tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post7535730098995966823..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Response to Law IIIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61518746020403058622012-09-16T20:59:56.098-07:002012-09-16T20:59:56.098-07:00Derek: I can see that POV. However, given the 1st...Derek: I can see that POV. However, given the 1st Century data, and atheist presuppositions, as Machen pointed out almost a century ago, cognitive dissonance will force some skeptics to impossible solutions (he was referring to Christ mythicism) to resolve the dissonance between their dogmatic expectations and the actual nature of the facts. <br /><br />I frankly don't much care whether an atheist embraces mythicism, or some "more reasonable" means of reducing the tension. But maybe if I'd read the comments you're referring to, I'd cut Dr. Law less slack with his history. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77210289165910583362012-09-16T20:16:35.787-07:002012-09-16T20:16:35.787-07:00David (another congrats on the Dr part however),
...David (another congrats on the Dr part however),<br /><br />We'll have to disagree that Law deserves respect. Like Holding says about Dawkins:<br /><br />http://creation.com/dawkins-ironic-hypocrisy<br /><br />I think Law is using his influence in the atheist community to further the Christ-myth hypothesis. Like Dawkins, who doesn't actually commit to the hypothesis (saying in The God Delusion that it is possible to mount a "serious" case that Jesus did not exist), Law says that we SHOULD remain skeptical about his existence. <br /><br />This is not a simple mistake. A simple mistake would be saying something like "Jesus was probably born in Alexandria" or "Jesus probably spoke only Greek." Law is way off base. Again, what Holding says about Dawkins, as far as I am concerned, equally applies to him:<br /><br />"From the perspective of serious historians, the Christ myth is precisely that. It is a ‘staggering mistake’ and ‘no small error’–equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only three centimeters, and that the continent itself is made of burnt toffee. Yet Dawkins willingly gives this fringe view a hearing and directs his readers to sources that advocate it."<br /><br />Minus the "directing his readers to sources that advocate it" part. At least as far as I can see (the footnotes to his article aren't on his blog post).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-16541967548685978092012-09-14T07:22:54.913-07:002012-09-14T07:22:54.913-07:00Derek: Fair enough on all of that. As someone who...Derek: Fair enough on all of that. As someone who has worked on the mission field, and studied the history of missions, of course I agree that experience of miracles in general (maybe of some sorts) do nothing to render a figure less historically-probable. If they did, whole families would disappear, cars would kareen out of control on the Interstate, army posts would go unmanned, as millions of formerly real people disappeared, including a good proportion of the people I know. It would look a lot like the Rapture. <br /><br />My point about Stephen Law is that I think the man deserves respect. Lots of people make historical mistakes (or show historical biases) without being generally bad at history, and anyway, one needn't say it. <br /><br />Please call me David. <br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-22420000882782695232012-09-14T02:03:17.762-07:002012-09-14T02:03:17.762-07:00Hey Dr. Marshall,
I jumped over to this thread si...Hey Dr. Marshall,<br /><br />I jumped over to this thread since the other one has a pretty decent amount of comments on it.<br /><br />“I would disagree slightly on two points. First, neither Honi nor Hanina worked miracles anything like those of Jesus, and can barely be called "miracle workers" at all.” <br /><br />Hanina was a healer (Keener reports that it was said when dies that there were “no workers of miracles left” in Israel, see p 63 of vol 1 of Miracles), and Honi was said to be able to influence the weather. The fact remains that they were both “miracle working” Jews who lived before and roughly contemporaneous with Jesus of Nazareth. The fact also remains that historians of ancient Israel do not doubt their historicity because of these miracle accounts (as you agree).<br /><br />Still, you are correct that in our extant literature they are not recorded as having performed as many miracles as Jesus. But we know much less about these two than we do about Jesus. Much much less. Given Law’s reasoning we should be much more skeptical of their existences. But historians aren’t<br /><br />“Second, Rasputin is also a very bad parallel to Jesus, except in the limitted context of your argument, and that needs to be made clear.” <br /><br />Fair enough. But just to drive the point home, there are many examples of men and women rumored to work lots of miracles (healings, exorcisms) who lived in just this last century, even in the current one! Keener documents these people along with the hundreds of people who say they witnessed healings, some more fantastic than even the Lord Jesus’, at the hand of these modern day miracle workers. Kimbangu is obviously one. But there are also people like T.L. and Daisy Osborn, Father Ralph DiOrio, and John Wimber (pp. 457-506). There are also earlier legends that heavily associate historical figures with miracles, like Saint George of Choziba. The issue becomes thornier when Law says something like: <br /><br />“given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence.”<br /><br />“Large proportion” in relation to what? What Law feels is a large proportion of miracle claims? How much is too much? Too little?”<br /><br />Lots of those listed above could fit this description. I know you agree with me Dr. Marshall, but I’ll say it again just for fun:<br /><br />It does not matter how much miracle (or magical?) material is attached to a person’s life. Historians take that information into consideration, sure. But its presence, whether in great or small quantities, does NOTHING to cast doubt on that figures historicity. That call needs to be made using other criteria that Law talks about in his article as well. Of course, I don’t agree with most of what he says, but hopefully I’ll get around to typing out a response to it for JP Holding’s Ticker blog.<br /><br />“In Jesus and the Religions of Man, I describe five characteristics that distinguish "miracles" from "magic." I don't know if Keener does that (I've only read his second volume, so far): if he doesn't, it's a weakness, since there's so much confusion on the nature of miracle claims, which is also very historically relevant.”<br /><br />Keener does a pretty good job of separating “miracles” and “magic,” but I am enjoying reading your thought in the new posts.<br /><br />“But your overall point (not the dig against Dr. Law's general history, which is not required by your argument) is I think spot-on.”<br /><br />As to dig, all I can say is I, as a trained historian, don’t like people throwin’ the word “deluded” at other people just because the people they are throwing it at are following the extant historical evidence to the best, most reasonable conclusion: that Jesus was Resurrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-35831136325023353722012-09-08T06:37:21.189-07:002012-09-08T06:37:21.189-07:00Kilo: I delete vitriolic rants. Come back as a ra...Kilo: I delete vitriolic rants. Come back as a rational human being, or not at all. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com