The Modern Philosophical Sport.
It seems the new sport of the age is positing wild theories about established historical fact. From telling people that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead to telling us that Houdini didn't die from complications due to a sock in the stomach, some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
There are not any versions of the truth, there is only truth that we can learn from history. You know, there really were people alive when Houdini died who wrote down what happened. It has been understood since Houdini's death what caused it, and everything has been recorded in multiple books. You can't just overturn 100 years of history like that.
I'll tell you one thing, I hope a true independent medical examiner performs the tests on Houdini's remains, if the exhumation does take place. Someone who has no dog in this fight one way or the other. Otherwise, I would not trust what any kook has to say on the subject.
Down with history revisionism.
There are not any versions of the truth, there is only truth that we can learn from history. You know, there really were people alive when Houdini died who wrote down what happened. It has been understood since Houdini's death what caused it, and everything has been recorded in multiple books. You can't just overturn 100 years of history like that.
I'll tell you one thing, I hope a true independent medical examiner performs the tests on Houdini's remains, if the exhumation does take place. Someone who has no dog in this fight one way or the other. Otherwise, I would not trust what any kook has to say on the subject.
Down with history revisionism.
Jesus Christ never rose from the dead.
Reply to this
Are you just a drive-by bomb thrower, or do you actually have facts you'd care to share with me to prove how you know so exactly?
Carrie
Reply to this
You sure like hyperbole. Bomb thrower? Wow. If I'd said something mean you really would have had to dig into the language bag. A-bomb thrower? Nuker?
Fact: People don't come back from three days of being dead. It just doesn't happen. So either he was dead for maybe three minutes and came back, because people do that, or he was unconscious and looked dead. Three minutes of dead and coming back is still pretty cool, but it doesn't make nearly as good a story, and makes for a darn short holiday. Good Friday becomes Good 2:12 and Easter is at 2:15. Not even worth putting on the bonnet, much less hunting the eggs.
So perhaps people did what people do. They embellish. Or perhaps it's an apocryphal story. What I'm pretty darn sure of is that it's not literally true.
And hey, no bombs. If you don't want comments, turn them off. I've read a few of yours and you seem to give nastier than you get.
Reply to this
Thank you for writing back.
To say that Jesus never rose from the dead is very like a bomb to those who know better. It's a direct attack at the foundation of our faith, and a revision of history so crazy that it hardly bears a response.
Nevertheless, I will jump in.
Your so-called fact that resurrections don't happen betrays your religious worldview that miracles never happen. But if you seriously believe this, there are many things you're going to have to explain away.
First, Jesus was beated beyond description before being crucified. Most condemned criminals didn't survive the flogging to get to the cross.
Second, the Roman authorities certified Jesus' death. They knew how to kill people. When the soldiers went around to break the legs of the three crucified men, they didn't break the legs of Jesus because they saw He was already dead. A soldier drove his spear deep into Jesus' side, and blood and water came out separated. Any doctor will tell you that is a sign that Jesus was most sincerely dead.
Third, Jesus' body was prepared according to the burial rituals of the Jews. It was wrapped in linen cloths along with approximately 100 pounds of aromatic spices. (Perhaps He just breathed through it all.)
Fifth, Jesus was laid in a stone tomb and a two-ton stone was rolled over the entrance and sealed with a Roman seal. A guard unit of 15 to 20 men was stationed at the tomb to keep watch and make sure no one stole the body. But something happened. The tomb was found empty three days later. How do you explain that?
Sixth, what happened that caused the disciples to come out of hiding after the death of their leader to preach far and wide that the Messiah had risen? It is a historical fact that there were over 500 appearances of Jesus Christ after His resurrection.
Paul the Apostle said that if Christ is not risen, our faith is futile, and we are of all men most pitiable. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, the disciples had to know it, and that means that all but one died a martyr's death for an idea that they knew was a lie. Why did none of them, through some 40 years of torture and persecution ever recant?
You have an easy answer, but it doesn't stand up to the evidence and facts of history. Period.
Carrie
Reply to this
The very first books of the bible were published more than 50 years after the "facts" they lay out. And most of them were written well after that - in fact well after all of the participants were dead.
Have you ever played "Rumor," where someone whispers a short phrase in someone's ear and that phrase gets whispered around a circle? Have you *ever* heard the end phrase be anything like the original? And have you seen the recent research on the phenomenal fallibility of memory (it came up recently in the "Scooter" Libby trial as reporters tried - and often failed - to recall conversations WHILE READING THE NOTES THEY TOOK DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS!).
Given all of that, it is very hard (I'm hesitant to say "impossible" - I was born at a time when walking on the moon was considered impossible) to confirm that something some people wrote down a minimum of a half-century after the fact, and often much longer than that.
Now we must take into account all of the revisions that have crept into the Bible, both intentional and unintentional. The Keepers of the original documents didn't always like what was found in those documents. Often if a passage disagreed with the beliefs of the time that passage was either altered or destroyed, much to the chagrin of those of us who consider history valuable.
For these reasons and more I can't find it in myself to take these stories as literally true.
And as far as the "bomb" comment - I simply offered an opinion that was contrary to yours, no more, no less. Can I not do that here on your site without being labeled a bomb thrower? Should I label you a bomb thrower because your opinion opposes mine? If you think having an opposing opinion means being a bomb thrower it must be a bear to have a conversation with you.
Reply to this
'Fraid I'll have to disagree with you again. "Publishing" a book in ancient times was not the same as publishing a book today. The New Testament is mostly a series of letters as well as historical accounts. We don't have the original documents because they were written on perishable materials. Nevertheless, Josh McDowell has compiled much evidence that the manuscripts we do have are extremely close to what was originally written down.
Just look at the time factor, since you bring that up. Even if the earliest manuscripts we have of fragments of the New Testament are dated within, say, 150 years after they were written down, that pales to insignificance compared to, say, "The Iliad" by Homer, which has a 400-year time gap between the closest existent copy and the time it was written. We only have 633 manuscripts of "The Iliad," but we have over 5,300 Bible manuscripts. That's just one fact that makes the Bible special.
The events recorded in the Scriptures are much more important, and much more life-changing in the lives of the authors, than this stupid Scooter Libby thing. We all know that Richard Armitage was the first to leak Valerie Plame's name to reporters, and no one was ever prosecuted for that crime -- if it was a crime. You're not comparing like items here.
It's been over 50 years since the Holocaust happened, and there are people living today who deny that it ever took place. Do most people believe them? No, because most people understand the truth of history; it wasn't really very long ago. There are kooks out there who believe 9/11 was an inside job, but they are a tiny minority because most people know what we saw. History cannot be rewritten so easily.
In Bible times, people were no different. They knew the difference between truth and lies. When the New Testament -- so to speak -- was first published, enough people were still alive who had either witnessed the events or participated in them that if there had been any falsity it would have been denounced then and there in other non-Christian historical documents of the time. It is not.
Christianity is not some elaborate game of "Pass It On." The Resurrection is not just an elaborate rumor. Christian doctrine is built on real historical facts, and the fanciful story in your fourth paragraph has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Reply to this
"and the fanciful story in your fourth paragraph has no basis in fact whatsoever"
Bomb thrower.
No basis in fact whatsoever? The magazine "Biblical Archaeology" would disagree. Multiple Biblical scholars, histrorians, and theologans would disagree. Not liking a fact doesn't make it untrue. And I wish it weren't true. Valuable historical records were altered and/or destroyed.
Reply to this
Really? Exactly what issue of Biblical Archaeology poked so many supposed holes in the reliability of the Scriptures?
And if *you* know which historical records were altered or destroyed, I'm sure you can tell me how you know, and what those originals were.
Can't you?
Carrie
Reply to this
Come on, Carrie, now you're just being silly. Of course I can't tell you what was on what was destroyed - it was destroyed. And (taking a page I learned from one of your comments on a previous post) the fact that you're stooping to that level of argument means I win!
Reply to this
Friend, it's simple logic. In order to know something has been altered, you have to have clear knowledge of the original. I am stooping to nothing. I'm just challenging your hypothesis and asking you for some evidence, that's all. Do you have any, at all?
Carrie
Reply to this
Hello. Hugh Schonfield's book "The Passover Plot" describes a very accurate account of what really happened to Jesus when he died. Seems that his rise from the dead was a hoax.
Reply to this
I read an excerpt of this tome on Amazon.com, and quickly came to the conclusion that the guy was an authentic kook. Either that, or Jesus was.
Is it any coincidence that the original publisher of this book was The Disinformation Company? There's no doubt about what they're pushing here.
Let's stick with the truth of what happened, OK?
Carrie
Reply to this
"I read an excerpt of this tome on Amazon.com, and quickly came to the conclusion..."
...
Sounds like you are the type to judge a book by its cover. And to make such a judgement without evern reading the entire book? Didn't James say something about judgements in the Bible?
Reply to this
Actually, I did open the cover, and read the excerpt. It was quite enough to know where the author was coming from.
Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteousjudgment (John 7:24)."
I believe I read a representative sample of the book, so I believe my judgment was the correct one. If you have specific facts about the book to offer in dispute, I'm willing to entertain them.
Reply to this
CORRECTION: The Passover Plot was originally published by Bantam books. You mentioned the publisher of the 40th anniversary edition. Seems that the book was so popular that they were able to open their own publishing house.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This proves that people who want to live without God are willing to grab onto almost any lie offered to them. I still can't get over the name of the 40th Anniversary Edition's publishing house. CSR
Reply to this
How about a book from a Doctor of Divinity - a gentleman with a degree in theology. Or will you dismiss that on the basis of reading a two-sentence review as well?
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus) (Paperback)
by Bart D. Ehrman
Reply to this
Is that the best you've got? A divinity degree does not a truth-teller make, and I don't have a "two-sentence review" to help me draw that conclusion, either. (Cheap shot, by the way.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/review_of_bart_d_ehrmans_misqu.html
The review even mentions the dichotomy that I tried to tell you about. To wit: If you don't have the original writings, how can you say for certain that they were radically changed over time? In the words of the review, you need a gold standard before you can detect corruption.
And then there's this one:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2005/12/review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus_31.html
Actually, Josh McDowell has written much about how the Scriptures were preserved, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Jews and early Christians took better care of God's word than any other piece of literature in antiquity.
The Bible is fully reliable, and authoritative in every area that it touches. I suggest you check it out again.
Carrie
Reply to this
I have checked out the Bible a number of times. Have you checked out the sources I and others have recommended?
Every time we bring up names like Leakey, Johanson and the like you suggest that they are at best incompetent and at worst fostering a known false agenda. Are you claiming that you have no agenda?
We could also start talking about all of the biblical contradictions, but that would end up being a loooong conversation.
Reply to this
I've checked them out about as far as I feel I need to at this time.
Of course I'm not claiming no agenda. I claim to follow the true God of the universe, and I believe I have all the evidence on my side necessary to prove my case.
It probably wouldn't surprise you that I believe all the supposed Biblical contradictions simply aren't. Care to run a couple of your favorites by me to see what I do with them?
Carrie
Reply to this
Carrie,
You wish us to check out your sources (which I have) but you won't respond in kind. Why, then, should we continue to offer you the same courtesy?
Do you suppose pointing us to the websites above has changed any minds? Do you think your "I refuse to check out your resources but here are mine" stance bolsters your argument any?
Honestly, it sounds like you are spouting the theology of your parents. My mother was a churchgoer (don't know about my dad; my parents were divorced). I came across my position after much research, discussion with others, and reflection. I have visited churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, ashrams, and the occasional sweat lodge. I have found and felt - nothing.
I'm willing to bet you believe pretty much exactly as your parents did. And you know what? I envy you that. I wish I was, as someone once said about Martin Gardner, as sure about *anything* as you are about *everything*. And I know religion offers comfort to some, although I can't say I've seen that in you, but if it does, I envy you that. I'm not at all comfortable. I don't know where I came from. And I'm fairly (but not completely) sure that when I go, I'm gone. Kaput. Finis. And that's a little disconcerting. And I envy those who have the comfort of believing in a place with streets of gold and wings and Hagen Dasz with no weight gain, even if I consider that belief to be misplaced. A lot of misplaced beliefs are useful - negative frequencies in electronics, "all men are created equal", "if you work hard enough, you can be anything you want."
What throws me about you is your style - your "take that, you #%^&*$@" way of putting things. And if you say you've seen some of the same, well, when those are thrown your way, it's a bit hard not to respond in kind. And it's not going to convince a @#$& of a lot of people to come over to your (or my, when I respond in kind) side.
So since you have decided you aren't even going to consider any of the resources I bring to bear (and why should you; I'm just a heathen), there's really no point in me bringing up any more resources, is there?
So I'll spend a little time envying you your (in my opinion false) sense of security, and a little time wondering what makes you so bitter, then I'll go off and seek my own answers among less bitter people.
If you'd rather have a civil discussion, let me know. I can do that too.
Reply to this
Tim,
You've given me quite a lot here. You've opened up to me a great deal, and for that I'm thankful. And I'm all about civil discussions. I thought that's what we were already having.
I don't think that "checking out sources" means that I have to go out and get the book(s) you mentioned and read the whole thing. I read a number of reviews, and a number of salient quotes from the book told me that although some may find meat in its pages, there were some big bones that needed to be spit out.
Perhaps web site links don't change minds. I'm a reader, and I follow links a lot, especially if they're about a subject I'm interested in. All the same, I operate with my Baloney Detector fully engaged, and I'm always comparing things to what I know to be the Truth.
Yes, I have parents who are just as comfortable and confident about their beliefs as I am. My dad used to be Roman Catholic until he met my mom. Then he started reading the Bible and discovered many of the errors in the R.C. dogma. He came to a strong faith in Jesus Christ and still gives a strong witness personally as well as through our family. My parents teach an adult Sunday School class today, and they are both in their eighties.
But that doesn't mean that I accept what they gave me without checking it out. In high school I was introduced to atheism (in my teachers) and skepticism (in my friends). As I got into college I realized how much I enjoyed debating the issues, and I became a voracious reader. The Bible says that we are supposed to be prepared to defend our faith at all times, and you can't expose falsehood without being fully convinced of the Truth. I'm still waiting for your answers to some of the specific evidences I laid out several e-mails ago, about the Resurrection and such.
Let me put it to you this way: I think it's reasonable to believe that God exists because of the miracle of life and the complexity of creatures on this planet -- most of all, us. The fact that we have personality and consciousness is further proof that there is a First Cause for the universe. You say it makes you uncomfortable to think that death is simply the end of your existence. What if it isn't? What if there really is evidence to prove that Jesus was Who He said He was? What if we can believe what He said about life after death?
I'm here to tell you can. I have staked my life on Him, and I think true Christianity is a faith with good reasons. It's not about getting wings after death (those are just for angels), and though we won't need to eat to live in Heaven, we will be able to eat (but I don't know if Hagen-Dasz or something better will be there). One of the greatest books on this (besides the last few chapters of Revelation), is "A Travel Guide To Heaven" by Anthony DeStefano. That and C.S. Lewis' last book in the Narnia series, "The Last Battle," can give one a lot to think about.
I'm open for more discussion if you are. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to continue in private.
Carrie
Reply to this
P.S. Here are some of the evil things the author from your second link has to say about the book (are you sure you read the link before you posted it?):
"There are a number of strong points in this book. First, we may note that the material is all basically mature. Ehrman has been publishing in this area for some while and therefore for almost every variant he discusses in this popular treatment he can refer us to a more detailed and technical treatment of his elsewhere. His treatment is not superficial and every variant is dealt with instructively.
Secondly, Ehrman shows the importance of variants and that many of these cannot be lightly dismissed. He has done everyone a service in presenting us with a strong case for many of the variants he chooses to take as earlier.
Thirdly, the book makes some important connections that are often not made. It denies the authority of scripture by arguing against verbal inspiration, thereby agreeing with evangelicals that authority requires verbal inspiration.
Fourthly, it is a good read.
Fifthly, the pictures are nice."
Reply to this
Tim,
First I feel compelled to apologize for the way I've obviously offended you. I have read a great deal about apologetics, plus I listen to talk radio a lot. For those two reasons, I have great confidence in what I believe and the reasons for it. Many people today misread that kind of confidence as arrogance, and I do not feel that I have taken a hostile tone in my answers to you. However, you obviously feel some. I'm sorry about that; it is not my intention.
I am concerned with the Truth, and I certainly read the links before I post them. You quoted the entire "Praise" section of the review, but there is also a lengthy "Critique" section, and that's where some of the most important stuff is.
The "Conclusion" reads thus: "There is much that is true and correct in this book and which should cause constructive reflection amongst those who believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Many of the discussions are also highly debatable from a historical angle. The book engages in a theological subject, but often fails to make vital distinctions in treating theological positions. Consequently, although it is a book from which one will learn much, it is better treated as a repository of information than as a model of argumentation. This critique of Ehrman's has been made without disputing the various discussions of variants. Perhaps this can take place at a further stage of review."
Quite frankly, I'm content to leave the minute study of this kind of material to others. My spiritual heroes are people like Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharius, Francis Schaeffer and such like, who have much better credentials than I. Their books I have read.
Moreover, I think I found pretty balanced reviews to point to (Here's another one, by the way: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000 -- my eyes start to glaze over as I get to the middle of it), and so if you have any specific passages you'd like to discuss, I'll research them individually.
This blog is not meant to be an extensive apologetic of Christianity. I am trying to put out general principles of logic, Truth, and evidence that there is a God, and the Bible is trustworthy.
More to come ...
Reply to this
I'll explain why I don't feel comfortable continuing the discussion, then I'll not continue the discussion because I don't feel comfortable.
Whenever someone makes a point, you take it personally and say something odd. Case in point: when someone suggested a book, by your own admission you read a review on Amazon and dismissed the book solely on reading that Amazon review.
When I then brought up another book and suggested that you might dismiss it based solely on the Amazon review, you called that a "cheap shot." Why was it a cheap shot? You had told us that in the previous case that's exactly what you did. I had no evidence that you would do anything otherwise when I mentioned a book. Far from being a "cheap shot," it was a reasonable assessment of your probable response based on what you had just done. What was "cheap" about it? You told us that was one of your probable responses, and in fact in this thread your only response when someone brought up a book, so based on 100% of the data I had to go on, I think it was a pretty reasonable assessment of how you might respond. And, given that, I think your call of "cheap shot" was the cheap shot.
I'd hate to be in the middle of what I thought was a civin discussion, and make what I thought was a reasonable point based on exactly what you had said and done previously, only to have you be able to dismiss it cavalierly with two words. This would frustrate me no end - I would have to digress, like I am now, and write a 1800 character post explaining why it wasn't a "cheap shot," but a reasoned response to your previous behavior, and we would get all off track.
And besides, you say I haven't addressed all of the points you brought up - at least I haven't said I would ignore and dismiss any sources you mention. So hey, I think I have been fairly reasonable here.
So best to you, and please be careful before calling "cheap shot" on someone.
Reply to this
With all due respect, Tim, it was the "two sentence review" line I found to be a cheap shot. The review links I posted were quite extensive, and I have to rely on other expert opinions for topics I'm not too interested in researching on my own. I think we all do it, because we can't read everything.
And yes, we are getting off track with this. I had hoped we could discuss specific issues instead of throwing links around. Why not just tell me what you know and give me the evidence you know? You can't say I haven't tried.
I do hope you'll reengage the debate. It could be fun.
Reply to this
Carrie,
I like this blog and I like reading your comments and articles. Though, I'm sure you know by now that Your rhetoric sounds like a little funny because everyone knows that the Bible is not a science textbook. Rather, its a book about religion and God. Why do some Christians try and argue science from the Bible? This makes no sense to a lot of us.
Like I said elsewhere, science and evolution are not working to make a case against God.
Reply to this
Oh, but it is. The major players in history have not only been Charles Darwin, who turned his back on his Christian upbringing, but Charles Lyell, William Smith, James Hutton, John Playfair, Robert Chambers, and Alfred Russell Wallace. There was also Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, Jean Lamark, and Ernst Haeckel.
Among them there was only one genuine scientist, in the modern sense of having bona fide academic credentials. Most genuine scientists of their day -- Faraday, Cuvier, Brewser, Pasteur, Maxwell, Joule, Sedgwick, and others -- either opposed evolutionism or stayed out of the conflict for the first few years after "On The Origin of Species" was published.
Leading theologians capitulated quickly to the theory of evolution, which they shouldn't have done, because the theory itself doesn't hold water.
Please note, I have not really used the Bible to defend Creationism. That's begging the question. The problem is not science vs. religion. It is the science of one religion (atheism) vs. the science of another (theism, or Intelligent Design).
I'd love to work on specific questions from you if you please. The Bible is not a science textbook, but in every area where it touches the subject of science, it is true.
Reply to this
"The Bible is not a science textbook, but in every area where it touches the subject of science, it is true."
Wait a minute...
We all know that the Bible tells us that the Earth is the foundation of God’s creation and the center of the Universe. The Bible also tells us that the Earth is immovable and that the Sun and the stars move around the Earth. We find all sorts of references to God and His friends stopping the Sun from moving across the sky, stars being led forth, and so on.
Carrie, are you suggesting that modern day physics and astronomy are also a hoax, along with your suggestion that carbon dating, evolution, and global warming being hoaxes? If you recall, Christendom was not happy when I informed the world that the Earth was a round sphere and that it revolved around the sun (and not vice-versa).
Reply to this
Do you have references for these, because I don't think you're quite correct. The writers of the Bible used normal language, not scientific language. From our perspective, the sun and stars move around the earth, so the use of such idioms is not surprising, nor an error as far as science is concerned.
Job 26:7 - "He stretches out the north over empty space; Hehangs the earth on nothing."
"If the statement that God hangs the earth on nothing (see Gen. 1:2) refers to the suspension of earth in space, it preceded Newton’s concept of gravitational attraction by thousands of years."
All the great "founding fathers" of science sought to "think God's thoughts after Him," and to do their science to the glory of God. I'm thinking of Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur, etc. They weren't trying to explain God away, but to understand how God's Creation worked and how they could use it to improve mankind.
Physics and astronomy are worthy sciences, as long as they are not extrapolated into wild theories about how everything got here -- without God.
The political leadership of Christendom (i.e. Roman Catholicism) has been wrong many times. The Reformation only partially succeeded, because those errors still exist. Thankfully, one can be a good Christian and a good scientist at the same time. I've met a few.
Reply to this