Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Evidence for Christianity
Message-ID: <576@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Oct-84 15:48:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.576
Posted: Fri Oct 12 15:48:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:14:19 EDT
References: <1700039@iuvax.UUCP> <567@bunker.UUCP> <182@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 168

Mike Huybensz write:

> Samuelson rejects physical evidence as a justification for belief in
> Christianity...

Is this misquote deliberate?  What I said was that those who say
they won't believe unless a suitable (to them) laboratory experiment
was devised were going to be disappointed (on second thought, they
probably would be more disappointed if such an experiment could be
devised).

> ...but then claims to have been convinced by historical evidence.
> I'll comment on his "evidence", and you can make up your own mind about
> how tight a case he presents.

Why do so many netters put the word evidence in quotes?  Already you are
non-verbally asserting that what I suggest is evidence is none at all.
Not bad evidence, or incomplete evidence, or inconclusive evidence,
but no evidence at all.

> First, in order to BECOME convinced, you must start with the possibility that
> the bible may not be inerrant.  This means that any part of it may be false.

Well, I asked if I needed to choose a different starting point.
If you want to talk about the reliability of the text, or the
authorship of the various books, or the consistency of the bible,
say so.

> > So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical
> > evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed
> > by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead.

> There are several consistent ways to explain the above claim.
> 1) JC really didn't die.
>   A) The soldiers involved were incompetent.
>   B) The soldiers were bribed to bring him down before death.
>     Additionally, the spear in the side could have been made up to enhance
>     the story.
> 2) JC did die.

Consistent explanations do not constitute evidence.  Are you willing
to assert that one of your scenarios correctly depicts what in fact
did happen, so that I could ask for your evidence?  I'm sure you
can invent scenarios faster than I can refute them, but so what?

> > Later, the disciples believed and claimed that Jesus had risen from
> > the dead.  Their own belief is shown by the fact that they were
> > transformed from insignificant fishermen, a tax collector, and
> > whatnot into some of the most influential characters of all time.
> > I therefore think it silly to claim that the disciples stole the
> > body, not even counting the fact that a guard of soldiers was posted
> > to ensure that exactly that did not take place.
> 
> 1) Hitler was transformed from an insignificant paper-hanger to one of the
>    most influential characters of all time.  He claimed many things, but we
>    can't say he really believed all the things he said.  Neither must we
>    believe the apostles' claims without better proof.

Why do you think that Hitler didn't believe all the things he said?
I think he was quite sincere in his belief that the Aryans were a
superior race, and that the Jews should be exterminated.  Do you have
any reason to believe otherwise?

More to the point, do you have reason to believe that the early
disciples did not believe that the resurrection took place?

> 2) Assuming JC did die:
>   A) The body disappearing might have been made up.  There is no corroborative
>      evidence that the body was placed in a tomb at all.  All we have is the
>      agreement of a set of possible co-conspirators (the apostles).
>   B) The body could have been stolen by the apostles or others.  Guards can be
>      bribed, tricked, off elsewhere, or active participants.
> 3) JC may have lived, and been moved by one of the above scenarios.

Interesting.  Three possibilities are listed: JC didn't die, he did die,
and he lived.  How do the first and the last differ?

> > Now if the enemies of Christianity knew where the body was, they
> > would surely have produced it.  They didn't; as far as I know, they
> > never even claimed to.  They claimed only that the body was stolen
> > by the disciples while the guards slept.  (How did the guards -- or
> > anyone else -- know what happened while they were asleep?  How did
> > the disciples move a rather large rock without waking them up?
> > And how often did guards sleep during their watch, anyway? (never
> > more than once)).
> 
> As far as you know.  Cute attempt, but you can't use ignorance as proof.

I try never to say "never."  If I had said, "the enemies of Jesus never
claimed to know where his body was," would you have let that comment
stand, or would you have asked how I knew they had not made that claim?
As it is, I was being honest enough to admit that something might have
happened that I didn't know about.

> And who would the "enemies" have shown the body to?  Television?  They would
> have had to parade it around many villages, following in the footsteps of the
> rumormongers.

It would have been adequate to show it around Jerusalem.  After
the crucifixion, some of the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to put
a guard around the tomb, because they had heard of his predictions
that he would rise from the dead after three days.

Oh, yeah, they didn't have television in those days.
So what?  News still spread pretty fast; the report of the
resurrection wasn't too hampered by the lack of electronic
media; neither would the contrary report.  And, as I pointed
out, the contrary report was not that his body was still in
its tomb, it was that the body had been stolen by the disciples.

By the way, have you ever thought about what convinced the people
living in the first century?  Why do you suppose they were so
easily persuaded by such an outlandish tale?  (I told you I am
not an expert on debate; please don't take the above as rhetorical
questions.)  In particular, do you think that people were significantly
more gullible then than now?

(I expect that one of the reasons you suggest will be that they
wanted to believe.  Fine, but consider that wishful thinking cuts
two ways; if you say someone believes simply because they wish
to, someone else doesn't believe simply because they do not wish
to.)

> And how could they convince people that the corpse was JC?

By the nail prints in his wrists and ankles, and the spear wound in
his side, and by eyewitnesses who could recognize his features.  He
was fairly well known in Jerusalem.

> Prove to me that Jimmy Hoffa hasn't been resurrected from the dead.

Why?  Are you asserting that he has?  If so, what evidence do you
have?  (Now those questions are rhetorical.)  Now prove to me that
Jesus Christ hasn't been resurrected from the dead (if you do, I'll
cease to claim the name Christian).

> As for the rock, it may be just
> enhancement of the story, or one of the above explantions may suffice.

"Maybe this" and "maybe that;" I wish you would just come out and
say what you think really happened and present the evidence for
whatever you believe.

> > Gary Samuelson		"When the impossible has been eliminated,
> > bunker!garys		whatever remains, however improbable, must be
> > 			the truth."   -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
> 
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed until his dying days that certain photographs
> were proof positive of the existence of fairies.

Does that make the statement quoted above less valid?  Never mind; I won't
quote Doyle anymore.

> The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing
> unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence.

I surmise that your position is that the Bible as a whole and the gospels
in particular are fiction, like modern fantasy writing.  If this is
indeed your belief, what evidence do you base this belief on?  Who did
it?  When?  Why?  How did it become so widely accepted?

All you have said boils down to this: You aren't convinced.  All right,
but if you haven't come to a conclusion about what really happened, then
I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue.  You have decided that
no resurrection took place; that the Bible is largely a fabrication;
and that Christianity in general is a fraud; but on what grounds?

Gary Samuelson