Part 2

From: Steve Locks

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:29 AM

Subject: Re: Psychology

Hi Bob,

All sorts to discuss again - I've left it a while since that suits us both (and I've had lack of time syndrome!) Sorry it's even longer. So much for my short email intentions! Again there is no time limit above which I will start mischievously thinking "aha - Holding can't reply!" :-)

I'm always worried in conversations with Christians that offence will be taken - I've gone through this a few times looking out for something that might cause upset, but it is nearly impossible not to cause offence when one's deepest beliefs are being criticised I guess. So I hope this comes over in the cordial and yet straight-talking tone intended as per my contribution at http://www.geocities.com/lds_research/wrongwithapologetics.html#Responses :-)

I've put horizontal lines between each sub-topic this time - I hope that makes it clearer.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Do you think the 70% are close enough to the people of the bible (all of the bible?) to be able to understand it without commentaries?

BOB

They are close enough in terms of the characteristics I have noted (collectivism, honor and shame) to understand it far better, yes.

STEVE

I already appreciate that you think they would understand it better as you had said so before. So I tried to take this forward by asking if they are able to understand without commentaries. A yes or no would make this clearer rather than repeating your claim that they would understand it better in general.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>> Where do you get the 70% figure from?

BOB

Malina and Neyrey give the figure in Portraits of Paul and cite a secular anthropological source. I can't recall what it was just now but can check if you really need it.

STEVE

Yes I'd like to see the quote since you claim that this was a change in human psychology, whereas I argued that human psychology (the traits that make us human) is a "first order" effect that is constant throughout human cultures (as per Donald E. Brown's List of Human Universals at http://www.xasa.com/grupos/en/talk/article/171908/talk.philosophy.misc). So what I think must be described in the source you cite is a local cultural influence which will always be a "second order" effect to the facets that make us all human. i.e. 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 it would be very improbable if none of Jesus followers had hallucinations of him after such a traumatic death. I'll get to your main point about visions not being accepted as Jesus unless he gave physical proof etc. later.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>> So if you're right then the message is not so simple for us due to an accident of birth that we were born into the "wrong culture." We didn't ask to be born here and now.

BOB

The rub on that is that the "simpleness" is caused in good measure by our own arrogance and ignorance. It affects us in politics as well.

STEVE

That reply wasn't too clear, but from what you've said before, I take it you mean by the above is (paraphrasing you) "the difficulty moderns have in understanding the Christian message is caused by our own arrogance and ignorance." Have I understood you correctly?

I'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. If I am going to be condemned for "ignorance" at the pearly gates though then I think that is rather unjust! I try to learn what I can and find it bizarre that I would be condemned for lack of knowledge, or not making the right logical connection between ideas so I can find Christianity believable - what Price calls the "damnable syllogism" where we are saved by cognitive works, "God being a strict theology professor who doesn't curve grades."

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? Frequently Christians think of or portray ex-Christians as deconverting through having anti-Christian intentions in some way (e.g. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mcfall/2.html#presumptions or http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html#hostile), but we know from the inside that our Christianity was sincere and our deconversions were often long, painful and resisted. We were so far from "arrogantly" rejecting Christianity that claims for our "arrogance" ring as empty as it is possible to make them. If your mission is partly to persuade apostates of the error of our thinking then it would pay to understand better where we are coming from. We were persuaded that we were mistaken against everything we believed in and held dear. After adjustment, this revelation was then not the darkness we were led to believe it would be and it is quite to be expected that we remain critical of Christian claims thereafter.

Rather the facet that makes it difficult for a modern to accept Christianity, is not "arrogance" but "critical thinking." In continuation of one of your earlier points, maybe our Christian culture is "contaminated" by critical thinking since the renaissance, and so loss of faith has increased over the last few hundred years, particularly since in the last 200 the death penalty for atheism in Christian countries has been dropped. Likewise it is critical thinking, not arrogance, that leads people out of Islam. Or would you claim that a Muslim who rejects Islam is being arrogant? Unfortunately the death penalty for apostasy in Islamic theocracies remains so Islamic deconversion is less pronounced, and yet still occurs. (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#exmuslim).

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.e. don't come to Christian conclusions congenial to your own) due to arrogance and ignorance. As you will know Vermes is a fellow of the British Academy and Prof. Emeritus of Jewish Studies in the University of Oxford. He was also responsible for instigating the "third wave" of historical Jesus research, and is commonly considered the world authority on the ancient Jews during NT times. What you may not know is that Vermes was a Priest in the Sion Order but left the Priesthood and the Catholic Church after his groundbreaking work on the Dead Sea scrolls, no longer considering himself a Christian. (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/vermes.html).

So 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.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>but surely the problem gets even worse? What is the point in all that study when still so many experts still leave Christianity (indeed because of study!)?

BOB

You'd have to be more specific. I have seen experts leave for quite absurd reasons, or for reasons that had little to do with study.

STEVE

See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>accept that even if I am not up to the mark (and I've tried more than the vast majority of people!) they had really missed the right book recommendations.

BOB

It's not that hard to fathom. Robert Price's entire case for 1 Cor. 15:3ff being an interpolation falls on a simple point of Greco-Roman rhetoric, which was a subject he obviously missed at seminary.

STEVE

Since you believe Price has committed an error easily dealt with have you discussed this with him? If so what did he say?

Previously you castigated me for simplicity saying that I was simplistic because

<< Your comparisons continually isolate single aspects, without looking at the larger picture. >>

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?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>As I ask on my site, over the years I have come to know and know of many ex-Christians most of whom were well-churched, their numbers including former ministers, apologists, missionaries, theologians etc. Why should such people leave Christianity? These people are the best versed in Christianity

BOB

I would find it interesting to quiz each of them and see if that is so. Perhaps that would make for an interesting project if you can get some who are cooperative and more of the Kyle Gerkin mentality where I am concerned.

STEVE

You don't need me to introduce you. Just do this yourself, just as I have contacted those Christians whom others claim should test out and possibly refute my claims, such as those previously in atheist groups who nevertheless subsequently converted to Christianity. e.g. Dr. Anthony Garrett, G. Zeinelde Jordan and others on my list I'm working through at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/posscandidates.html. For your project you could try some of those you can find via http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs. Also See the following:

For specifically types such as ex-nuns and priests etc. I think you may find the Sea of Faith a good organisation to contact. They were founded by Don Cupitt of Cambridge University, who you are probably 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). The SoF contain many well-read clergy (and ex-clergy) who once took a supernatural view of religion but subsequently came to the conclusion that religion is a purely human creation ("the non-realist view" to use their terminology).

All the following are quality UK contacts.

The UK SoF links I have from my website are:

The Sea of Faith Network The SoF Network explores the implications of accepting religion as a human creation. Many senior current and past churchmen (and women) are part of this organisation. Examples of transitions from traditional Christian to Sea of Faith non-realist are available in the accounts from Anne Horner, Jude Bullock and others at Personal essays.

The UK SoF spokesperson I made contact with a couple of times is Patti Whaley

I also recommend trying

The Very Reverend Andrew William Ussher Furlong contact via tiripo@gofree.indigo.ie

Also try:

Prof. Michael Goulder (University of Birmingham, UK) who after having been considered for the position of Anglican bishop, suddenly resigned both the priesthood and the Christian Church in 1981 to become what he described as "a nonagressive atheist." After almost thirty years in the Church, Michael Goulder announced that he had lost his faith and resigned his orders. For fifteen years he had been running courses for the West Midlands clergy, passing on to them the messages of the academic theologians.

Anthony Freeman (formerly Priest-in-charge of St Mark's, Staplefield, UK). See his book "God in Us - a case for Christian Humanism." Maybe you can contact him via his present post as Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

Professor Daphne Hampson http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/hamp1.html - no longer a Christian but still a professional theologian and a feminist.

The philosopher and former Catholic priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, President of the British Academy from 1989 to 1993 and Master of Balliol College, Oxford from 1978 to 1989. His account of leaving the Catholic church is detailed in his book The Path from Rome.

And of course another interesting person could be Geza Vermes, Fellow of the British Academy and Prof. Emeritus of Jewish Studies in the University of Oxford.

If you do contact these people I guess it might be better to be anonymous, or at least to invent a new pseudonym. I think if they were to see the caustic tone of much of your website then they might not want to 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.

Another possibility for you is to join "Crosstalk" which I think you are aware of (I've a vague memory I've seen it mentioned in one of your discussions, but I might be wrong). As you probably know it is at the stage of "xtalk2" now and was instigated by Dr. Mark Goodacre. It is a moderated scholarly discussion list. It would be interesting to see how your ideas hold up there. See http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/. Despite what it says at http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/#archives you can read the archives before subscribing if you want a flavour of the conversations.

I'm glad you think this is an interesting project. Please let me know if you take any of this up. Would you put any discussions (verbatim of course) up on your website? Maybe you could cc' me on any discussions? I'll promise to keep quiet (just lurk) unless asked to contribute and have something to say.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>What's more, if evidence was important for convincing doubting Christians, ex and non-Christians then a God could obviously convince them very easily. However, in response to confirmation candidates asking "why faith not evidence?" the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said "to ask for faith in the way that many people do is to ask for a prouder God than He who became our brother in the cradle and on the cross."

BOB

Interesting point, but as I have noted "faith" (pistis) properly defined means trust based on evidence: http://www.tektonics.org.whatfaith.html (I know of Gleeson's reply -- http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith_CC1.html)

STEVE

Bonhoeffer was my favourite theologian when I was a Christian. I was also a fan of Thomas Merton - so you can see I was not a fundie!

Anyway, the moot point about evidence is that many of us are far from convinced that it points to the (or 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? Are we to be convinced by evidence? That would be easy for a God! What's more you appear to be doing something that is not "God's way" of doing things. I am unaware of any apologetics in the bible, least of all from Jesus.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Krishna etc.) does not seem too concerned about doing this. And so are lots of books really the answer, especially when it was lots of books (Christian books at that) that led so many of us out of Christianity?

BOB

Obviously I think it is AN answer. :-)

STEVE

Again, I obviously know you think that (indeed you admit it is obvious!). I think you could see I was after 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? I don't think I'll ever get the chance to read as much as the many scholars who still left Christianity despite all their piles of Christian books.

STEVE (in previous email - regarding the difficulty of finding time to read even more books than already shortlisted)

>>>So I've no real time to shave off there, or really anywhere. As for prioritisation, if I did that then I think I would never read another pro-Christian book. I very much feel like I've done my stint there and have been disappointed with "the latest book that is going to convert me" so many times that I have little inclination to believe that there is really another one around the corner.

BOB

Well, but instead it may be "the latest email (that takes an hour to type) to convert you"? :-)

STEVE

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 still be sent elsewhere only strengthens my belief that Christianity cannot withstand scrutiny. Surely taking time to answer emails from critics is part of your job and mission as an apologist? Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful for what intelligent replies I have received so far, although I am still finding it difficult to draw specific replies out from yourself.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>convincing to enable me to prioritise any particular book as the one that should shuffle others down from the top 550. For instance whilst writing this I received an exhortation to: Buy the The Spiritual Man from Christian Fellowship Publishers, and read the first 77 pages. If you do this, with a heart desiring for the truth, I am confident you will BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, and you will be SAVED, and you will know it. Read carefully.

BOB

Um. A librarian's recommend:

1) 77 pages? How could that provide any sort of worthwhile case?

2) "Christian Fellowship Publishers"? Not exactly peer-reviewed scholarship, is it?

STEVE

Neither is AiG, but you recommend it. Meanwhile plenty of theists (Christian and other) exhort me that what I need is not scholarly writings, but spiritual writings. I get a very confusing spectrum of diagnosis about what real Christianity is, what is wrong with me, what I need etc. However I am inclined, like you, to read more scholarly works, so I agree. It is Christians and other theists who don't agree with you though.

BOB

I'd also look for a summary. A little discernment like this saves a lot of time (when it comes to any book at all). You could probably cut your 550 total by 90% that way.

STEVE

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?

Anyway, despite your "Um. A librarian's recommend:" I am not that dense! I already have been reading summaries, articles, attending lectures, viewing documentaries, reading related books etc. that summarise and recommend other books etc. That is how I have got down to (currently) about 1000 books I would like to read in detail. In addition there are a large number of articles in paper and electronic form which look like they would be worth reading. My 550 has to be selected out of that lot (even assuming I really get time for another 550). Ironically whilst you exhort me to read summaries, you are one of the most resistive people I have encountered for giving me a summary! I'm having to persuade as hard as I can to get a summary from you of the evidence you feel is so important (honour and shame societies). 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.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>There is also the catch-22 that until I re-believe Christianity is even remotely likely to be true I am little inclined to put its importance above science,

BOB

Catch-22? It leaves you with that little free choice?

STEVE

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.? 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?

Why I personally bother with Christian issues at all is as I explained to a Priest at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/rodney.html

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more. >> Yet it has often been the case that unwillingness to tackle questions at church (even sometimes a hostile attitude to questions) has lead people to deconvert from Christianity.

BOB

I'm painfully well aware of that. Correcting such things is and has been part of my mission.

STEVE

I'm glad to see you are well aware that a hostile attitude to questions has lead people to deconvert from 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

Are 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:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2sup/rn.html Note there that you had almost convinced him to become a Christian by your arguments but he confessed:

"...I *know*, intellectually, that the fundies have a very strong case and that it is the rational thing to do is to "accept Christ." There's one problem: I can't. I have a very strong emotional blockage and have awful reactions to conservative Christians, especially fundamentalists, *especially* "Laodicaeans" like Jordan and the Tekton crew. That is the main stumbling block to accepting Christ..."

So he would have been a Christian given the content of your website, but was prevented by the tone.

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. I'm already having difficulty in getting a summary of your findings, and many of my questions have been met with an answer that misses the point which I wouldn't have expected from an intelligent chap like yourself unless you're just rattling these emails off without too much thought. But if so, what became of your mission to answer questions and why did you say "we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously." ?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>this is a general finding and another reason why I think a summary of ideas when asked for really would help dispel the idea that Christian claims are not well founded.

BOB

As noted, there simply are things that cannot be fairly summarized -- and then there is the "questions breed like rabbits" matter I raised, to which you appealed again to the time factor:

STEVE

I've done some digging and I notice that Malina believes his arguments can be summarised since he gives a summary at the end of each chapter of "The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural 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?

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. So that is another reason that even if I read these books from cover to cover I would like to see your summaries. My pondering what I can find on these authors you rely on is a question of the validity of the filtering of their work and use of their material that you engage in, such as in "The Impossible Faith." Since 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? 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 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!

STEVE (in previous email)

>>> Have I really *got* to read lots of hard books to assuage my feeling that Christianity is untenable?

BOB

Well -- yes. Once you choose a life of the mind, you trap yourself in that very way, as I tell many beginning readers of scholarly material. Once it is started, it becomes addictive, like eating potato chips.

STEVE

The "life of the mind" as regards thinking about Christianity was not a choice (like it is with other subjects I'm interested in). Rather my interest in Christianity as a Christian drew me into studying it more closely. It was the problems this raised that forced me out of Christianity. It is the pity for my old self and those in the throws of shaking off Christianity that keeps me interested in reading thoughts of the intelligent and learned. So I lay the charge of the "life of the mind" as regards Christianity for me personally as a fault of Christianity not surviving scrutiny. If it did not appear so problematic (when through wanting to increase my faith I started getting into the background more closely) I would have continued with devotional and spiritual works, rather than intellectual ones, never having particularly thought, as a Christian, that the important Christian treasures were to be found in intellectual work. I always thought that if "prostitutes and tax-collectors" were entering the kingdom before me then I didn't need a PhD in theology. However curiosity killed the Christian cat.

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...). ;-)

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>>. Does this mean that conversation about ideas cannot happen between living people, and we all just have to read each others books?

BOB

No, but it does mean that such conversations will inevitably become unwieldy and unmanageable, if fully pursued. By the time it gets to that, with the time used you may as well have read one or more of the books. :-)

STEVE

Some conversations might, but this is not necessarily the outcome. I know of those who have had intelligent and "wieldy" conversations eventually coming to a conclusion together. I have records of online debates where Christians have deconverted. e.g. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#7. The Priest I had a friendly and very manageable conversation with at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/rodney.html eventually came to agree with me and sent me his "deconversion letter" he drafted to send out to his friends to explain his new position. None of these were unwieldy, although unwieldyness is possible, but less likely if both parties are open to being wrong. Maybe you have records of conversions to Christianity during your own email discussions? If so that is something I doubt you would characterise as unwieldy and unmanageable. Sometimes books are a good idea and the conversation can be long, but still many times worthwhile.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>meaning of the word "psychology" - perhaps you are taking it in more of a local behavioural manner than I am getting at?

BOB

Yes. Brown's list makes it clear that you may be missing my point. To use an example germane here: One of his universals is "group living" and group membership. This is a general; what I speak of is differences in application, how important group membership is. Our society is individualist; groups are not considered as important, by far, as they are in collectivist cultures. And this ranking of importance affects behavior and psychology inevitably. Both experience "group living" but they do not rate it with the same level of importance. Say from 1 to 10, we give it a 2, they give it a 9 or a 10.

STEVE

I quite understand that point, which is why I raised it as a possible misunderstanding. This is also why I have been at pains to point out the difference between human nature (Brown's list) and local cultural effects. To argue that a "grief hallucination" would not be interpreted as a resurrected Jesus is to put secondary effects above primary effects, and also to assume that there is no variance within a culture. Indeed if the NT culture was as invariant as you portray then how did it ever eventually change?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>You used him with regard to Q in an email to Ed. Mark Goodacre is one of the foremost exponents of the "No Q" theory.

BOB

I see. Well, surprise of surprises, I use many sources with whom I have substantial disagreements; I even disagree with some of what my favorite writer Ben Witherington says. I seldom agree with any writer en bloc but critically analyze and compare all they say. If Goodacre believes the message has been lost, I would have reason to question and disagree (I've been down that road) -- and I can still agree with his points about Q (which are not inextricably linked to his other ideas).

STEVE

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? (If not, then why bring it up?) Are then none of the substantial disagreements between your sources and yourself inextricably linked to any of the ideas you use from any of the authors you use? I note that Malina cites as evidence that Jesus' Kingdom was meant as a political one the fact that it is so little explained - i.e. he didn't need to because he was living in a "high-context" society. Therefore the Kingdom would have been known to be a political one and since Jesus didn't explain it wasn't, then a political kingdom must have been what he meant. (Goodacre also argues for a political message). You have used the "high-context" society argument yourself for very different purposes.

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?

I agree with you that if one argument is independent of another idea from an author then it is okay to take that argument in isolation from the other. 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. As I said, if you respect someone as a scholarly researcher, then you should sit up and take note when he disagrees with you.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>That is hardly a falsification as you well know that whether Jesus rotted or was raised, there is not going to be a body available.

BOB

No skeleton? The Jews of this period kept the bones because of their belief in resurrection. Remains of some sort certainly would have been available.

STEVE

How would bones have been identifiable as a particular individual to NT peoples?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>> However there is very good evidence that Jesus was buried in a pit, and hence would not have had a known grave to be visited and seen empty. That is the essay by Byron R. McCane at http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm. Now I know that you have said that this essay is consistent with burial in an initial tomb, but it is not consistent with a body still being there when it was visited 3 days later.

BOB

I don't see why it isn't. I think you are confusing McCane's arguments with Carrier's (mis)use of McCane's arguments. I looked at his summary and found nothing about the body being moved to a pit. If anything it looks like he agrees that the bones would still be around to be regathered.

STEVE

You are right - I have confused McCane with Carrier (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=125), although I do not agree that Carrier either used ("mis" or otherwise) McCane's arguments since in Carrier's earlier version of his essay he stated that he had been told of http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm after writing his own essay. See http://web.archive.org/web/20020215074441/http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=125

Meanwhile I think Carrier makes a good case for the body being moved. He even uses the kind of local 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).

Now, McCane states:

"By sunset on the day of his death, the body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminals condemned by Jewish courts.

... the Gospels embellish and glamorize the burial of Jesus....

Virtually all studies agree that as the tradition develops, every detail in the story is enhanced and improved upon...."

Do you agree that McCane's thesis is that Jesus was buried in a criminals' tomb? He does explicitly say so. Do you mean that it was the criminals' tomb that was known? Is this the grave depicted in the Gospels? How is this compatible with your views?

(In previous email, referring to Bob's point that "The Jews would not have believed it [i.e. a vision of Jesus - Steve] was the deceased because the dead could only be called up via necromancy, which was forbidden, and otherwise could not go back to earth (per the rich man and Lazarus). Your option is simply not socially viable and a hallucination of Jesus would have never been understood as Jesus himself, much less as one resurrected.")

STEVE

>>>Why then would Jesus have raised Lazarus (the one of the miracle in John, not the parable in Luke) if that would lead Jesus to have been thought a forbidden necromancer?

BOB

I'm not sure what the point is here. I must be missing something of your position. Jesus did not "call up" the spirit of the dead; he RAISED the dead. Can you elucidate?

STEVE

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"? Remember that I raised this in a question about people claiming they saw the Jesus. 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.

There is another point I should have made earlier in reference to your contention that visions of Jesus would have been interpreted as angels making themselves to look like Jesus. Since a number of people subsequently became Christians on the basis of preaching alone without the benefit of visions (or appearances) then clearly people were accepting "not socially viable" statements as truth without evidence! So the social non-viability is rather implausible, given that people of that time and place accepted the religion without seeing visions. 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? Did no Christians of the time believe without evidence? Since those who believe without seeing are blessed (John 20:29) then presumably Jesus must have thought such an occurrence was socially possible, otherwise he was giving blessings in vain! Would Jesus have said "blessed are they who do the impossible!" ?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Why did Saul (a pre-Christian Jew) think his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus really was Jesus, rather than an angel?

BOB

Actually he did have to ASK who it was, you'll recall. :-) He thought so because he was plainly told.

STEVE

Previously you have been at pains to explain how believing a vision was of a resurrected Jesus would be "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. This is understandable as a case of "conversion disorder" (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/visionorigin.html#paul) but looks very odd if Paul was not undergoing this normal psychological process but was rather a culturally conditioned individual not only set against Christianity but also against the acceptance of a resurrected Jesus in a vision. An 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! I guess then Jesus ought to appear more often :-). Since he doesn't I'm left with the question I asked before - "I fail to see how Christians can be doing "God's work" by taking up the task of trying to convince us when the Christian God himself (or Allah, Krishna etc.) does not seem too concerned about doing this."

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."

As for being plainly told (or having physical proofs) before one would believe a vision was not an angel in 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 forbidden >> so given Elijah and Moses were not "raised" at the transfiguration, why were Peter, James and John not perturbed at seeing these dead people if being "called up" was forbidden necromancy?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Also remember that grief hallucinations are very vivid and hallucinations seem real to those having them.

BOB

I have little doubt of that. But the bottom line remains that any hallucination seen would have been interpreted as the double agent angel on patrol. Assuming it happened at all -- I'd say that the Jewish belief that the dead did not come back as spirits (despite the afterlife) means that there would be no grounds for such a hallucination to occur to begin with. And if it did, least of all would it be understood as a "resurrected" body -- the resurrection of the dead in glorified bodies was not to occur until the end of eschatologucal history, and then ALL were to be raised, not one man. The "hallucination" explanation simply requires ignoring too many set beliefs of the Jews of the period.

STEVE

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. Again your centention looks to me like it causes problems for Stephen's vision and the transfiguration appearences.

BOB

I'd say that the Jewish belief that the dead did not come back as spirits (despite the afterlife) means that there would be no grounds for such a hallucination to occur to begin with.

STEVE

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! Local cultural beliefs cannot eradicate the way our brains are wired up. A powerful emotional and seemingly supernatural experience like that is rather likely to be more impressive than local cultural beliefs. A huge and deep experience - about as fundamental as it can get - vs. culture.

BOB

And if it did, least of all would it be understood as a "resurrected" body -- the resurrection of the dead in glorified bodies was not to occur until the end of eschatologucal history, and then ALL were to be raised, not one man. The "hallucination" explanation simply requires ignoring too many set beliefs of the Jews of the period.

STEVE

Just to recap - obviously we both know "hallucination" is an anachronistic term i.e. The NT peoples wouldn't have known that hallucinations were a brain phenomenon. I think I've already shown that non-proof visions (even without any mention of being told "it's really me, not a double-agent angel") such as the transfiguration and vision of Stephen demonstrate that such experiences could be taken at face value. If grief induced hallucinations would not have been believed to be Jesus then why did they believe they saw 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. Of course there are also the many scholarly arguments for the evolution of the gospel appearances and the concretization of the appearances over time.

After Paul's speeches in Acts where is the text that says people went to check out what he said? Some believed him, some didn't, nobody is reported to have said: "let's go look at the tomb for certainly an empty tomb is proof that there is no possible explanation other than Jesus is God." All belief or disbelief appears (according to Acts) to be on how persuasive Paul's speeches were to his hearers, and the receptiveness of individuals in his audience. Nobody is recorded as checking anything. Paul never attempts to convince about the resurrection by quoting witnesses to the empty tomb. His evidence is Jesus' appearances: to the women, to two disciples on the way to Emmaus, to Peter and others in Jerusalem, to the Apostles on a Galilaean mountain. i.e. to grief induced hallucinations that 50% of them should have had (even assuming the Acts speeches are historical).

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. So maybe the "proofs" of Jesus' divinity aren't quite the "substantial and undeniable proof " you make them out to be since clearly they were denied as being convincing!

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>> An infinitely big explanation ("God") is the most "un-parsimonious" of any explanation (since it is infinite!), and if it is to be held at all it must be for other reasons than "parsimony" as I explained to Jordan, and was the (slightly sneaky) reason I used the word with yourself in my previous email.

BOB

I fail to see any logical or factual reason for this to be so. God is considered a simple being, not an "infinitely big" being. It sounds like this assumes the priority of naturalism and interprets "God" in those terms rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Besides, the identity question of "who did the rez" is in effect quite secondary.

STEVE

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?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>I don't understand why you think I have not addressed this. I specifically stated that some of these were from strict "honour and shame" societies.

BOB

And I believe I noted that they showed clear signs of cross-cultural fertilization.

STEVE

Which didn't prevent the fact that death is the end result for apostasy. Anyway cross-cultural fertilisation works against your arguments too. As you know plenty of scholars argue that many Jewish writings of the 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. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Nag Hammadi documents have contributed to this change in perspective. Scholars have been able to find a niche within Judaism from which they believe Jesus could have obtained his beliefs and teachings.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>It is not possible to replace your children.

BOB

The ancients would not agree. Remember that children were mainly a means to an end, of producing progeny to inherit your property. The emphasis on sentimentality is misplaced, if that is what is in view.

STEVE

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. Therefore your point about the ancients is misplaced. 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 count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that engenders such threats. i.e. what can be a worse social ostricization for a modern than loosing your children?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>>But even if deconversion was always a jolly thing with well wishes from Christians, why would anyone deconvert unless they really lost their beliefs?

BOB

No other reason; but for what reason, and whether it is rational and informed, is my main concern. I have read of one person who deconverted solely because of 9-11; another, because they took but TWO college courses. Do you think such people made careful, considered surveys of such things as whether Jesus was really raised from the dead?

STEVE

If a conversion truly is based on a triviality or misunderstanding then obviously it is not careful and considered. Neither is God on the reins despite entreaties to him to help a troubled faith. However I know many examples that were excruciatingly careful and considered. Also as I have pointed out already, you previously chided me for << isolat[ing] single aspects, without looking at the larger picture >> so why the odd example rather than the larger picture such as http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html. Even if for the sake of argument the conclusions were subsequently flawed, it is quite false to believe that the general picture is not one of careful and considered examination of questions of Christianity.

BTW, as I discussed with Jordan, there are many other ways than considering the resurrection by which people may come to the conclusion that Christianity is incoherent and unbelievable. e.g. everything at http://www.infidels.org and more!!

BOB

I don't support decisions made on emotional bases, in any setting.

STEVE

How then do you love God, or have spiritual feelings? What makes you value anything? Without an emotional basis to a decision, how have you concluded that the Christian God is good? Is it really just a sterile philosophy? Could a computer be a Christian?

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?

Anyway, despite your resistance to emotional bases you will not be able to escape them. This emotional component is inevitable due to the mere virtue of being human. It is a humbling realisation to discover that one is a psychological being oneself. That was one of the humbling yet emancipating awakenings I had upon deconversion. It is a psychological truth that people are resistant to change in worldview. I quite expect that even if your arguments are valid I would not accept them without resistance - even to the point where I would only change views if (as Ed points out) the pain of remaining the same is greater than the pain of changing. i.e. the cognitive dissonance becomes too much. I also expect that of yourself, so I appreciate why religious discussion is polarised. I don't think a computer would have any compunction against applying a probability to the more likely conclusion given what we can know or assign probabilities to regarding Christian claims. Would you accept this about yourself? If not then your view of faith is rather 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? You argue at http://www.tektonics.org/spaninq.html that the inquisitors should not be blamed for their actions, they were only doing what they honestly thought was right and important. And yet for merely being born human we deserve to be tortured. For being in the wrong culture we miss out on correct understanding of the bible and through normal human psychology we resist becoming Christians - just as we also resist becoming Muslims etc.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>> What evidence is there that the authorities would have cared to thwart what would have been to them a little known and minor cult?

BOB

1) It was a matter of honor. The claim of Jesus' resurrection was a claim that the authorities were in error and that God had vindicated Jesus and shamed them.

STEVE

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? And with over 40 days worth of decay at that - since that is when the preaching started according to Acts (let alone any later).

BOB

2) As the NT shows, this cult threatened the view of Jewish unity in Roman eyes, which could lead to loss of their special status. It did not have to be a new religion.

STEVE

What passage are you referring to here? Even so you are again using the NT to prove the NT. To recap my earlier point about Herodotus, I mentioned:

Herodotus reports that in the Indian desert "are ants, not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes; the Persian king has some of these, which have been caught there." It would be fallacious to believe this on the basis of its internal report against the evidence of everything else known about the world,

To this you replied:

BOB

Yet your "marmots" example (never heard that one, thanks!) solves the matter nicely, does it not? A very simple matter of textual criticism. Then:

STEVE

I think you missed my point when you replied that "mistaking the ancient Persian word for marmot, which 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. 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. Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh show that the Christian community of John's Gospel was an "anti-society", that is, a consciously alternative society consisting of exiles, rebels, or ostracized deviants. (They note parallel examples of anti-societies, such as reform-school students in Poland, members of the underworld in India, and vagabonds in Elizabethan England.) As such, it had developed its own "anti-language", that is, a resistance language used to maintain its highly sectarian religious reality. This accounts for many of the strange expressions found in the gospel. For instance, the Christians of this community referred to all outsiders as people of "this world". They believed that all members of wider society -- especially "the Jews" -- lay outside the scope of redemption and were completely beyond the pale. Like all anti-societies, they overlexicalized their language, which basically means that they used redundant euphemisms. Thus, "believing into Jesus", "abiding in him", "loving him", "keeping his word", "receiving him", "having him", and "seeing him" all meant the same thing. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800629922/002-9579734-0741657?v=glance

So maybe Paul read more into "seeing Jesus" than he should have. As Steven Carr points out:

Ask 500 Catholics after Mass if they have received the real body and blood of Jesus and they will say yes. Are they hallucinating? No. Does this mean a non-Catholic would have seen the real body and blood of Jesus during Mass? No. What people say they have seen is conditioned by what they want to say they have seen. Talk of 'hallucinations' is beside the point.

I was also surprised to see that you had never heard of this example about Herodotus and his giant ants. I got the initial reference from one of Carrier's resurrection articles, so you should have come across it before, although the marmot's resolution I found from another Internet search.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>just as it would be fallacious to believe in the 500 vision, Matthew's risen saints etc. against the lack of reportage from other interested writers (such as Josephus) of such astonishing events were they true,

BOB

The silence of Josephus, etc. means little in this regard. At best you may assume that they did not consider the reports historical. At least you must consider that silence about an opponent was a shaming tactic. Silence is not a form of positive evidence when it comes ot ancient writers.

STEVE

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. To avoid mentioning astonishing events that would have been the talk of the town is pretty lousy for a historian of his calibre. If Matthew's account of the dead rising from their graves and appearing to many was true (Matthew 27:51-52), then such a remarkable event would have to have been reported by historians such as Josephus since he avidly recounted the exploits of the supposed miracle workers of those times. Josephus' father was a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection accounts contain much made up or embellished material.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>This is not to say that the authors of these tales are simply lying. Even if he wrote the passage, Paul could have misinterpreted what "500" saw

BOB

Then one must explain what they did see, and explain why it is more likely in context, and how the misunderstanding occurred and was perpetuated. The Jewish understanding of resurrection, and what I have noted above, works hard against you here.

STEVE

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).

Maybe they just felt moved religiously.

Maybe they just saw some bloke like at http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html

Maybe it was a demon sent to mislead the world from following the true religion that was to come (Islam).

Maybe it was really Jesus.

Maybe it was one person getting excited and the others following suit.

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!)

Maybe it was like Malina suggests, a redundant euphemism.

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.

Maybe something else...

BOB

3) The general tenor of the ancient world, for everyone to mind everyone else's business, provided enough incentive alone.

STEVE

So where is the evidence that the myriad of cults in and around Jerusalem at the time were being debunked? 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?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Looks like you might have made a judgement though... Anyway, excellent! I have never heard of the Encyclopaedia of Associations but unfortunately when I searched for it I found the website to be written in gobbledegook (to a non-librarian that is!).

BOB

I actually meant a book set, a rather large one. I don't possess my own copy but it has a keyword index, in which I would look for words like ex-Christian (or even Christian); if that failed, I would next refer to atheist organizations that would be able to provide further direction. Looking for answers is somewhat like travelling on a spider's web -- you have to be able to think of many divergent paths down which an answer may be found.

STEVE

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.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>will not meet a non-Christian outside of your computer. These people said they did not know of any non-Christians that they had met.

BOB

Do you mean "ex-" rather than non-??? :-/

STEVE

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. Whilst you may (possibly) know more about the ancient world, you are obviously not qualified to compare it with the modern world. If you are going to make comparisons then you have to understand both parts of the comparison. I really did mean non-Christian. Not only no non-Christians, but no non-fundamentalists!

STEVE

>>>Do you really expect them to have known that the public library would have the "Encyclopedia of Associations," know what that is, how to use it and whether it is likely to have local support groups for ex-Christians right there in the heart of the bible belt?

BOB

Yes. We are all (here at least) taught to use a library in elementary school.

STEVE

Then it should be a cinch for you to look into this for me. If you refuse then how will I know that I am mistaken that social ostracisation does not happen in the modern world through apostasy? (I'm giving too much up for the sake of argument, given that numerous people have described social ostracisation in the modern world through apostasy!)

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Remember that you claimed << threats of social ostracization count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that engenders such threats >> which is exactly what happens to Christians who deconvert in a highly religious peer-group/family. Note that those ex-Christians who do suffer social ostracization are brought up in a culture that teaches they will be miserable, nihilistic and empty if they ever left the church.

BOB

They are also in a culture in which those so "oppressed" are encouraged to assert themselves, seek a new identity, and proclaim it from the housetops, and in which being controversial guarantees attention. It is also a society that makes too much of things -- there are complaints of "oppressive" poverty from persons who own TV sets! That they do not pursue the options is another matter -- and has little if anything to do with whether they made an informed decision, of course.

STEVE

I don't think you've understood that Christians do not seek deconversion. They fight doubts to the end. So your rationalisation is misdirected.

As for being informed I hope you will take up the quest of seeking the scholarly ex-Christians such as I set out near the beginning of this email. It also raises the worrying question of why all those prayers for guidance were not answered. Surely God would want even the uninformed to be maintained in their faith?

As for it being a decision, as I said, how does one "decide" what is believable? I am unaware of how to "decide" I believe things which no longer convince me. How to believe things we don't believe - even if it were virtuous or responsible to do so! Can you make a decision to believe Allah is the one true God?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>As discussed above, could you summarise the most persuasive information you have.

BOB

I would have to say that The Impossible Faith is my best effort at doing so. (Yes, as it happens, someone just told me of Holtz' latest "response"....I'll withhold comment in context. Let's just say he still hasn't learned his lesson.)

STEVE

If that's it then I guess I will never be a Christian since whilst sometimes impressively ingenious, your arguments leave me unconvinced. When I read through The Impossible Faith I compiled my own list of objections that sprang immediately to mind (not ones I recall from other criticisms of TIF). Maybe I'll share them with you one day - but if you are going to reply to Holtz again I guess one thing at a time! Anyway, some of the points I noted down at the time are making it into these emails, as are some of yours I note from TIF, so largely we're discussing them bit by bit anyway.

STEVE

>>>>By the losers in the battle for Christianity (see http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/therealjesus.html ref. Mark Goodacre, Michael Goulder, Geza Vermes etc.). Were all the apocryphal gospels Gnostic? If not, then my point surely remains?

BOB

I would want to discuss specific documents to say anything further. As Jenkins has noted in Hidden Gospels, these are "losers" for quite sound historical reasons.

STEVE

And as others say not for reasons of the winners being correct! Anyway, you haven't answered my question regarding the point that Christians clearly were making up false stories about Jesus. i.e. "Were all the apocryphal gospels Gnostic? If not, then my point surely remains?" Are the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Nicodemus Gnostic? Are the later infancy Gospels? 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?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that they *are* less than unity.

BOB

I seem to have lost track of the point here.

STEVE

To recap:

I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at your website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon possible scenario. Whilst some of these could be accepted for the sake of argument the overall scenario is a multiplication of hopeful, but less than unity, possibilities. These are "AND statements" all required for your apologetic to work. Multiply a lot of numbers smaller than one together and you soon get close to zero.

An "AND statement" is a logical statement such that all propositions within the collection of statements have to be true for the whole statement to be true. This is why I have asked if certain aspects are necessary items for Christianity to be true, such as must materialistic evolution as taught by mainstream science be false? i.e. If you argue that a) materialistic evolution must be false and b) it must be impossible for an ancient Jew to misascribe a grief induced hallucination are both necessary (an AND statement) for Christianity to be true, then if at least one is false then (by your argument) so is Christianity. If the probability of statement (a) is (say) 0.9 and the probability of statement (b) is 0.8 then the probability of the whole is 0.9 x 0.8 = 0.72. As soon as there are more than a few non-unity probabilities then the whole edifice rapidly becomes extremely unlikely. There are a number of examples of this sort of thing on your website. For example you argue:

a) NT Jews had only one understanding of resurrection.

b) The authorities would have checked the tomb.

c) If they found it empty they would have kept quiet.

d) Josephus would not have reported spectacular supernatural events that he would have known about

e) The "pre-ascension" Ekklesia would have gathered for huge banquets of 500.

f) Robert Price is ignorant of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

g) People can choose what they find believable.

h) Local culture is more influential than the basic wiring of the human brain.

etc. etc.

Assign probabilities to each required element and the chance that Christianity is true becomes very slim.

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>>Even better! They knew their chances of seeing Jesus "in the flesh" were limited (if the Gospels are to be believed). So why farms over Jesus? Jesus exhorted people to put following him above all worldly concerns - even including family.

BOB

Then you just refute yourself -- which is more important? Seeing Jesus one last time for sentimental purposes, or spreading the Gospel?

STEVE

Jesus commanded those present to stay (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?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>Wouldn't you agree though that they both are unable to see colours and have a fallacious mentality?

BOB

"Fallacy" implies error in thought process to me rather than something that can't be helped. I would probably choose another word.

STEVE

What exactly then was your point in saying that fundamentalists have a "fallacious black and white mentality"? Do you agree that the NT authors had erroneous thought processes since they were fundamentalists?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>What could the "general rebellion of all humanity" actually be?

BOB

If I had to say something short, "the tendency to break God's commandments (or morals)".

STEVE

How exactly can someone rebel against something one doesn't believe is real? Do you think you're in rebellion against Allah and have a tendency to break Allah's commandments (or morals)?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>What is the "special creation model?"

BOB

Any model that sees God as the worker of the process, in a way that is not gradual (theistic evolution). To use an example, what of an idea that the "days" in Genesis as ages, but that at the beginning of each age God created new sets of animals ex nihilo?

STEVE

Have you any evidence for this idea? Have you seen http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ?

STEVE (in previous email)

>>>That's it for now. Again I'm sorry it is long this time and I don't expect a reply quickly if you're busy/have other priorities, but at the same time don't mind a speedy one if you're not busy, feel like it and already have answers at your fingertips!

BOB

As noted, I'll take you up on that to some extent as needed. This has been an interesting week between the attempt to sabotage the site I had to deal with (see link to TheologyWeb discussion on my What's New page if interested) and the extra hours I have put in with my part time government job (despite what Farrell Till thinks, I am not getting rich and old ladies are not sending me their support checks). ;-)

STEVE

I sympathise! I've been snowed under too, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better soon!

Anyway, I've enjoyed our discussion so far, and I look forward to more! For me this is largely an experiment to see what it's like discussing with you and I appreciate your time. Also in Jordan's latest reply, even more than others, much of his material consists of links back to yourself, so it makes sense to talk about the resurrection with you. I hope he is enjoying watching our interaction.

Best wishes,

Steve

======================================

Leaving Christianity

www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

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:

http://www.death-dying.com/articles/article.php/artID/163

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.

>>>See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs

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.

>>>Maybe they just saw some bloke like at http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html

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.

Because prayer is not a gumball machine: http://www.tektonics.org/prayfor.html

>>>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!

Did so last week within the text of http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose_CC1.html I do hope Holtz wins his election campaign as we could use another like him in our Congress. :-D

>>>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 you any evidence for this idea? Have you seen http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ?

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