve back through my books and bookmarked websites and pieces
I have stored on disk, go to the library and search the Internet further etc.
Suffice to say that you really have to read some of the material I sent you
before I can put the effort into each technical detail as it is not my forte
and requires a lot of work from me. I have given Christianity a very good
shot and I no longer jump through hoops for it although I do maintain a
steady review of the arguments on both sides. It is for this reason that
there are FAQ's and why I point people to the literature rather than
expecting me to be the expert on everything.
However, since you maintain that the gospels are eyewitness accounts you
really must read and comment on Steven Carr's pages at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm and
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm
Steven's pieces summarise well some of my reading on this matter and you will
get a much more interesting and timely debate from him than me which I will
watch with interest. If you disagree with what he says then you must explain
why (to him) and not by quoting that a professor somewhere disagrees. The
arguments must be put on the table. I'm afraid I don't see how your current
arguments cope with Steven Carr's points.
<< Howard Clark Kee,
professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions
from the sources outside of the New Testament: <snip> >>
Well, many others disagree, as you will see from the links I gave you. Having
seen many arguments I am still won over by the case against the Jesus of
faith.
<< Now you might be saying "Come on Mark, that's only what the writers
claimed. A pseudo-author writing a century or more after the fact can claim
anything". Well, the fact is, however, that the books of the NT were not
written down a century or more after the events they described, but during
the lifetimes of those involved in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the
NT must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document
from the first century (History and Christianity by John Montgomery. Pg.
34-35). >>
The evidence I have read is against this (see URLs already given), at least
ITO information being from participants in the events portrayed (or even
second hand) to lend any credence to the historicity of the supernatural
elements of the Christian faith (and even many mundane elements). Also the
final sentence is a non-sequitur.
<< Conservative and liberal scholars listed below have provided the
following opinions as to when in their view the various New Testament
books were penned. <snip list> >>
Well, there are a lot of pro-Christian scholars. There are also a lot who
have come to a different conclusion regarding the Jesus of history being the
Jesus of faith. It is a shame for Christianity that something which
Christians believe is so important is not evident. Why do you think that
apologists and ministers etc. leave Christianity whereas I am yet to find any
members of atheist/humanist etc. organisations who have subsequently become
Christians? What does this suggest about the nature of the evidence to the
well read people in both camps? It is very common for ex-Christians to have
read much pro-Christian material, whereas it is rare to find a Christian
(even a scholar) who has an equivalent grasp of the sceptical literature.
This goes too for many Christian sponsored bible colleges. However there are
theological colleges I have visited where the students regularly loose their
faith in the process of their studies. If the evidence is as good as you
think it is then this really shouldn't happen. Read this (it's very short)
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html
<< this Early Dougherty
charector is quite interesting. I have dialoged with him before. As you
stated their are not to many who hold to his view, and he has admitted to me
that his view is bias for him to come out where he is. Let me quote from
Professor FF. Bruce again for you: >>
As I said before, I also think there probably was a historical person, so I
have no quibble with you there.
<< As I've said on other occasions, "You learn more from somebody who does
not think the way you do, than from somebody who does". >>
That's very noble and sometimes true! Maybe you will learn nothing from me
though (or visa-versa) but let's try anyway - but please take technical
questions to the erudite (after reading some of the material I sent) and I'll
spectate and comment later!
BTW you will also see that some of your remarks about Josephus are already
made on some of the links I gave, so I hope you can appreciate that you would
do well to read the stuff first before setting me lengthy homework. Yes, it
seems Josephus wrote something that was later beefed up by some Christians -
I already thought that! It is also entirely congruent with Christianity being
a human invention as it appears to be from everything I have so far come
across.
I hope I haven't been too brusque - I certainly don't mean to be! It's time
for bed for me....
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):
----- Original Message -----
From: mark mcfall
To: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
Sent: 10 January 2000 06:40
Subject: Re:Communication
This is a much shorter response, I thought I would not write you back for a
while, but you are still on my mind. I hope you don't mind.
Steve wrote:
If you insist that the Jesus of faith
>must be the same as the Jesus of history then you will have not be able to
>look at the evidence with an open mind and you may end up engaging in
>casuistry rather than historical research.
Mark reply:
It seems that you have been influenced by the research of the small group
called "Jesus Seminar"(am I correct). As you already probably know they
represent a small radical-fringe of scholars who are on the far, far left
wing of NT thinking. They do not represent mainstream scholarship. I should
probably note that they take their findings to the masses of the public, and
not to other scholars.
The Jesus Seminar position resembles something that you said about having an
"open mind". They paint them selves as being on an unbiased quest for truth,
as compared with religiously committed people, people like me who have a
theological agenda.
The participants of the Jesus Seminar are at least as biased as
evangelicals---and I would say more so. They bring a whole set of
assumptions to their scholarship, which of course we all do to some degree.
Their major assumption which, incidentally, is not the product of unbiased
scholarly research--is that the gospels are not even generally reliable.
They conclude this at the outset because the gospels include things that
seem historically unlikely, like miracles, walking on water, raising the
dead. These things, they say, just don't happen. That's naturalism, which
says that for every effect in the natural or physical world, there is a
natural cause. Everyone would agree that you don't appeal to supernatural
causes if you don't have to. But these scholars go beyond that and say you
don't ever have to. They operate under the assumption that everything in
history has happened according to their own experiences, and since they've
never seen the supernatural, they assume miracles have never occurred in
history. They rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the
beginning, and then they say, "NOW BRING ON THE EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS". Steve
have you done this?
Steve wrote:
When I became an ex-Christian it was due largely to being exposed to
>enough thought and experience from the other side to be able to really
>perceive that it was indeed possible that Christianity was due to the
>complexities of history, sociology, psychology etc. When that happened
>Christianity became completely untenable for me.
Mark reply:
I've said on other occasions:
"Become familiar with the viewpoints and arguments made by those who
disagree with Christianity. This will
greatly facilitate your communication as you converse in the public square,
at work, and in your families.
I don't know where you stood when you were in your Christian walk, but I
could only suggest to you to get back up on the bike and try again. Your
knowledge of being on both sides of the track would be an asset to the
ministry of bringing people back to Christ. (far from what's on you mind,
right)
Steve wrote:
Why do you think that
>apologists and ministers etc. leave Christianity whereas I am yet to find
any
>members of atheist/humanist etc. organizations who have subsequently become
>Christians? What does this suggest about the nature of the evidence to the
>well read people in both camps? It is very common for ex-Christians to have
>read much pro-Christian material, whereas it is rare to find a Christian
>(even a scholar) who has an equivalent grasp of the skeptical literature.
Mark reply:
Lee Stroble has just finished writing a book called the "Case for Christ" he
was a professed Athiest (I have read Jeffery Jay Lowder's critique of that
book). Let me tell you through, if somebody is converted from being an
Athiest you are not going to read it in skeptical writings. I'm sure you
would agree.
I also am a subscriby to Xianty-infidels where most of my debates with Steve
Carr take place (very smart man by the way). I also surf the Ex-Christian
webring, and spend time talking to deconverts like your self. I do spend
time reading skeptical literature and I have also talk to people who have
worked on the book "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". I am well aware of
the arguments, and I will continue to study the more difficult ones, but
this I look at as a challenge, not as errors. I have talked to people that
have experienced the following quote:
"Some consider this a minor issue, but the idea that the Bible contains
errors opens the door
to serious spiritual danger. When people decide they have the authority to
label one verse as
a mistake, they soon find others that they consign to the "error" category.
I've watched it
happen over the years. Each generation rejects more and more Scripture, as
it gets in the
way of their own opinions". (Dr. John Bechtle)
Steve have you done this?
Steve I have quoted Scholars and you have referenced me to other sites, it
seems we have something in common, and that thing in common is "using
somebody else to confirm our ideas". Why don't we drop our sources and just
talk about our (long sometimes scenic) journey with the living Lord of the
Universe.
Best wishes
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
To: mark mcfall
Sent: 10 January 2000 22:41
Subject: Re: Re:Communication
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your interest and thank you for your calm
approach. It is very easy in religious debates or discussions for tempers to
get raised which makes a mess of NGs like alt.christnet and alt.atheism. I
have seen none of this from you and I commend you for it very much (and I
commend myself too!)
I am very pleased to dialogue with you as far as you want to go if you wish.
I also was in the "Xtianity" mailing list for a while and found it quite a
civilised place. Unfortunately I had to leave as my wife said I was
spending too much time on the computer (I still do!) and we just had a child,
but I think the sort of discussion I can have with you may well like be the
good old days on the Xtianity list that I enjoyed so much.
You wrote:
<< It seems that you have been influenced by the research of the small
group called "Jesus Seminar"(am I correct). >>
No you are quite wrong. I think that if I am to avoid repeating myself you
need to read my website carefully. I am not asking you to follow the external
links and end up reading the whole Internet (!) but you really must read the
stuff I have written if you want to know where I stand and some of why I do.
Then we can take it from there. It is not a lot of material and you can
easily read it all in an evening. My own writings are on these following
links - you don't have to follow any other hyperlinks within them to reach
any of my stuff, it's all here. I recommend reading them in this order too,
as it will build the most coherent picture.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/posts.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/kevnjoy.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/ron_greib.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html
You should be able to gather from the preface to my site that I left
Christianity in the mid 1980's. This was when the Jesus seminar was just
beginning and the Internet was a very small thing. I had no idea of the
existence of the Jesus seminar until a couple of years ago and it played no
part in my deconversion. I have also checked the books I read at the time and
most of them were written before 1985 when the Jesus seminar started and the
later ones others also don't refer to the Jesus Seminar at all in their notes
or references. So it looks like even second hand I was not influenced by
this.
You wrote:
<< As you already probably know they
represent a small radical-fringe of scholars who are on the far, far left
wing of NT thinking. They do not represent mainstream scholarship. I should
probably note that they take their findings to the masses of the public, and
not to other scholars. >>
The radicals are not quite so fringe as you may have been told. If you read
the link I gave you previously
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html you will see
that radical Christians are common in the USA. In Britain where I live there
are many colleges where scholarship points to Christianity not being
supernatural. One such movement that started over here and is now world wide
is the Sea of Faith http://www.sofn.org.uk/
Also you must remember that I and all the ex-Christians I know of have not
had the anti-supernatural bias you mentioned when we were Christians.
Although I myself was quite liberal, (I certainly didn't believe the bible
was inerrant or in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Balaam's talking ass etc.) I
did believe in the incarnation and resurrection, which made me a believer in
the supernatural. I think that ex-Christians are very honest researchers
because we have come to a conclusion completely at variance with what we once
maintained. Also the scholarship I read and that is linked to in the URLs I
gave in my first reply is quite at variance with the way Christians often
characterise it, as you have done with the Jesus seminar. Not only is the
Jesus seminar much more sophisticated than your characterisation paints it,
but the material I read does not take the starting point you criticise the
Jesus seminar for at all. It is a very different kind of criticism, along the
lines of Steven Carr's summaries at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you read them you will get a
taste of the sort of difficulties with the claims you made before. This does
not rely on an a priori assumption about the impossibility of miracles at
all. In fact none of the material I read during my deconversion was like your
characterisation of the Jesus seminar.
So, in reply to your question:
<< They rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the
beginning, and then they say, "NOW BRING ON THE EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS".
Steve have you done this? >>
No I haven't. I believed in the incarnation and resurrection but material
like Steve Carr's, in the books I list on my website and others, provided
part of the case that convinced me I had been wrong about Christianity.
You wrote:
<< I don't know where you stood when you were in your Christian walk, >>
Then you really must read the URLs in this email...
You went on to say:
<< but I could only suggest to you to get back up on the bike and try
again. Your knowledge of being on both sides of the track would be
an asset to the ministry of bringing people back to Christ. (far from
what's on you mind, right) >>
Ha! I'm sorry but that is just too bizarre! I'm sure you were joking or else
the assumption that I should even be able to believe something I don't
believe is just totally odd. Christians often paint belief as a choice. I
fail to see the psychological possibility of this other than wilfully
brainwashing oneself or trying to get hypnotised by Christianity. Surely you
don't see this as a way of finding things out?! Would you respond positively
to a Muslim or a Hare Krishna suggesting you get on their bike to find out
that their beliefs are true? I do not think that willing oneself to believe
things is either virtuous or responsible.
Here are some particular reasons why I think it is reasonable not to
believe in the Christian god (this is far from exhaustive):-
1) I do not think it is either virtuous or responsible to make oneself
purposively believe things. We should have the decency to examine the
arguments and test out our ideas. Our ideas about the world should
only be "working hypotheses" if we are not to be arrogant and claim
more than we really know.
2) My particular moral problems with Christianity include that it is
not easy for a Christian to truly feel brotherly love for a
non-Christian (how can you feel real kinship for someone who "doesn't
know Christ" or is "not saved" or "going to hell" etc.?) Also it is a
very serious moral defect to believe in hell. The fact that Jesus and
the disciples are characterised as believing in it, let alone reported as
having talked about it with such relish, shows them (or those who wrote
the gospels) to have just been men caught up in and part of the religious
ideas of their culture.
3) The fact of the holocaust strips God of any worth, power or
numinousness. The casuistry that Christians invent to let their God off the
hook of the "problem of evil" is reminiscent of an abused wife's love for her
husband or the Stockholm syndrome. I am constantly told how much mentally
healthier people feel after leaving Christianity.
4) A whole list of problems is given at
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~rainwate/tough_questions.html
You wrote:
<< Lee Stroble has just finished writing a book called the "Case for Christ"
he was a professed Athiest (I have read Jeffery Jay Lowder's critique of
that book). >>
It is one thing to be a professed atheist, and quite another to be well read
before converting to Christianity (or another religion). Was Stroble a member
of an atheist organisation before he became a Christian? If he was then he
was a mirror of the ex-ministers etc. that I have been looking for. If not
then Stroble is just another Christian apologist. Nobody starts out life as a
Christian.
You wrote:
<< Let me tell you through, if somebody is converted from being an
Athiest you are not going to read it in skeptical writings. I'm sure you
would agree. >>
Well, you really are not doing me justice. I did a web search and asked
around when I set up my site for such cases and have linked on my site
to those I found. If you go to my reciprocal links section you will see that
in those sites that disagree with mine I have linked to "Testimonies of
former atheists who became Christians" at
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/atheist.htm and William J. Murray's page
(Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son) at http://www.wjmurray.com/
I have also done considerable work in trying to find examples of ex-atheist
group members who subsequently became Christians, and have asked some very
good Christian sites on this and continue to do so. I still haven't found
any. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html
You wrote:
<< I also am a subscriby to Xianty-infidels where most of my debates with
Steve Carr take place (very smart man by the way). I also surf the
Ex-Christian webring, and spend time talking to deconverts like your self.
I do spend time reading skeptical literature and I have also talk to people
who have worked on the book "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". I am
well aware of the arguments, and I will continue to study the more difficult
ones, but this I look at as a challenge, not as errors. >>
Good, as I said before, I commend you for that. Many ex-Christians did the
same as you when they were Christians, although I am not insinuating that all
Christians who do such research will deconvert, but many do. As I reported at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html#background
one correspondent on the xtianity mailing list described how during his years
of debating online he had seen many Christians deconvert due to the arguments
used against Christianity (some of the contributors were such people) but had
never seen an atheist debater converted by the arguments of Christians.
I didn't have the Internet in the 1980's but I did the same with books and
friends in real life. Although not unknown, it is unfortunately less common
for Christians in general to do what you are doing as far as I can gather
from talking to them, my experience amongst Christians when I was one,
and from surfing the Internet and reading their apologetics. It is common
for sites critical of Christianity to link to pro-Christian sites. The
opposite seems much rarer. There is even Christian software available
that blocks sites critical of Christianity.
You quoted:
<< "Some consider this a minor issue, but the idea that the Bible contains
errors opens the door to serious spiritual danger. When people decide they
have the authority to label one verse as a mistake, they soon find others
that they consign to the "error" category. I've watched it happen over the
years. Each generation rejects more and more Scripture, as it gets in the way
of their own opinions". (Dr. John Bechtle)
Steve have you done this? >>
No, you really must read my site carefully. As I said above, I had a somewhat
liberal view of the bible and was not perturbed by the odd contradiction that
I knew about as a Christian. The really juicy ones, such as those I list at
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble I didn't even notice
until a few years ago, which was long after I had already deconverted. Also I
would like to know why you think I am in "spiritual danger?" How do you
measure that your spirituality is somehow greater than mine? Why do I find
life as an atheist far more rewarding on all fronts than life as a Christian,
even though I thought Christianity was very spiritual and loving at the time?
You will see this remark at a number of places on my site. You should also
read my collection of quotes at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html
You wrote:
<< Steve I have quoted Scholars and you have referenced me to other sites, it
seems we have something in common, and that thing in common is "using
somebody else to confirm our ideas". Why don't we drop our sources and just
talk about our (long sometimes scenic) journey with the living Lord of the
Universe. >>
Well, firstly I think it is good "nettiquette" to quote URLs where
information can be found, rather than copying and pasting great chunks into
email. Also there is no point reinventing the wheel if the information is out
there already. So I think it is pertinent to give URLs and to expect each
other to read them, otherwise we are not going to get anywhere in
understanding each others points efficiently. BTW it is also good practise
not to quote the whole of my previous post in your replies. I keep all my
posts, so I will know what you are replying to.
Secondly, let's not beg the question that we were/are "journeying with the
Lord." I have given you plenty of resources on why I left Christianity and
what I think now and I have also replied to your points. When you have read
the material I have referenced and written please do answer my points.
Usually in debates I find Christians drop the points I make and do not take
them as far as we both could. Also if you have a website then please let me
know. Otherwise if you wish to tell me why you became a Christian and what
makes you think that your beliefs are valid then I would be pleased to
discuss that also.
Because this is an interesting discussion it is going up on my website. If
you wish your email address to be removed, just let me know.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):