The Case For Christ - A defence of Lee Strobel's 1998 apologetic book

[ruby sparks]

It fits all of the evidence..........

Yes, I think it does.

We have a vast amount of examples of cults to use for reference.

Yes, we do. This one fits the general pattern, from around the world and throughout history. Particularly millenarian ('end of the world') cults. There are exceptions, of course, but very few.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The most likely scenario is that Paul invented (and marketed) Christianity just as Joseph Smith invented and popularized Mormonism. I personally think there was a Jesus, a charismatic itinerant who had gathered a modest following for himself but who suddenly died, leaving a disappointed group of followers. He might have even got whacked by jealous temple leaders. Along comes Paul the mystic, who convinces these zealous followers that he was in communication beyond the grave with Jesus. He might have even fabricated the story of being part of the conspiracy to "off" Jesus earlier but that Jesus had visited him post-death to get him to change his ways. It is clear that Paul knew little (if anything) about any details of the life of this preacher, and was careful to speak only of his personal communications post-death with him. He gains their trust and gets them to pool their money to fund him in mission trips to spread the gospel to other places.

I'm close to this but GMark is too much like reading Old Man and the Sea or Grapes of Wrath. There are many, many more similar works.

Authors are communicating with an audience. They stage events and have discourse in their writings that engage an audience. I wrote fiction for six years and there are no rules. At the time of GMark even plagiarism was acceptable. There were no patents or copyrights such as we have today.

And of course authors must write from experience, which does not mean they actually witnessed an event that they penned, merely that they read about or had told to them an account. The personalities in their works are amalgams of characteristics and experiences and events. They're allowed to be omniscient because it's their creation.

Today we can even find people writing seriously about the "historical" Paul Bunyan. But that isn't an accurate reflection on what they are doing because what they are writing about is the historical inspiration for Paul Bunyan, not the historical Paul Bunyan. It's a very real difference.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Maybe you'd have a little more interest if you had three other writers that wrote the same thing they've seen or heard as you did.

Except, we don't have that. We have three later writers plagiarizing the same older story.

Cover bands that put their own take on a Rolling Stones song are usually not considered to each be the authors of Paint It Black.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To my mind it's bizarre to consider the epistles evidence for HJ, considering the total absence of references to Jesus' earthly ministry. Granted, the couple of instances usually offered ("James the brother of the Lord") may indicate a real person. But the very paucity of evidence suggests otherwise to me.

Yes but you also think we should expect contemporary attestation, so I would have to query whether what you expect is reasonable or not in this case.

Is it reasonable to conclude otherwise, simply because a tradition says so?

One might as well accept a historical Hercules, Robin Hood or Santa Claus.

I remind you I am not arguing against HJ so much as contending that without evidence, HJ can only be a supposition.

 

[ruby sparks]

Is it reasonable to conclude otherwise, simply because a tradition says so?

If by 'conclude otherwise' you mean conclude he existed, then no, doing that just because of traditions would be a terrible reason. I'm not even sure I myself 'conclude' much, or strongly. Certainty is certainly out of the question.

One might as well accept a historical Hercules, Robin Hood or Santa Claus.

Are those fair or relevant comparisons though? I don't think they are, for a variety of reasons.

I remind you I am not arguing against HJ so much as contending that without evidence, HJ can only be a supposition.

True. We can never know for sure. Unless something much more convincing turns up, which I doubt it will.

It's basically something like this. You compare explanations and try to decide which are more likely than others, in as informed a way as possible, and you end up with an opinion.

 

[ruby sparks]

The most likely scenario is that Paul invented (and marketed) Christianity just as Joseph Smith invented and popularized Mormonism. I personally think there was a Jesus, a charismatic itinerant who had gathered a modest following for himself but who suddenly died, leaving a disappointed group of followers. He might have even got whacked by jealous temple leaders. Along comes Paul the mystic, who convinces these zealous followers that he was in communication beyond the grave with Jesus. He might have even fabricated the story of being part of the conspiracy to "off" Jesus earlier but that Jesus had visited him post-death to get him to change his ways. It is clear that Paul knew little (if anything) about any details of the life of this preacher, and was careful to speak only of his personal communications post-death with him. He gains their trust and gets them to pool their money to fund him in mission trips to spread the gospel to other places.

I'm close to this but GMark is too much like reading Old Man and the Sea or Grapes of Wrath. There are many, many more similar works.

Authors are communicating with an audience. They stage events and have discourse in their writings that engage an audience. I wrote fiction for six years and there are no rules. At the time of GMark even plagiarism was acceptable. There were no patents or copyrights such as we have today.

And of course authors must write from experience, which does not mean they actually witnessed an event that they penned, merely that they read about or had told to them an account. The personalities in their works are amalgams of characteristics and experiences and events. They're allowed to be omniscient because it's their creation.

Today we can even find people writing seriously about the "historical" Paul Bunyan. But that isn't an accurate reflection on what they are doing because what they are writing about is the historical inspiration for Paul Bunyan, not the historical Paul Bunyan. It's a very real difference.

Just one thing. Don't mix up issues regarding the Epistles with issues regarding the Gospels. They're probably two different sorts of animal. I say that because the part of Atheos' post you quoted was about the Epistles but your reply is about the Gospels?

Atheos might not even disagree with you. I don't really disagree with you. The only issue might be how much of the Gospels (I mean the 4 that got in, and even those are slightly different from each other) is fiction and how much isn't. My guess is 'a lot of fiction' (which would include allegory and symbolism etc). You probably know that religious scholars (who of course, with a few exceptions, tend generally to be at least a bit biased) have spent lifetimes analysing and comparing the Gospels using a fairly well recognised forensic technique (textual criticism) and they think they have worked out, or most of them think they have, that there are parts that (they think) come from a written source that no longer exists, called 'Q'. And they will also cite oral traditions.

I myself do not know how much to make of all that. I do know that G. A Wells (a professor of German) ended up switching from mythicist to historicist partly on the basis that he thought there was something in this 'Q' business, but despite having read a shedload of stuff, I can't say I find it convincing one way or the other, and 'supposed missing texts' and 'forensic textual criticism' are both a bit....iffy, to me, even if plausible or useful, respectively, in principle. It doesn't help that the material is open to endless differences of interpretation among religious scholars.

What's interesting is that initially, they were (and most probably still are) looking for the 'real Jesus'. What happened, in some ways, as I understand it, was that the forensic techniques and other analyses they were using led them towards an ever-shrinking amount of material that they could declare reliable. A few decided nothing was reliable and took the next (justified or not it's hard to say) step to allowing an ever-shrinking 'Jesus' (probably not his real name if he existed) to disappear completely. Which left those involved to have to come up with alternative explanations. Personally, I don't think anyone has come up with a narrative for no existence, which nonetheless explains all the evidence, which is better than allowing him a basic existence (1st century, Jewish, fringe/radical, probably end-of-world preacher type, got killed) but that's me.

 

[Rhea]

The Sumerian tablets are reliable but then... what about the reliability with the history of the Israelites? The Bible is often used as a reliable reference for finding ancient sites by archeologists I believe, and parts of ancient artifacts have been found with biblical names inscribed, if under scrutiny these are found to be genuine, to be fair.

When Louis Lamour wrotes a Western, he put in a lot of details on the setting. If he wrote that the characters rode three miles out of a named town and stopped at rock shaped like rabbit, you could travel to that town today and find the rabbit rock.

That fact does not mean any of the dialogue, gunfights, or crimes chronicled in the book evrr actually took place at the rabbit rock.

Well historians who take to the ancient writings may get better results with better methods to make the analysis.

Personally I'd probably consider "how much emphasis on being truthful would be in his book, as strongly as the emphasis of the must-do commands and consequences in the bible?"

Good grief, you do not know anythign about Louis L’Amour, do you?

 

[Learner]

Not so much no, in all honesty, but with the bible yes.

Would looki forward to see from you, where I am at fault (genuinely for discussion).

 

[ruby sparks]

Not so much no, in all honesty, but with the bible yes.

Would looki forward to see from you, where I am at fault (genuinely for discussion).

Louis Lamour wrote fictional novels. So on the whole, he's not a good basis for comparison with, for example, something like the bible. It's basically a category error to put them together.

And yes, there is some history in the bible, even if there's lots of stuff that is non-historical. It can be difficult to work out which is which. Getting corroboration isn't easy. My personal, non-expert opinion is that there is probably not all that much accurate, factual history in there. But there is some. King Nebuchadnezzar II (and his exploits) is a good example. Even there, the sources are probably heavily biased. But they usually are in ancient history generally. You know what they say, it was mostly the winners who generally got to write the history, which makes most ancient accounts one-sided at the very least, and often exaggerated and containing inaccuracies.

I also sometimes get the impression that some think that because the material is badly infected with woo, that it follows naturally that there's no history in there (hence, possibly the inappropriate comparisons with novelists). But as far as I know, dealing with woo-infected texts is pretty common in the study of ancient history generally, no matter what flavour the woo is or what part of the world or what religion it is part of, and in the end, woo is essentially just another form of bias that needs to be taken into account and contended with.

 

[Rhea]

Louis L’Amour wrote novels whose EVERY plot was about honesty, values, morals and family.

He was scrupulously accurate about his physical settings and that each story was an accurate depiction of the times. He LIVED that life. (Granted, 50 years later, but same life)

So it’s true it’s fiction, but it is ironically the toughest (pun intended) fictional foil you could have chosen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Louis L’Amour wrote novels whose EVERY plot was about honesty, values, morals and family.

He was scrupulously accurate about his physical settings and that each story was an accurate depiction of the times. He LIVED that life. (Granted, 50 years later, but same life)

So it’s true it’s fiction, but it is ironically the toughest (pun intended) fictional foil you could have chosen.

Learner was saying that archaeologists keep making finds that match the settings in the bible stories.
All i was saying is that L'Amour put his characters in historical settings, but historical settings do not validate the plot.
Where he went with that is just special pleading.

 

[Learner]

Louis L’Amour wrote novels whose EVERY plot was about honesty, values, morals and family.

He was scrupulously accurate about his physical settings and that each story was an accurate depiction of the times. He LIVED that life. (Granted, 50 years later, but same life)

So it’s true it’s fiction, but it is ironically the toughest (pun intended) fictional foil you could have chosen.

Louis Lamour wrote fictional novels. So on the whole, he's not a good basis for comparison with, for example, something like the bible. It's basically a category error to put them together.

And yes, there is some history in the bible, even if there's lots of stuff that is non-historical. It can be difficult to work out which is which. Getting corroboration isn't easy. My personal, non-expert opinion is that there is probably not all that much accurate, factual history in there. But there is some. King Nebuchadnezzar II (and his exploits) is a good example. Even there, the sources are probably heavily biased. But they usually are in ancient history generally. You know what they say, it was mostly the winners who generally got to write the history, which makes most ancient accounts one-sided at the very least, and often exaggerated and containing inaccuracies.

I also sometimes get the impression that some think that because the material is badly infected with woo, that it follows naturally that there's no history in there (hence, possibly the inappropriate comparisons with novelists). But as far as I know, dealing with woo-infected texts is pretty common in the study of ancient history generally, no matter what flavour the woo is or what part of the world or what religion it is part of, and in the end, woo is essentially just another form of bias that needs to be taken into account and contended with.

Thanks for both of your explanative posts.

Looking back at my previous post #369. I now see that it wasn't quite the right or the best response, being that I was seeing it from the view that, with both stories, only one claimed itself to be true. Although I would say the same thing (truthful by their merits ) if two religious stories, both claimed to be true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Louis L’Amour wrote novels whose EVERY plot was about honesty, values, morals and family.

He was scrupulously accurate about his physical settings and that each story was an accurate depiction of the times. He LIVED that life. (Granted, 50 years later, but same life)

So it’s true it’s fiction, but it is ironically the toughest (pun intended) fictional foil you could have chosen.

Learner was saying that archaeologists keep making finds that match the settings in the bible stories.
All i was saying is that L'Amour put his characters in historical settings, but historical settings do not validate the plot.
Where he went with that is just special pleading.

I don't think such claimants realize that finding an apple tree doesn't validate the garden of Eden story, so special pleading isn't possible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

with both stories, only one claimed itself to be true.

That's not a perfect lens.

The novel 'Eaters of The Dead,' which was the basis of the movie 'Thirteenth Warrior,' presents itself as an academic translation of an ancient document. It's totally made up, but that's not discussed in the novel. You need other sources to know that someone challenged (bet) the author that he couldn't make the Beowulf story interesting to modern readers.

On the other hand, a British guy's memoirs of his induction into witchcraft was published as a 'novel' only because at the time, witchcraft still carried a death sentence.

This is why historians evaluating a document really, really like to know who wrote it, when, and for what purpose, before they try to use it in documenting history.

 

[atrib]

All these things described is centred around one individual and unusual for anyone else in the bible. No Jesus involved in the first two quotes above, I say obviosly as a theist. Unfortunately (depending how you take it) I need evidence to stop believing in the story - and that the writers and Jesus were erroneous, mistaken, or telling lies. ( I became a believer by various things other than just the resurection BTW)

And that is the problem right there. Skepticism is, or should be the most appropriate response to claims involving reanimated corpses that can fly into space. And that skepticism is well deserved, since such events are contrary to everything we know about the natural world. You would never believe me if I claimed my dead grandfather's corpse had been reanimated and flown off into the sky, because you understand that the such an event is impossible. You would never take the position that the story was credible unless someone could prove that it did not happen.

But you have somehow indoctrinated yourself into believing these Bible miracle stories, and you want to believe them so desperately, that you are willing to set aside this normal, healthy skepticism, and believe these stories as a default. And you are too blind to recognize the hypocrisy of your position.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is very much like someone saying that they believe that Heracles was a real person and everything written about his twelve labors is true because it was written about 2500 years ago. As proof, archeologists have found many of the sites mentioned in his labors. They further insist that they will continue to believe it must all be true unless someone can prove it isn't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All these things described is centred around one individual and unusual for anyone else in the bible. No Jesus involved in the first two quotes above, I say obviosly as a theist. Unfortunately (depending how you take it) I need evidence to stop believing in the story - and that the writers and Jesus were erroneous, mistaken, or telling lies. ( I became a believer by various things other than just the resurection BTW)

And that is the problem right there. Skepticism is, or should be the most appropriate response to claims involving reanimated corpses that can fly into space. And that skepticism is well deserved, since such events are contrary to everything we know about the natural world. You would never believe me if I claimed my dead grandfather's corpse had been reanimated and flown off into the sky, because you understand that the such an event is impossible. You would never take the position that the story was credible unless someone could prove that it did not happen.

But you have somehow indoctrinated yourself into believing these Bible miracle stories, and you want to believe them so desperately, that you are willing to set aside this normal, healthy skepticism, and believe these stories as a default. And you are too blind to recognize the hypocrisy of your position.

Belief in such things is more a feeling than an actual arrived-at position. It must be like smoking. A rational person certainly understands that smoking is unhealthy and harmful. But they still indulge because it feels good, it relieves stress and gives them calm. I've even known smokers to claim that everyone should smoke because it's healthy. These folks tend to be the most demeaning when it comes to accusing non-smokers that health claims related to smoking are false.

But if you back up a bit to get a better perspective on this person't position it can become obvious that maybe smoking is healthy in this person's case. Why? Because you notice that without it they cannot cope, they even become dangerous to themselves and others because they're so anxious. Maybe cognitively it's the best they can do. In such a case you certainly don't grant them carte blanche freedom to smoke wherever and whenever they wish because you know it is unsafe and unhealthy despite their claims. But at least you're able to understand where they're coming from.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is why historians evaluating a document really, really like to know who wrote it, when, and for what purpose, before they try to use it in documenting history.

I am not sure how true the part about authorship is when it comes to ancient history.

Take Sumerian literature for example. Who wrote any of that?

 

[skepticalbip]

This is why historians evaluating a document really, really like to know who wrote it, when, and for what purpose, before they try to use it in documenting history.

I am not sure how true the part about authorship is when it comes to ancient history.

Take Sumerian literature for example. Who wrote any of that?

The name of the author isn't important but the author's job (why he wrote it) is. The writings of a fableist, a priest, and a historical chronicler should all be read as having very different meaning and reliability. If there is a lot of writings from one source then his job can be determined and the name becomes important only for identifying other works by the same author.

ETA:
For example, suppose in a thousand years some archaeologist finds two partial manuscripts, one credited to George Bancroft and the other to Mark Twain. If there is sufficient other manuscripts by both available then one of the new manuscripts will be known to be historical and the other pure imagination and entertainment with fictional characters but giving a sense of the times.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is why historians evaluating a document really, really like to know who wrote it, when, and for what purpose, before they try to use it in documenting history.

I am not sure how true the part about authorship is when it comes to ancient history.

Take Sumerian literature for example. Who wrote any of that?

The name of the author isn't important but the author's job (why he wrote it) is. The writings of a fableist, a priest, and a historical chronicler should all be read as having very different meaning and reliability. If there is a lot of writings from one source then his job can be determined and the name becomes important only for identifying other works by the same author.

ETA:
For example, suppose in a thousand years some archaeologist finds two partial manuscripts, one credited to George Bancroft and the other to Mark Twain. If there is sufficient other manuscripts by both available then one of the new manuscripts will be known to be historical and the other pure imagination and entertainment with fictional characters but giving a sense of the times.

Yes.