Stephen Pollard • Cardinal O'Connor

This is no longer my blog.

It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard

» Print Version «

Recent

Brown's dilemma (Wall Street Journal)

When the left loved Zionists (Jewish Chronicle)

An enigmatic insult to Elgar (The Times)

Food as art, or pie in the sky? (The Times)

What are the Tories thinking of ditching grammar schools? (Daily Mail)

Content

Browse the archives:

Links

Link to Stephen Pollard

Use this button:

Visitors

Support

Network

Developed by:

Previous: Being British and Muslim
Next: Russian hypocrisy

June	29
2006

Cardinal O'Connor

» Posted on June 29, 2006 09:43 PM » Category: The world gone mad, yada, yada, yada

A commenter says this about my post below on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor:

[I]f someone made a comment about the Chief Rabbi along the lines of the one you just did about the Cardinal you would be screaming "anti-semitism".

I don't think that's right. But I do see that my words and phraseology are ill-judged, and one example of where an editor can be a very useful asset.

What annoyed me about the Cardinal's phrase is that he appears to be arguing that any criticism of Christian ideas is somehow phobic, when it is not necessarily in the least. Just as criticism of Muslim ideas - jihad, for instance - is not phobic but based on rational argument, so the same holds, for instance, for opposition to the Catholic Church's stance on abortion. The same goes for any religious ideas.

But that first par is, I realise, not one of my best. My contempt for O'Connor as a man who has, I believe, behaved disgracefully - and who has shown that he is not remotely fit to lecture others about morality - obscured the bigger point, and I should have expressed myself a lot better.

MessageSpace

Comments

If you take out the Cardinal’s middle sentence:

‘This is why I’ve spoken out against abortion — not just to be heard, but for the sake of this country.’

And leave the rest of the paragraph:

‘There is often a sort of Christophobia in the intelligentsia and opinion-formers in our society,’ he says, ‘but England urgently needs to hear the Christian message. It comes down to the Sermon on the Mount — if you are poor in spirit, if you are humble, if you are pure in heart and gentle and merciful and seek justice, then you’ll be happiest. We need to relearn this.’

Then I ask, ‘What’s wrong with that?’

I came to the Stephen Pollard blog in the first place via a linked piece by him on Defending the West – a wonderful piece of writing, in which he wrote of defending our values and so on. Britain’s values are institutionalized as Christian, even if it is only lip service today so where does Stephen get off?

He can’t have it both ways.

As for the Christophobia in the intelligentsia and media – it doesn’t take an Einstein [one of Stephen’s lot] to see that it quite clearly is so, except for those who wish not to see. The G-d of these people is left liberal humanistic politically correctness.

I happily taught three years in a Jewish school so I’m anything but anti-semitic on this.

I also wonder if Verity is really the Singapore based expat she appears to be or if she is secretly Stephen’s alter-ego? The multiple Verity blogs which appear the instant Stephen goes to print suggest the latter.

Stated by: James Higham on June 30, 2006 6:36 AM

I think if you look at the Cardinal's comments in context, he is not using Christophobia in the way that Muslims and bleeding hearts use Islamophobia - "you can't criticize us, we're an oppressed minority! Hate crime! Racist!" - but in a more theological sense. That is to say, he is trying to describe what he sees as a hysterical and irrational approach to debating religion, which manifests istelf in a real aversion and fear of the teachings and person of Jesus Christ among the intelligentsia. People are scared of what Christ demands, so they simply denigrate and mock the faith rather than really examining the issue.

I was rather disappointed to see Stephen imply a false dichotomy between religion and rationality. Just because you personally do not believe something does not mean that it is unbelievable for a reasoning person. I cannot prove in any strictly scientific way the truth of Christianity, but my belief is based on evidence and reason.

Stated by: Niall on June 30, 2006 11:45 AM

How hilarious. Anti-Christians are “hysterical” and “irrational”, but your Christianity is based on “reason” and “evidence”.

Naturally the “intelligentsia” must be “scared of what Christ demands”, rather than, say, unconvinced by the paltry arguments produced to defend Christianity. They can't possibly have been “really examining the issue” or they'd be Christian. And all down to a “false dichotomy between religion and rationality”. In this assertion you stand on the same side as devout jihadists, who of course draw their conviction from a similar faith stance – but don't criticise them for it, because believing in The Sky God is entirely rational, even if they happened to pick the wrong associated dogma.

Your faith is based on “evidence and reason”? What evidence? Some books written two thousand years ago, by people who almost certainly never met Jesus, which contradict each other and other historical sources, twist Jewish prophecy, cite never-again-seen supernatural phenomena, and had plain polemical biases? Somehow you managed to pick this one compendium of superstition and myth out from the numerous alternatives, without even examining those alternatives – a fine sifting of the evidence, no doubt – and coincidentally it just happened to dovetail beautifully with the dominant religious tradition in your country.

And do please enlighten me on the “reason”, particularly the stuff that says God created man, created sin, then punished man for sinning, but saved the day by sacrificing himself in the form of a man to himself in the form of a god... except one must still not sin or one might not get to Heaven... except if you haven't heard of Jesus you're screwed anyway. Yes, I see the logic there – quite believable “for a reasoning person”.

Stated by: Indecent Left on June 30, 2006 4:33 PM

Stated by: asdf on July 1, 2006 3:54 AM

Indecent Left, on June 30, 2006 04:33 PM, wrote of being:

- unconvinced by the paltry arguments produced to defend Christianity

asking:

- What evidence? Some books written two thousand years ago, by people who almost certainly never met Jesus, which contradict each other and other historical sources, twist Jewish prophecy, cite never-again-seen supernatural phenomena, and had plain polemical biases?

A good starting point would be C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity, as the subject can hardly be covered in a blog commentary area but the question is whether Indecent Left would approach this with an open mind. Yes, there are anomalies and there are responses to the anomalies but it does come down to faith, in the end.

Faith in what is most likely to be true. And that takes an enormous amount of reading over the years and a certain amount of common sense.

However, this was not really the point about the Cardinal and the anti-Christian bias. The following two comments sum this dilemma up fairly well:

“Like it or not, even though Christianity is somewhat dormant at the moment, we are a Christian country with a strong Judaic influence. We have no Islamic influence in our civilisation, and we won't be having any, thanks.” Stated by: Verity on June 13, 2006 02:19 PM

“[This] represents the true cancer in Britain: the self-ordained liberal elite of self-declared cultural and political wisdom.” Stated by Stephen Pollard

Stated by: James Higham on July 1, 2006 5:35 AM

免费电影下载免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站韩国电影两性生活性教育片两性知识性爱图片激情电影黄色电影最新电影性爱电影免费小电影性电影免费成人电影免费电影在线观看宽带电影经典电影恐怖电影免费影片免费影院最新大片十八电影美女写真人体艺术美女图片美女走光美腿图片三级片强奸视频裸体美女美女自拍黄色电影下载色情图片下载激情图片激情小电影性感写真淫荡妹妹做爱小电影美少女 av图片情色图片同志贴图搞笑视频美女漏点写真视频美女阴部少女乳房自拍裸照性爱文学偷拍走光漂亮美眉泳装写真乳罩内裤成人贴图情趣内衣性生活电影作爱自拍艳情图片性交电影性息论坛做爱视频性福电影人体艺术明星合成裸照裸女贴图黄色小说成人小说乱伦故事裸体图片美女图美女贴图高跟美腿免费三级片强奸图片裸体写真黄色图片色情图片做爱视频女优写真情色写真成人视频露点写真两性写真阴部特写乳房写真性爱小说美眉写真激情贴图两性性生活作爱图库性交图片做爱图片人体摄影美女裸照全裸女黄色小说成人小说强暴少女轮奸美女泳装图片性虐待图片迷奸视频写真集全裸图片淫书舒淇写真脱衣少女裸体美女人体写真美女手淫波霸图片淫水嫩穴阴户阴毛臀部激情图库口交图片免费电影下载免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站两性生活性教育片激情电影免费黄色电影成人性爱电影免费小电影免费性电影免费成人电影免费电影在线观看免费影片最新大片美女写真

Stated by: 天天电影 on July 1, 2006 2:57 PM

"Mere Christianity" presents the standard fallacious "mad, bad or god?" argument, but addresses none of the fundamental problems. No serious effort is made to justify belief in the gospels' accuracy, on which everything else is founded. No resolutions are provided to the howling logical absurdities.

There remain not "anomalies", but gaping historical errors to which there are no credible responses, only obfuscatory half truths and special pleading. Efforts to reconcile the gospels with each other and pagan sources inevitably rest on a mountain of unwarranted supposition and language twisting. C.S. Lewis tries nonetheless, because like all apologists his motivation isn't the search for truth, but the will to believe.

In this he appears similar to you. You claim an “open mind”, but I somehow doubt that your “enormous amount of reading” has led you to seriously examine, let alone consider adopting, Islam or Zoroastrianism or Mithraism, or any of the countless other rivals. Instead you have adopted the default British religion, and taken refuge in semantically empty nonsense about “faith in what is most likely to be true”. Either it’s a rational decision or it isn’t. It’s plainly the latter, because it isn’t based on detailed scrutiny of rival claims – just limp crowd following.

As for Verity’s approvingly-quoted fatuity, I scarcely know where to begin. Most idiotic of all is the idea that somehow the “strong” Judaic influence trumps Islam, even though there are far more Muslims in Britain today than there ever were Jews. Why is their culture barred from influence? Don’t you recognize that such attitudes towards Muslims replicate those that led, for instance, to the expulsion of British Jews in the past?

Oh, and Christianity “somewhat” dormant? Judging by church attendance, it’s practically dead – a victory of critical inquiry over the delusive superstitions to which you cling.

Stated by: Indecent Left on July 2, 2006 12:13 AM

Just a few comments on your comments, if I may:

“Mere Christianity presents the standard fallacious "mad, bad or god?" argument, but addresses none of the fundamental problems. No serious effort is made to justify belief in the gospels' accuracy, on which everything else is founded. No resolutions are provided to the howling logical absurdities.”

The same old chestnut trotted out yet again. On the contrary, Indecent Left – it addresses all of the problems and shows them to be not fundamental in the least. The persistence of Christianity derives from the simple logic that there is ‘something to it’. The rationalist will never understand that we’re speaking here about the spirit, not about historical accuracy.

In the same manner, the cult of Set, the Hiram Abif legend and the persistent belief in Lilith are not supported by cross-referenced literature, except to the initiate and yet few would doubt that there is ‘something to them’.

“There remain not "anomalies", but gaping historical errors to which there are no credible responses, only obfuscatory half truths and special pleading. Efforts to reconcile the gospels with each other and pagan sources inevitably rest on a mountain of unwarranted supposition and language twisting. C.S. Lewis tries nonetheless, because like all apologists his motivation isn't the search for truth, but the will to believe.”

A study of the early years of the church and the nature of first believers begs the question of “the will to believe”. This is and always has been the very basis of Christianity - that proof comes to the believer after the event and that’s why rationalists are so scornful and apoplectic about the believer – “the arrogant, serene lot of b-st-ds”. They’re serene for a reason. As for proof, Tacitus alone is sufficient, let alone the ‘whole picture’ of the times, the literature, the apocrypha and so on. Again, it comes back to what is most likely – the basis of all empirical enquiry.

“In this he appears similar to you. You claim an “open mind”, but I somehow doubt that your “enormous amount of reading” has led you to seriously examine, let alone consider adopting, Islam or Zoroastrianism or Mithraism, or any of the countless other rivals. Instead you have adopted the default British religion, and taken refuge in semantically empty nonsense about “faith in what is most likely to be true”. Either it’s a rational decision or it isn’t. It’s plainly the latter, because it isn’t based on detailed scrutiny of rival claims – just limp crowd following.”

I have been living in a Muslim country for ten years and have read much of the Quran and the hadiths and various Musselmen, over those years, have discussed the nature of Islam with me.
Before that, I was in Thailand and learnt of Mahayana Buddhism, visited the temples as they did and so on.

I was three years in a Jewish school, observing Rosh Hashanah and all the rest of it. I studied Zoroastra in University and the Bahai faith. Bob Marley is and was one of my favourites and the origin of Rastifarianism is interesting, not the least in many of its tenets.
Currently, one of my friends, a Wiccan, is sharing this ancient and complex field with me.

You wrote of Mithraism, my friend. Here you have nicely shot yourself in the foot. It’s not based on a supernaturally revealed body of scripture, and very little written documentary evidence survives for a very good reason. If you are privy to the revealed mysteries of this militaristic basis of belief, then well and fine but if not, then it’s a very poor argument against the veracity of Christianity.

Which brings us back to the original point that Christianity is, because it is. And neither your railing against ‘howling absurdities’ and ‘mountains of unwarranted suppositions’ will have the slightest effect on its continuation.

It simply is.

Stated by: James Higham on July 2, 2006 6:23 AM

Two last things, if you don’t mind, Indecent Left:

“In this assertion you stand on the same side as devout jihadists, who of course draw their conviction from a similar faith stance…”

Oh really? Is that why in every confrontation, there is a gun in one hand and an opened copy of the Quran in the other? The surahs and hadiths are of no importance to the jihadist?

“Naturally the "intelligentsia" must be …”

Indecent Left - as you clearly are not placing yourself in the camp of the Christians, are you, perchance, placing yourself in the camp of the intelligentsia? Or maybe acting as some third party, non-intelligent commentator?

If you are arguing as “intelligentsia”, may I ask if you have ever taken any Philosophy in your studies or if you have ever come across the logical syllogism?

Stated by: James Higham on July 2, 2006 7:25 AM

While describing my response to “Mere Christianity” as “the same old chestnut”, you fail to address its actual content. Let me spell it out for the hard of understanding. For his argument, Lewis posits a wonderfully moral man, but rests his characterisation on the gospel descriptions of that man.

The gospels contradict each other, as well as other sources. They began to be written about 40 years after Jesus’s death, by people who almost certainly never met him, and who were engaged in the promotion of Pauline Christianity (hence, for instance, their frequent anti-Jewish sentiment). Obsessed with promoting Jesus as the foretold Messiah, they bent reality to make this so in their telling.

Whether or not the gospels portray a morally perfect Jesus (they don’t), the entire argument is founded on unquestioning belief in the accuracy of that portrayal. This belief is never justified by C.S. Lewis, and yet there are numerous reasons to question it. He and you must provide a reason for taking these particular old texts as unquestionably true. C.S. Lewis never even attempts to do this, and neither have you, for all your bluster. There’s “something to it”? Doubtless there’s “something to” L. Ron Hubbard’s notions about restful childbirth, but it doesn’t make Scientology true.

You have apparently done more comparative religious evaluation than the average Christian, even if you haven’t actually made explicit where Islam and Judaism and Buddhism fell down in your eyes – did you not find there was “something to” them? Is there, incidentally, some non-nineteenth century sense of “musselmen” that I’m unaware of? I also find it surprising that you encountered much Mahayana Buddhism in Thailand, given the almost total dominance of Theravada Buddism there – are you sure you weren’t in Tibet? And you saw the Jewish New Year? Doubtless a Talmudic savant then.

Unfortunately this study seems not to have led to any dispassionate analysis of Christianity’s historical claims. I know this because you elevate Tacitus far beyond what his writing supports. According to you, this historian provides “sufficient” proof of Christianity, justifying your self-avowed “will to believe”. Quite plainly, any old piece of writing that mentions Christianity will do to vindicate this faith leap, because Tacitus provides precisely nothing to bolster your case.

This is all Tacitus says on Christianity (Annals 15:44):

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

He wrote this around 110CE – approximately 70 years after the crucifixion. Was he working from imperial records? Probably not, because he uses an incorrect title for Pilate, and a religious name for Jesus. From the date alone he couldn’t have been using first-hand witnesses to the crucifixion: he was probably repeating gossip. In any case, he reports nothing beyond the fact of a crucifixion – no nativity, no miracles, no resurrection. Thus we have some second-hand hearsay which confirms none of the contentious gospel story elements, only substantiating the uncontroversial fact that Christians existed in Nero’s reign. And you regard it as “sufficient” “proof” to swallow the entire gospel story. Extraordinary.

(I’ll leave aside the well-known clashes with Josephus and other Jewish writing, which negate your claims about Christianity fitting with “cross-referenced literature. I’ll leave also the bizarre reference to the Apocrypha, which illustrates that Christians don’t even agree among themselves about what is divinely inspired scripture.)

I never suggested Mithraism was a textually revealed religion (although it isn’t certain that it wasn’t). There was and is documentation, however sparse – see http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom02.htm. Thus it is quite possible to investigate it. But even if that were not so, it wouldn’t change anything: there are and always will be countless religions and belief systems that you haven’t looked at. In the face of this I retain doubt – you, by contrast, are apparently convinced of your beliefs regardless, on the basis of a single paragraph by a Roman historian.

Then we reach your sententious tautology: “Christianity is, because it is”. Insofar as this has any meaning, it is true of everything, including every other religion. Why waste my time by saying it? I’m quite content for Christianity to exist – some people apparently need their emotional crutches. Just don’t pretend that it’s rational, or any more believable than numerous other superstitious dogmas.

Your second foray begins with an apparent misunderstanding of what I said. I was saying that Christians, in common with Muslims, like to pretend their religion is not incompatible with rational thought. Upon reconsideration I feel Muslims are generally less guilty of this intellectual dishonesty, seeming happier to admit irrationality. But regardless of the PR the underlying point stands: both groups are irrational sky god worshippers, and the same lunatic certainty that led to 9/11 infused crusaders, witch burners, etc., and still animates many Christians today.

I have no clue what you’re trying to do with your last splurge. I assume it’s some attempt at affecting Olympian philosophical learning. If so, it isn’t working.

Stated by: StuartA on July 2, 2006 1:41 PM

Dear Stuart:

As this is Stephen Pollard’s blog, this is the reason I have been so circumspect in commenting in any sort of detail – it would require a tome to reply fully to all the points you randomly threw in.

No doubt you are aware that C. C. Torrey wrote: “I challenged my NT colleagues to designate one passage from any one of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 AD. The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such passage.”

No doubt you are aware of John A. T. Robinson’s thesis. No doubt you are aware of the Jesus papyrus.

Now are you going to attack the eminence of these three in order to debunk the early dating?

This comes right back to the Cardinal’s original point about Christophobia. There is considerable evidence that the study over the last 80 years on this point alone, the dating of the gospels, has been strongly in favour of late dating but more than this – the tone of the language and the adjectives used are also questionable, something more than evident in your ‘bluster’.

In turn, this study has heavily influenced thought in colleges of higher learning and therefore it only to be expected that someone young brought up through the system and exposed to other ‘belief systems’ would adopt the critical late dating so fashionable for so long.

But this was not the early tradition and it is certainly turning around now. And what of the drafts? Or do you ignore these?

And on what basis do you say that ‘none’ of the gospel writers were His cotemporaries? Why could John have written much later and still have been his contemporary? I don’t seriously forward this one and yet you have as little evidence to the contrary.

Plus, there are two other matters. Those who believe that Christianity stands or falls by the dating either pre- or post-70 AD lose sight of what Christianity is based on. You made several wild statements about what is based on and I come back to the ‘sententious tautology’, that it ‘simply is’, in the same spirit as G-d, giving his name, in the Judaic texts, as ‘I Am’.

Of course, this opens a whole new can of worms so let’s leave that one unresolved for now, shall we, agreeing to disagree?

As for Mahayana Buddhism, no, it was not Tibet. Have you heard of Wat Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram? Also, there are many who believe that the King of Thailand is Bodhisattva. Another is Maitreya and that’s a very interesting question, given your familiarity with Mithraism. There is considerable reportage of him being in the region even today.

As for Tacitus, he is an excellent source, not only for what he stated but for the way his reputation rose and fell over the next five centuries. It’s what I’ve been trying to get across – it’s the totality of all the references, all the commentary, the fashions in historical commentary, the knowledge of lifestyles, the maligned Josephus’ motivation and so on and so on. You can’t just zero in on one admittedly accurately quoted excerpt and base your whole argument on this.

I didn’t.

Stated by: James Higham on July 2, 2006 3:19 PM

You are of course entitled to adopt Torrey and Robinson’s views regarding gospel dating, but they are nonetheless unconventional among modern scholars. As for “The Jesus Papyrus” (a sensationalist book claiming that a scrap of Matthew’s Gospel dated from earlier than previously thought), I’m afraid its thesis remains largely unaccepted. This is why your effort to pretend that I stand alone in denying their arguments (not their “eminence” – a fatuous claim) is doomed to failure: I am merely taking the line of the scholarly majority.

Why else do you think the 2001 New Oxford Annotated Bible disagrees with your preferred dating? It states that “Matthew was written following the first Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE”; that “the Gospel [of Mark] is thought to have been composed just prior to the widespread Jewish popular revolt that began in 66CE”; that Luke “with certainty… wrote [his] account after Mark composed his Gospel” and “[t]he typical suggestion of scholars that Luke wrote around 85 CE is plausible, though the Gospel could have been completed five to fifteen years earlier or even five to ten years later”; and that “[c]urrent scholarly consensus dates the final editing of [John’s] Gospel to 80-90 CE”.

These claims are, of course, given alongside several textual allusions that do indeed imply, pace Torrey, that the Temple destruction had occurred before Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels (Matthew 22:7, 24:15; Luke 19:41-44, 21:20-21). It is possible that Mark and John wrote slightly before the Temple destruction, but Mark is generally taken to refer to the incipient Jewish revolt, and we know that at least part of John was written after Peter’s martyrdom (64 CE). John’s high Christology has also generally been interpreted as suggesting a later date. 70 CE is therefore a commonly quoted rough date for the beginning of gospel authorship.

But I don’t need to “debunk” the earlier dating, because you are relying on appeal to authorities in outlying positions. Your contentions “deny the eminence” of far more credible figures than Torrey and Robinson and Thiede, and rely on overthrowing the consensus. Since you have provided no actual argument, everything you say on this subject can be safely ignored.

And no, I don’t believe Christianity “stands or falls” by dating of the gospels – it’s just one problem among many. To take another one, I see no reason to credit their supernatural claims, any more than I believe Josephus’s assertions regarding Vespasian’s messianic qualities, or take Suetonius literally when he refers to the “deified Julius”. I have a presumption against old texts talking of gods and miracles, as I assume you do against Pliny’s story of Zoroaster inventing magic, or Herodotus and his giant gold-mining ants.

As for my “zeroing in” on one excerpt, I chose this because it’s the only mention of Christianity in Tacitus’s work. Unless you can explain how work that doesn’t mention Christianity can nonetheless provide “sufficient” “proof” for belief in Christianity, I shall remain zeroed in.

(I believe it’s wise to keep off the Buddhism, in the interests of concision. But I fail to recognise the relevance of Bhumibol Adulyadej being viewed as a bodhisattva – the bodhisattva concept is not confined to Mahayana Buddhism. Nor do I see a commercialised syncretic meditation school as a particularly impressive place to have studied Mahayana Buddhism.)

Finally, I still see no meaning in your tautologous pronouncement. Everything, including Islam, “simply is”. So what are you telling me? That existence of a claim implies its truth? That contention is too easily destroyed to be worth bothering with. All I can assume is that you are somehow trying to wriggle out of providing evidence for your belief, which is fine, as long as you admit it has no evidential foundation – then I can treat it like flat earth dogma and energy crystals and every other unfounded claim.

Stated by: StuartA on July 2, 2006 6:09 PM

“Since you have provided no actual argument, everything you say on this subject can be safely ignored.”

How about this one for starters: Josephus: "Testimonium Flavianum" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64

In Hebrew, it says, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not disappeared."

Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland say, "Scholarly opinion about this passage can be divided into three camps: (1) those who defend the essential authenticity of the passage; (2) those who reject the entire passage;" (3) those who believe that the passage has an authentic core but also includes Christian insertions. Most recent scholarship has favored the last opinion." The Arabic version, by Agapius, the 11th century Melkite bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, says "good conduct" instead of "miracles", after three days is the word "report", and "perhaps" is inserted before "he was the Messiah." Eusebius (fl. 325 A.D.) quotes this passage, but Origen (225-254 A.D.), remarks that Josephus spoke of James, but did NOT speak of Christ.

Now this is essentially the problem. You’ll quote selected eminent authorities in your scathing refutation, and I’ll counter that with my selected ‘unimpeachable’ authorities whom you’ll sneer at. This is why I wanted ‘to wriggle out of it’, as you said.

It’s an endless loop.

But the onus is on you to Finally Disprove, not on me to Finally Prove. You’re keen to speak of “merely taking the line of the scholarly majority”, which I do here, in the matter of evidence, rather than proof. There is ample evidence to suggest the thing ‘is so’ but you are from the Doubting Thomas school, demanding incontrovertible Final Proof. Do you demand to be burnt to a cinder before you accept ‘electricity’? Do you demand the train to hit you before you accept its existence?

Johnson, in 1763, kicked a rock to disprove Bishop Berkeley’s assertion about the non-existence of matter.

Two aspects have not been eluded to – the personal effect of the Holy Spirit on the individual and the nature of Joy. This is all the ‘proof’ you’re ever going to get and all attempts to bring it back to the simple premise of Final Proof is, by its very nature, illogical, and that’s why the humanists demand it as the ultimate criterion, thinking that this constitutes Disproof.

“I have a presumption against old texts talking of gods and miracles, as I assume you do against Pliny’s story of Zoroaster inventing magic…”

This is where we differ. In the Islamic account of the Apocalypse, it’s easy to see where they’re coming from on this. It’s quite easy to accept Lilith. It’s not so hard to accept the Hiram Abif legend, given references in the Old Testament which need not be distorted but read literally in support of such an idea of the secret of kingmaking. With Zoroaster, the jury’s still out.

Stuart, at some point we’ll have to get off this wheel and so this is my last on the matter. Feel free to wind it up with your own final comment. Thanks for your patience.

Stated by: James Higham on July 2, 2006 8:03 PM

I was quite obviously referring, in the words that you initially quote, to a lack of argument backing up your claims about gospel dating. You respond with a quotation from Josephus which says nothing on that matter, whatever one thinks of its authenticity. Thus we are left, as before, with nothing beyond assertion to justify your claims on that count. So be it.

As it is, even your evangelical heroes admit, in what you quote from them, that the majority view holds this passage to be inauthentic in key parts. This isn’t hard to argue: Josephus wrote a lengthy defence of Judaism (he was probably a Pharisaic Jew), yet this passage has him espousing thoroughly Christian views. Alongside this, they have helpfully raised Origen, a Christian apologist, who refers to a separate oblique mention of Jesus by Josephus, but not this one, suggesting a later forgery.

What do you think this passage proves? Even if I accept it in its entirety, it reveals only slightly more biographical detail than Tacitus; but as things stand, its most Christian-friendly segments are almost certainly propagandistic interpolations. Quoting it hardly helps your case, so your attempts to split the difference (“I’ll counter that with my selected ‘unimpeachable’ authorities”) are baffling. I have quoted a standard text reflecting the scholarly consensus; you have quoted evangelical apologists apparently admitting to a Christian forgery, which in any case says nothing about what was at issue. There isn’t any equivalence.

No, the “onus” isn’t on me to “finally disprove” Christianity – I retain a position of doubt, as I have said already. The onus is on you to explain why you have selected this particular collection of antique supernatural claims above numerous other belief systems. You haven’t begun to do this, and therefore I continue to believe, cynic that I am, that your belief system instead derives from a convenient adoption of the default position for your country.

It’s interesting that you now state that “joy” and personal revelation from the Holy Spirit are “all the ‘proof’” I’ll get – what happened to the sufficiency of Tacitus? I assume you’ve abandoned that assertion, or you wouldn’t have suddenly wheeled out Josephus.

The problem with such personal revelation, of course, is that numerous other people of numerous other cults and religions also say they are visited by supernatural beings which tell them different things. How am I to know which among these incompatible claims is correct? It doesn’t matter, I suppose, because by even mentioning these as “proof” you are effectively admitting your position is not, after all, rational.

I don’t know how you can go off “accepting” other religions when you allege to be Christian – it rather smacks of the relativism so despised on this blog – but if that’s what you believe, fine, as long as the pretence of rational basis is dropped.

On that note, I’ll call it a day too.

Stated by: StuartA on July 2, 2006 9:25 PM

Yes, I know I said the last but your final post was so breathtakingly ‘non sequitur’ that it cried out for response.

My contention all along was that there was sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that Christianity is as it claims it is.

Throughout, you make constant assertion without any evidence to support your stand, then turn round and say that I assert without evidence. You ignored my treatment of this issue two posts back and you ignore concepts such as Joy and Holy Spirit, asserting, “The problem with such personal revelation, of course, is that numerous other people of numerous other cults and religions also say they are visited by supernatural beings which tell them different things.” And yet you’ve never been inside to find out.

You resort to colourful language throughout, which I finally do myself at the end of this post: eg “suddenly wheeled out Josephus”, as if it is a failed source but without substantiating why you say it.

You dismiss Tacitus as raised ‘higher than warranted’. Where is your hard evidence that it is not warranted? You chose to misread my ‘Tacitus is sufficient’ as I went on to say ‘let alone…’

You dismiss the apocrypha as being error ridden - in which sense? That it was not the ‘inspired’ word of G-d? Where is your scholarly proof that it is error ridden? The early church fathers?

You dismiss the body of scholarship through the ages and place yourself above those listed below.

You dismiss the assertion by the Finnish professor Heikki Ríisínen, for example, who concedes that "science is still trying to decide what to make of the Bible".

You dismiss Doctor Bo Reicke who writes that "it is nothing short of jingoistic and uncritical dogma to claim in New Testament criticism that the gospels must have been written after the Jewish revolt."
You dismiss Peter, very much a contemporary of Jesus, who wrote: “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” 1 Pet.2:2-10
You dismiss Clement, a man who had personally known Peter and Paul, wrote his letter to the Corinthians and this continued to be read in the Corinthian church as part of the liturgy for years.
You dismiss the inscription found in Corinth in 1929 supported by references in Rom. 16:23 and 2 Tim. 4:20, which have led many scholars now agree that among the members of the church at Corinth was Erastus, 'the city treasurer'
You dismiss why Pomponia Graecina, a woman of the senatorial class, whom Tacitus reported as having been accursed of practicing 'foreign superstition' in 57 (Annals 13.32), was a Christian.
You dismiss Marta Sordi’s case that Pomponia was not an isolated case: Acilius Glabrio and the Christian Flavians and that it seems probable that the same can be said for the first half of the same century, before Paul's arrival in Rome.
You dismiss out of hand the seven councils:
1 Nicea 325, which refuted Arianism. Adopted Nicene creed: Declared that Jesus is coeternal with the Father.
2 Constantinople 381, which condemned Apollinarian view that Jesus had no human will. Affirmed the deity of the Holy Spirit.
3 Ephesus 431, which condemned Pelagius' claim that man is not totally fallen; Declared Nestorianism heretical; i.e. that Jesus is two persons.
4 Chalcedon 451, which condemned Monophysite heresy that Jesus can't have two natures in one person.
5 Constantinople 553, which condemned Theodore of Mopseustia's and other writings as Nestorian.
6 Constantinople 680 which denied Monothelitism ("one will"). Said instead that Christ had both divine and human wills.
7 Nicea 787, which legitimized veneration of icons.
You dismiss that the Jews at Jamnia in 90 AD confirmed the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were then recognized as authoritative by Christians.
You dismiss the reason Callistus, a former slave who had worked the mines became the bishop of Rome in 217 or why Irenaeus summarized truth in a Rule of Faith which declared the faith of Christians in all ages or why, when he was 18, in 203, bishop Demetrius of Alexandria nominated Origen to become president of the catechetical school of Alexandria.

You dismiss Jerome, who made possible the Vulgate translation of the bible into Latin and in a revised form is still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church or Ambrose, who established the model bishopric and became the Bishop of Milan and was the first to assert the Church’s superiority over the state in spiritual matters or Augustine wrote the Confessions.

You ignore that in the NT "church" always denotes a group of people (Acts 14:23, 1 Cor.1:2; 2 Cor.1:1, Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor.16:19, Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22).

You dismiss the tone and elevated themes which were being discussed at a time closer to the actual events than we are today, such as: the forensic declaration of justice by a tribunal or court (cf. Is., v, 23; Prov., xvii, 15), the interior growth in holiness (Apoc., xxii, 11), the external law (Ps. cxviii, 8, and elsewhere), the inner, immanent sanctification of the sinner, the passing to a new life (Eph., ii, 5; Col., ii, 13; I John, iii, 14); renovation in spirit (Eph., iv, 23 sq.); supernatural likeness to God (Rom., viii, 29; II Cor., iii, 18; II Pet., i, 4) a new creation (II Cor., v, 17; Gal., vi, 15); rebirth in God (John, iii, 5; Tit., iii, 5; James, i, 18), etc.

It goes on and on and on – people have devoted their lives to such scholarship but Stuart dismisses it all, asserting:

“Thus we are left, as before, with nothing beyond assertion to justify your claims on that count. So be it. On which basis are we left with nothing beyond assertion?” A critical reading of our correspondence clearly shows a very august base for the assertions, whereas you fail to deliver the same yourself.

“Even if I accept it in its entirety, it reveals only slightly more biographical detail than Tacitus.” On whose authority does it reveal only slightly more?

“Quoting it hardly helps your case, so your attempts to split the difference (“I’ll counter that with my selected ‘unimpeachable’ authorities”) are baffling.”

You constantly shift your ground: “No, the “onus” isn’t on me to “finally disprove” Christianity – I retain a position of doubt.”

And finally, without a shred of substantive evidence to support your original ‘How hilarious’ assertion in your first post on the matter, you raise the obvious triple question which cries out for supported, reasoned argument on your part: “Who are you to do this, on what basis do you assert it and according to which scholarly methodology are you proceeding?”

Your case falls to the ground for one simple reason – you don’t have a case – it is simply the pseudo-intellectual, leftist claptrap of one who has read the prescribed booklist, found it interesting and has gone on to read further eg. Buddhism, then, in one sweep, dismissed it all.

Do you detect anger in my tone? Not towards you personally but towards the shoddy [colourful language] way in which you failed to justify the tearing down of even one piece of evidence and choose instead to argue ad hominem: “it rather smacks of the relativism so despised on this blog” which therefore negates, in one swoop, the validity of opposing points of view and the historicity from where they ultimately deviated, thereby creating the situation of opposed opinion and disallowing a rich field for scholarship in itself – why they deviated.

You wish to imprison the discussion to the all enveloping burden of Final Proof, without displaying the slightest penchant for scholarly analysis of substantive and circumstantial evidence.

Sorry to end this way, but it was shoddy, Stuart and I would have thought you’d have done better.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 4:57 AM

How about these, Stuart?

There is little doubt that the early Christians believed that Jesus is God. As William Lane Craig writes, "Studies by NT scholars such as Martin Hengel of Tubingen University, C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge, and others have proved that within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed...the oldest Christian sermon, the oldest account of a Christian martyr, the oldest pagan report of the Church, and the oldest liturgical prayer (1 Cor. 16:22) all refer to Christ as Lord and God."

I.
Ante-Nicene Patristic witnesses to Christ's Divinity
A.
Ignatius of Antioch, on the Divinity of
Christ, calls Jesus God 16x in 7 letters (ca. 110
AD)
1.
“Jesus Christ our God” Eph inscr, Eph 15:3, Eph 18:2, Tral 7, Ro inscr 2x, Ro 3:3, Smyr 10:1.
2.
He speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Eph 1:1
3.
He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Eph
7:2
4.
In Jesus “God was revealing himself as a man” Eph 19:3
B.
Epistle to Diognetus
(ca. 125 AD) speaking of God the Father, he says:
1.
Diognetus 7:2 "he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds" (ca. 125 AD)
2.
Diognetus 7:4 “He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men."
C.
Melito of Sardis on Christ's Divnity
(d. ca. 190) On the Pasch (Peri Pascha).
1.
Translation in Lucien Deiss, ed., Springtime of the Liturgy (College-
2.
Peri Pascha was only discovered in 1940 and published in 1960.
3.
he says Christ "rises from the dead as God, being by nature both God and man" (p. 100 in Deiss, physei Theos n kai anthropos).
4.
he also has an anti-Gnostic insistence on Christ's true humanity.
D.
Justin Martyr on the Divinity of Christ
(c. 155 AD)
1.
says that Christians adore and worship the Son as well as the Father. 1st Apology 6.
2.
says Christ, the Word incarnate, is divine 1 Apol 10 & 63
E.
Irenaeus on Christ's Divinity
(ca. 185) in his work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)
1.
Of Jesus he says "He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." AH III.19.2 (Ante Nicene Fathers 1: 449).
2.
"He, therefore who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared, 'No man knoweth the Father,'but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very [true] man, and that He was very [true] God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself." AH, IV, 6,7 (ANF, 469).
F.
Tertullian on the Divinity of Christ (ca. 200)
1.
The first use of the Latin word trinitas with
reference to God is in Adversus Praxean and De
pudicitia. The first to use the term persona in a Trinitarian & christological context asserting in Adv. Praxean 12 that the Logos is distinct from the Father as person and that the HS is the "third person" in the Trinity."
2.
Adv. Praxean 27 states that there are twonatures, one human and one divine, which are joined in the one person Jesus Christ.
3.
In his Apology 21, speaking of the Word, he says, “we have been taught that he proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. . . . That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is make a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature. . . .in His birth God and man united.”
4.
In On the Flesh of Christ 5, he asks, “Was not God really crucified?”
G.
Clement of Alexandria on Christ's Divinity (ca. 210 AD)
1.
Exhortation to the Heathen, 1: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) ad of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man--that Author of all blessings to us. . . . This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning.”
II.
A few selected Trinitarian Texts from Ante-Nicene Fathers
A.
Didache (ca. 125 AD) "then baptize in running water
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit. (Early Christian Fathers, p. 7)
B.
Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 115 AD) exhorts the Christians at Magnesia to stand firm "in faith and love, in Son, Father, and Spirit." (Mag 13)
C.
Pope Dionysius to Dionysius of Alexandria, 262 AD.
Uses the term Trinity and describes the unity of the three persons to prove that they are not three gods. Neunier- Dupuis, The Christian Faith, #301-303.
D.
Origen (ca 230 AD), On First Principles 1.6.2 “For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others
possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy
blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity
itself.”

There is, in here, no legerdemain, no non-sequitur claims ‘to have proved’ or ‘disproved’, nothing but evidence upon evidence. How much more, Stuart?

Truth is, you came to this discussion with a fully formed pre-judgement against Christianity [hilarious, you used] then changed to ‘doubts’. You then accused myself and Niall of the same prejudice, only pro-Christianity [default religion].

You attempted to harness the discussion to the old chestnut Final Proof, knowing full well that Christianity rests on the ‘inspiration’ and a vast collection of, each in themselves, sketchy and yet telling evidence.

You flatly refuse to accept the ‘most likely’ scenario through abject prejudice, not through any rational argument which you so pride yourself on.

Again and finally – how much more do you want? I can go on to eternity or today’s work schedule, whichever comes sooner.

By the way, do you think you and I might meet to have a beer? I think we would not be bored by each other’s company and I’d promise to tone down the heat, if you would.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 7:46 AM

I could not help a wry smile when I read the first reaction to my entry. It illustrated my point perfectly. I made a moderate, measured point - and attracted an ad hominem, sarcastic, dismissive screed that misrepresented me and twisted my words!

Sometimes I myself wish that Christianity was false, as I find it an extremely hard way of life. But I simply cannot convince myself of this. When I was thinking about the issue, one of the clinchers was the fact that so many people who were in a good position to know whether or not Jesus was who the Gospels say he was died a horrendous death for their beliefs, which could have been easily avoided by admitting that they were lying (horrible syntax there, sorry).

Perhaps one of the non-believers posting on this thread could explain to me whether they would be willing to die an agonising, humiliating death for something they knew to be a complete lie, as they suggest that St Peter and other apostles did, when they could easily have avoided that fate?

Stated by: Niall on July 3, 2006 8:58 AM

Niall, you say 'ONE of the non-believers'.

There is only one non-believer on this commentary section - Indecent Left/Stuart or are you referring to the spammer as well?

I defended your stance and again, I fully support your last post just now, as one Christian to another.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 9:23 AM

Since James has broken his promise of silence, I feel I'm released from mine. Unfortunately I don't have unlimited time to endlessly bat down his nonsensical tergiversations, so I'll try to confine myself to correcting the factual errors and misrepresentations to which he has stooped.

“My contention all along was that there was sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that Christianity is as it claims it is.”

I never disputed that this was your position. It is, however, a position with which I disagree.

“Throughout, you make constant assertion without any evidence to support your stand, then turn round and say that I assert without evidence.”

I was specifically talking about the dating of Gospels, on which you have still providing no argument – just an appeal to an apologetic book, and an entirely irrelevant quotation from Josephus. I provided you with excerpts from a standard reference work, and with Biblical passages. You then gave up on this tack.

I didn't “ignore concepts such as Joy and Holy Spirit”. I pointed out that such personal revelation is not confined to Christians – as you surely found in your widespread religious tourism – and is therefore of no value in deciding rival incompatible claims.

I have documented the reasons why your claim about Tacitus was unwarranted. I pointed out that a single paragraph by a Roman historian, writing around 70 years after the crucifixion, which corroborates no gospel content beyond Jesus's execution, is not “sufficient” “proof” that Christianity is true. I maintain this position. You then attempted to imply that other work by Tacitus, none of which mentions Jesus or Christianity, had a bearing on the matter, but never explained how. Absent any such explanation, I can only refer you back to what I already said on the matter.

I did not “misread” your comments on Tacitus. You said:

“As for proof, Tacitus alone is sufficient, let alone the ‘whole picture’ of the times...”

Thus you suggested Tacitus was “sufficient” “proof”. If you wish to withdraw that claim, then fine – I thought you already had. If not, then explain how his minimal secondhand reference to Christianity shows its truth.

I did not dismiss the apocrypha as “error ridden”. That is a flat out lie. I said it “illustrates that Christians don’t even agree among themselves about what is divinely inspired scripture” -- a point that you never addressed.

I have not shifted my ground, or sought to “imprison the discussion to the all enveloping burden of Final Proof”. I have consistently maintained doubt regarding Christianity's truth. That is, I am not – and cannot be – certain of its untruth; but I regard it as much the more likely possibility. I feel the same way about homeopathy.

After these misrepresentations, and after silently discarding various attempts at argument when they ran into the sand, you come up with this:

“Your case falls to the ground for one simple reason – you don’t have a case – it is simply the pseudo-intellectual, leftist claptrap of one who has read the prescribed booklist, found it interesting and has gone on to read further eg. Buddhism, then, in one sweep, dismissed it all.”

That is, you descend to flailing personal disparagement, grounded in nothing beyond your imaginings, and closer to ad hominem than anything I wrote. I have not said anything about you or Niall personally. I haven't accused you of being “rightist”. There is nothing remotely “leftist” in what I have said in this discussion. But you have produced this sub-Littlejohn rant.

You have failed to defend your proposed gospel dating, failed to defend your claims for Tacitus, failed to defend C.S.Lewis's “mad, bad or god” thesis, failed to defend the Testimonium Flavianum as relevant to anything you proposed, failed to defend your tautologous “Christianity is what it is” remarks as having any useful semantic content, and failed to defend personal revelation as a guide to comparative religious truth. With all of these, in the face of evidence and argument you have provided nothing by way of response, except occasional appeal to assertions from apologetic literature incongruent with mainstream scholarship.

It is comical, therefore, to see you pronounce that I haven't exhibited “the slightest penchant for scholarly analysis of substantive and circumstantial evidence”. I have analysed what little evidence you have produced, and supplied more. You have produced no analysis, just emotional affirmation.

Then, wearily, we come to your listing of references to Jesus's divinity, pasted in without attribution from http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_category/40/pics/library_article.64.doc/divinityofchrist.pdf?PHPSESSID=5ebf65f3c28fe52242558d (or somewhere else bearing the same material).

You're right that there's no legerdemain in this outpouring -- that would connote some sort of skill. The list you conveyed to this site was compiled to refute claims in the Da Vinci Code that Constantine “invented” belief in Jesus' divinity in the early fourth century CE. All it shows is that Christians existed in the second century – something we had already established – and that the author of Ephesians (nobody knows if it really was Paul) believed in Jesus's divinity. This wasn't in dispute either.

The only new element I see is the idea that, contrary to your previous averment regarding Tacitus, one must now look at numerous scraps of evidence “each in themselves, sketchy and yet telling”. Presumably you seek to include the above nuggets in this evidential collection. For the reasons I have given, they no more authenticate Gospel truth than the Talmud or the Council of Jamnia validate Genesis: we know early adherents existed; the question is whether they were right. So exactly what “telling” evidence do you have?

I have yet to see any, from you or anybody else, which is why I am not a Christian. I commented initially because I object to the suggestion that unbelief is the outcome of a “hysterical and irrational approach to debating religion” because unbelievers are “scared of what Christ demands, so they simply denigrate and mock the faith rather than really examining the issue”. On the contrary, it is Christians who are irrational (and more frequently hysterical than most), and it is they who have not really examined the issue. If they had, they'd accept that their faith is not founded on good evidence, but convenient delusion and personal happenstance. It cannot be founded on good evidence, because there isn't any – as James has amply demonstrated.

Finally, we have this contribution from Niall:

“Perhaps one of the non-believers posting on this thread could explain to me whether they would be willing to die an agonising, humiliating death for something they knew to be a complete lie, as they suggest that St Peter and other apostles did, when they could easily have avoided that fate?”

You are of course assuming the accuracy of martyrdom accounts, which is questionable. All the evidence we have is from Christian apologists (including Luke), who gradually twisted the Greek for “martyr” from its original meaning of “witness”, and who were using martyrdom as a marketing tool. But the larger point, of course, is that even in this era, with the boundaries of the supernatural pushed far further back, we know of lots of people who died for a lie: the Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones and his followers, and so on. The reported deaths of Jesus' followers do not make his influence unique.

Stated by: StuartA on July 3, 2006 12:57 PM

What I'm really getting at, Stuart, is this. It's no skin off my nose whether or not you believe in Christianity, although I am personally genuinely sad that you don't (Christian life is not easy, but it is also liberating and hope-filled). But it is simply inadmissible to suggest that there is no rational basis for Christian belief.

I seem to spend half my life defending the basic reasonableness of Christian belief against those are not content to disbelieve, but want to take any opportunity to say that my views are "irrational".

That simply isn't true. 2 years ago, I took a 2:I in Modern History from a top university. For my Finals I wrote 4 papers on the Roman Empire, including a special paper on religion and philosophy in the ancient world, and another on the rise of Islam. I know what I am talking about when it comes to source criticism, critical analysis and the importance of scepticism in matters religious.

I say this not by way of boasting, but simply to point out that intelligent people can and do believe in orthodox historical Christianity without turning off their critical faculties. I have thought and thought and thought about Christian belief until I am blue in the face, but I am a captive of the facts.

Stated by: Niall on July 3, 2006 2:44 PM

Niall - you're not only correct but you're a good man - a living example of a Christian.

As for me, I'm too Stuartesque in my approach - a point Stuart does not fail to make. Bless you, Stuart, my son - have a long and happy life and now, if you don't mind, gentlemen, time for the working week to commence. That old Calvinstic ethic just won't go away.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 3:43 PM

I'm very hesitant to continue this, because the debate has reached a ridiculous length. Still, Niall's comment seems to directly address the initial point.

I don't agree, as I've said, that there is a rational basis for Christianity. My attitude as an atheist is only slightly different from yours: we both agree that the texts of Islam, and Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Scientology, and the rest are not accurate in their description of purported supernatural phenomena. We just differ on the Christian ones. (That is, unless you are some sort of ultra-liberal Christian who discards the Bible's claims of exclusivity.)

I have never seen a decent case made for Christian texts' unique credibility among the vast body of extant religious writing, let alone belief systems in general. They are not, as I have argued, even close to unimpeachable historical authorities. They flatly contradict each other; they misread Hebrew prophecy; they contradict other sources. They are not what I expect from from an informed, dispassionate witness, let alone an omniscient god; and they appear to have no outstanding qualities among religious scriptures. Even Jesus's allegedly unique moral message is, by his own account, a restatement of Jewish precepts.

This background does not warrant the extravagant claims made by the texts themselves or Christians today, and I conclude, still, that Christian belief is fundamentally irrational. I don't deny that intelligent people can be Christian, because I acknowledge intelligent people can be irrational. There are also intelligent, irrational Muslims and Jews and Hindus, among them well-qualified historians. I don't think their religious beliefs arise from use of their critical faculties either.

Stated by: StuartA on July 3, 2006 3:52 PM

One last point, if I may, Stuart, which I forgot to mention last time out - the word "martyr" has never had its meaning "twisted". Christians accept that it means witness. The whole point of using it to describe people like St Paul is that to endure torture and death for Christ is the ultimate form of witness to His power.

God bless.

Stated by: Niall on July 3, 2006 4:36 PM

I am perfectly aware of the "witnessing" idea associated with dying for one's faith. It is obvious from the etymology that I mentioned.

The point about the word "martyr" arises from its meaning changing in the early centuries CE to imply death. Later apologists reinterpreted earlier testimony, which did not necessarily refer to death, in the light of then contemporary meaning, thus confusing the matter of early martyrdoms.

This is in any case a minor point: martyrdoms are a feeble "clincher" for the more substantive reasons that I gave above.

Tragically God won't be blessing me because I'm an atheist, and therefore bound for unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12, etc.). Still, Allah et al. have condemned you, so overall the difference won't be too great.

Stated by: StuartA on July 3, 2006 5:17 PM

‘Nonsensical tergiversations’ is an excellent expression to describe Stuart’s mind-boggling dialectic approach:

1. Open with sneering commentary but no factually based reasoning eg. “How hilarious”.
2. Make unbelievable logical leaps somehow derived from what the other person said, eg. “In this assertion you stand on the same side as devout jihadists, who of course draw their conviction from a similar faith stance”.
3. Make unsubstantiated and negative counter-claims from no knowledge base whatever eg. “You claim an “open mind”, but I somehow doubt that your “enormous amount of reading” has led you to seriously examine, let alone consider adopting, Islam or Zoroastrianism or Mithraism, or any of the countless other rivals.” In all cases in his writings, these have turned out to be in error, eg. Tibet/Thailand.
4. Use distasteful and mocking language as a substitute for reasoning, eg. Sky God, if you haven't heard of Jesus you're screwed anyway, most idiotic of all is the idea
5. Show surprising ignorance in some matters, eg. “some non-nineteenth century sense of “musselmen” that I’m unaware of” [it happens to be the name for knowledgeable Muslims in the country where I currently reside]
6. Indulge in pure factual error, eg. “by people who almost certainly never met him”
7. Resort to polemic, as distinct from argument, eg. “obfuscatory half truths, taken refuge in semantically empty nonsense, your sententious tautology, It is comical, therefore, to see you pronounce” and so on and so on, none of which he even bothers to justify with supported argument or sources – it just must be taken as read from our Stuart.
8. Then accuse other writers of the same, eg. “plain polemical biases”.
9. Resort to direct argument ad hominem [flailing personal disparagement] eg. Verity’s approvingly-quoted fatuity, to endlessly bat down his nonsensical tergiversations” and so on.
10. Provide the bare minimum of sources yourself, eg. Tacitus and Josephus, pronounce on them without the slightest attempt at using documentary support but to goad the other into providing more and more substantiated sources [accepted by consensus of the scholarly world].
11. Then imply adopt the expedient of denying their veracity. Full stop. No substantiation w-h-a-t-s-o-e-v-e-r. Just Stuart’s opinion, which somehow is to be set above respected scholarship.
12. Actually lie, eg. “I have documented the reasons why your claim about Tacitus was unwarranted” when, in fact, he documented nothing [see point 13]
13. Delude yourself that “Unfortunately this study seems not to have led to any dispassionate analysis” and “I’ll leave aside the well-known clashes with Josephus and other Jewish writing, which negate your claims about Christianity” constitutes documentation, when, in fact, it is quite clearly unsupported assertion.
14. Rely on adjectives to do your work for you eg, “irrational sky god worshippers”
15. Avoid your responsibility to provide documentary evidence for your stance [and not once did you provide any] eg. “But I don’t need to “debunk” the earlier dating, because you are relying on appeal to authorities in outlying positions.”
16. Attack the other for doing exactly this.
17. Ignoring key arguments, eg. “I didn't “ignore concepts such as Joy and Holy Spirit” which you quite clearly did, prompting my comment “And yet you’ve never been inside to find out”.
18. Shifted ground constantly, eg. “I have consistently maintained doubt regarding Christianity's truth” when, in fact, it is one long polemical tirade against Christianity – you even use the term Anti-Christian and atheist. This is hardly “doubt”.
19. Fail to address the mountain of references but make a general, sneering comment, eg.
20. Make concluding statements diametrically opposite to what actually occurred eg. “You have failed to defend your proposed gospel dating, failed to defend your claims for Tacitus, failed to defend C.S.Lewis's “mad, bad or god” thesis, failed to defend the Testimonium Flavianum as relevant to anything you proposed”, when in fact, that was precisely what was done – defending those positions.

“You're right that there's no legerdemain in this outpouring -- that would connote some sort of skill”. Nice statement, Stuart and yes – that was the general idea – to simply provide sources for you to fail to examine and simply deny. No legerdemain.

Unfortunately, as is only too clear to those who have read your – let me find your words now – “factual errors and misrepresentations”, let alone your unbelievable [to an academic of any sort] dialectic method, you’re a sad case.

I hope Niall’s kindly thoughts towards you come to fruition. You need them urgently, my son.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 6:13 PM

Martyrdoms are a feeble "clincher" for the more substantive reasons that I gave above.

What more substantive reasons? In whose opinion - yours?

What a laugh.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 6:18 PM

"I have never seen a decent case made for Christian texts' unique credibility among the vast body of extant religious writing, let alone belief systems in general. They are not, as I have argued, even close to unimpeachable historical authorities."

Are these your substantive reasons?

Or are these:

"The point about the word "martyr" arises from its meaning changing in the early centuries CE to imply death. Later apologists reinterpreted earlier testimony, which did not necessarily refer to death, in the light of then contemporary meaning, thus confusing the matter of early martyrdoms." [which is essentially true]

If the latter, then on what basis can you conclude:

"This is in any case a minor point: martyrdoms are a feeble "clincher"."

This last is, in essence, meaningless and is the pseudo-intellectual claptrap I was referring to. Your vocabulary is fabulous, your reading substantial but your argumentative faculties are woeful and this is my beef with you.

You weave a web of assertion [have you counted the number of times you used the words 'I" 'me' or 'my'?] but it all comes finally to assertion, assertion and more assertion.

You shy away completely from support for your position because as you know full well - there is no refutation which will stand the light of day.

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 7:15 PM

Your latest semi-literate screed reveals little beyond an overheated temperament. Everything that is not just brazen invention has already been covered, to your detriment. This can be confirmed by simply scrolling upwards.

To take just one example:

12. Actually lie, eg. “I have documented the reasons why your claim about Tacitus was unwarranted” when, in fact, he documented nothing [see point 13]

I have repeatedly told you why your statement regarding Tacitus was wrong, with reference to its content and date. The date is not controversial; the content I quoted. A piece of retailed gossip from 110 CE is not "sufficient" "proof" of Christianity's truth, as anyone with the remotest grip on reality would agree. So in this case, as in so many others, your accusation more correctly applies to yourself.

I haven't the time to address any more of your meandering bloviations, demonstrating as they do a total inability to engage with rational thought, so I'll call it quits. It would, in any case, be unkind to continue.

Stated by: StuartA on July 3, 2006 7:36 PM

Stuart descends to the particular in one respect only:

“I have repeatedly told you why your statement regarding Tacitus was wrong, with reference to its content and date.”
Here is his so-called ‘why’:
“He wrote this around 110AD – approximately 70 years after the crucifixion. Was he working from imperial records? Probably not, because he uses an incorrect title for Pilate, and a religious name for Jesus.”

And what? How can this possibly constitute ‘your statement about Tacitus is wrong’? How on earth can his 110AD commentary, even if for ulterior motives and derivative, negate the content of what he says? Are you accusing him of shoddy scholarship?

“From the date alone he couldn’t have been using first-hand witnesses to the crucifixion: he was probably repeating gossip.”

“probably repeating gossip” ??

Again – and what? This is what I have repeatedly shown about Stuart’s argumentative abilities.

“In any case, he reports nothing beyond the fact of a crucifixion – no nativity, no miracles, no resurrection.”

And again, so what? I have referred all through to the totality of the evidence, not the individual fragments.

“[1] Thus we have some second-hand hearsay which [2] confirms none of the contentious gospel story elements, only [3] substantiating the uncontroversial fact that Christians existed in Nero’s reign. [4] And you regard it as “sufficient” “proof” to swallow the entire gospel story. Extraordinary.”

Now let’s cut straight to the “Extraordinary”. How, and according to which logical process – inductive reasoning, deductive, the logical syllogism – what [?] – can he reach the word “Extraordinary” via this railroad?

Point 4 alone derails his logic due to the critical words ‘let alone…’ with which I followed this. Even a secondary school clear thinking student recognizes that one must not take words out of context.

For arguments on Tacitus, it’s not necessary to go any further than this:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
as the primary arguments for and against [including Stuart’s abbreviated version] are included here:

“The fact that a later author expanded the passage in no way makes it probable that the original passage was interpolated. Furthermore, there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage: the anti-Christian tone of the passage, the scapegoat motif, the Latin style, and the integration of the passage with the story. Stein's argument for interpolation is completely unconvincing. See Stein 1982.
-Footnote to Stein by Jeffery Jay Lowder

Robert Van Voorst comments on the question of authenticity (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 42-43):
But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus' own compressed style. The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean. The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome.
There are five arguments that might suggest that Tacitus consulted some kind of written record for this information. (1) As his practice, Tacitus was a meticulous researcher, frequently consulting written documents and multiple sources. (2) Tacitus shows hostility towards the Christian sect and thus wouldn't have trusted them. (3) Tacitus does not mention any important Christian doctrines such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. (4) According to Goguel, the source is not Christian "since it presumed an eclipse of Christianity after the death of Jesus" (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 41). (5) Also according to Goguel, the mention of Christ "must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as 'dicunt' or 'ferunt,' which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip" (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 40).
On (1), although this may be suggestive evidence, this doesn't prove that Tacitus consulted written records in this particular case. On (2), even though Tacitus may have held some contempt towards Christians, that does not prevent him from taking their story about the origin of their name at face value. Similarly, a modern writer may be indifferent towards Mormons but may nevertheless take their story of the origin of the name "Mormon" at face value. On (3), Tacitus is giving merely the briefest account of the origin of the name Christian and so cannot be expected to mention such Christian doctrines. On (4), Goguel depends on an interpretation of the passage according to which the superstition was checked for several decades until the time of Nero, and this interpretation is unnecessary. On (5), this is an important point, as it can be shown that Tacitus is normally careful to make the distinction when relying upon oral testimony.
According to John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew, p. 91), "It could be, instead, that Tacitus is simply repeating what was common knowledge about Christians about the beginning of the 2d century." According to Robert Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 52), "The most likely source of Tacitus's information about Christ is Tacitus's own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly." However, note well the contrary opinion of Maurice Goguel (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 43): "But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate."

And even this is abridged. One last time:

“But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound…”

I’m with Stuart in this:
“I am merely taking the line of the scholarly majority.”
Stated by: StuartA on July 2, 2006 06:09 PM

Stuart’s ad hominems [your latest semi-literate screed, little beyond an overheated temperament, your accusation more correctly applies to yourself, your meandering bloviations] continue, in lieu of argument move inexorably to his conclusion: “It would, in any case, be unkind to continue” … and he feels that this somehow constitutes argument or debate.

I myself hardly come into any of this, being just the humble presenter of attributed figures on the stage, bereft of skilled legerdemain.

No, the readers’ choice is simply between the Scholarship of Stuart and the work of centuries and centuries of New Testament scholars.

It’s said that if two or more pray in His name … so G-d bless Stuart.
[And this really is my final comment on this matter, to put him out of his misery and to spare the rest of you long-suffering people.]

Stated by: James Higham on July 3, 2006 9:14 PM

Lest any surfers idly browse this comments section one day, let me return to the last post.

Establishing the ‘soundness’ of Tacitus, or at least the ‘likely soundness’, this, of course, in no way establishes Christ’s divinity, which is why Stuart dismisses it as not furthering the argument. But it is not intended to do that. It is intended to merely add weight and place in context all the other evidence, each piece in itself inconclusive - and how could it be conclusive?

This thing is a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing and it requires inductive reasoning to lay them alongside one another in the ‘most likely positions’ and then to step back and see the whole. As was once said, it’s never possible to Finally Prove the supposition but this in no way diminishes the cogency of the phenomenon.

In my latter posts I presented a selection of pieces in the puzzle and Stuart’s airy dismissal of all of them, on the grounds that each, in itself, failed to convince, is faulty logical reasoning. This is why I asked him to say by which process of logic he arrived at his conclusions and on which grounds?

His grounds were that he was not convinced. Why bother ourselves with this man’s stance? Why display a ‘fevered temperament’ in showing the ‘unsafeness’ of his position? Because his throwaway comments can do great damage at a time where Christophobia is rife, as the Cardinal originally said. Because young intellectuals can view his quite obvious reading, fashionably atheistic stance and fine language skills and thereby find his ‘arguments’ convincing.

Except that there was never an argument, save for when he extended himself on Tacitus and partially on Josephus and his reasoning, as I have constantly maintained, is faulty. It follows no generally accepted path.

I don’t believe that rational examination allows of the final revelation of Truth because a component of Truth must, by definition, be spiritual and to discover that, one must get inside thought systems and give them a chance – hence his aside at me ‘religious tourist’. To clear the mind of one’s own preconceptions is the most difficult thing and I don’t claim to have been able to achieve that. But I got close and found cogency in much in what was said and which spiritually came upon me.

This is the final arbiter – the spirit – and it is impossible to describe to someone who refuses to open up and try it, who clings to the Enlightenment model of ‘I’ as centre and all other eminent personages can present their cases to the ‘I-god’ for nodding approval or else dismissal.

This is so clearly Stuart’s approach and once again – why bother speaking of such a man when it must be obvious to all and sundry? And the answer again is that by one seemingly rational and intellectual diatribe, he can convince.

Take his comments into consideration but by no means dismiss out of hand the vast body of evidence which is also out there.

Stated by: James Higham on July 5, 2006 4:03 AM

性交裸体图少女裸体女性裸体美女视频录像激情自拍录像三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费激情电影免费色情电影免费性交电影免费性爱电影三级片美女视频录像人体艺术图辑黄色网站色情色情网站成人网站三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片黄色网站激情小电影激情小电影艺术激情享受激情小电影日本强奸电影郎裸体图库林心如拍黄的图片性生活片电影在线性感丝袜美女图片玉蒲团之玉女心经十八淫书色兔妹妹图片全球十大禁片bt下载性交裸体图亚洲成人淫民网妹妹厕所走光图片视频聊天成人电影黄色电影激情电影色情电影性交电影性爱电影日本av电影情色电影同志电影下载激情视频下载明星露点图片写真电影阴部图片乳房图片明星裸照性爱视频偷拍图片台湾成人视频聊天网美女做爱图美女裸体图片美女美穴清晰大图性感美女视频性爱处女的图片图女人成人手淫免
 免费电影网免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站最新韩国电影两性生活性教育片免费电影神话最新电影无极免费激情电影免费黄色电影最新电影下载成人性爱电影美女图片美女走光美腿图片三级片强奸电影美女祼体图片黄色电影下载免费色情电影性感美女图片漂亮妹妹图片做爱图片美少女幼女图片舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片美女被强歼小说巨乳小电影免费下载美女厕所偷窥视频mm自拍艳舞仙人洞美女一个馒头引发的血案神雕侠侣少妇美女美女图明星露点写真裸体写真明星裸体写真人体艺术写真美臀女人图片性感美女图片女性乳房女性乳房写真女人屁股女性屁股偷拍三级片性感美女床上自拍三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费成人电影免费色情电影免费黄色电影免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费色情电影偷拍女人的图片 18 贴图台湾成人男同性恋写真图片午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影台湾网络小说台湾网络电影小龙女与尹志平图片性闻美女洗澡小游戏美女洗澡偷拍电影艳舞成人图库女明星图片丁字裤免费电影在线看免费电视连续剧收看美臀翘臀图片少妇展穴色影无忌床第间的正点自拍露点图片女性最易献身时刻自拍DV 偷拍录象美女诱惑写真自拍短片人体艺术另类成人小说黄色网站成人论坛成人图片走光三级片视频录像激情视频 18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui 性感美女床上自拍色情影音-激情写真media情色激动电影-18dy 18dy-激动电影免费小电影性电影免费成人电影下载免费电影在线观看宽带电影经典电影下载免费恐怖电影免费影片下载免费影院最新大片十八电影网美女写真人体艺术人体写真美国大片免费成人影片在线看电影成人网站乳房图奸淫极品嫩穴图片美女插穴黄色小说在线激情电影性教育电影两性电影看电影的网站免费看电影免费在线电影免费电影下载

Stated by: 三级片 on July 16, 2006 2:00 PM