Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.
2. The only people that could have a motive for making up his resurrection were the apostles, most of whom died rather horrible deaths rather than deny that resurrection. While I know that people will die for what they believe in, if the apostles knew that Christ was not risen, why did they die for what they knew to be a lie?
3. His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people. If it didn't happen, why don't we have record of objections to Paul's statements?
4. Jesus was a nobody who appeared on the scene for 3 years and was then killed as a criminal, just like thousands of others were killed by the Romans in the same manner. Yet within a few years of his death, a religion in his name based almost exclusively on his resurrection had spread throughout the Roman empire. What was different about this man to all those others who claimed to be the Messiah?
5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass. The Romans took challenges to their authority about as seriously as any group of people in history. Given that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ, if it wasn't true, why not just torture a few into denial of the fact and kill the movement in its tracks? Pliny the Younger re-counted doing just that a hundred years or so later and was astonished to see how many Christians went to their deaths rather than deny what they also knew to be true.

Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not.

[Mithrae]

Luke was written after Jerusalem's destruction (Luke 21:20) and Acts was written after Luke (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1). From the main solutions to the synoptic problem, an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew. Luke/Acts were written after Josephus' Jewish Wars, which was written c75-80CE (sources one and two). Acts was written around 80-130CE (source).

Yes it's true that "an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew." It is in fact the only reasonable conclusion. Gospel Luke contains material from both Gospels Mark and Matthew. Gospel Matthew contains virtually all of Gospel Mark, excluding the "late edition ending" and only a few other passages. This suggests in the strongest possible terms that Gospel Mark was written first, Gospel Matthew second and Gospel Luke third. Like it or not however, there is no support among "an overwhelming majority of scholars" for the claim that Acts was written contemporarily with Gospel Luke, although it IS true that "an overwhelming majority of scholars" believe that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual. Not only does Acts end with Paul still alive and Jerusalem still intact, Acts gives not the slightest hint that the author is aware of any of the other gospels at all. It makes no reference to and uses no language from, any of the other Gospels. If the author of Gospel Luke and Acts wrote them consecutively beginning with the Gospel, then for some unknown reason he purposely and very studiously wrote Acts in such a way as to leave no hint of his own Gospel in the document, nor the slightest hint of the existence of either of the two other synoptic Gospels. Why he should have striven so carefully and successfully to have achieved this result is a mystery? It's far more reasonable to conclude that the reason no hint of the other Gospels is to be found anywhere in Acts, is because THEY HAD YET TO BE WRITTEN.

• Acts1:1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I know it can sometimes be difficult to read and understand what another person has written. But for my part I've found the discussion enjoyable and informative, so I appreciate your attempts to understand my point. 'til next time I guess

[catalyst]

To Mithrae,

I know you are understanding. I did want to say though that my reply to you will be posted on Saturday our time at the latest. May be tomorrow (Friday) but that depends on how busy my day gets.

Cat..x

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I didn't so much 'bail' and simply not bother to respond. The meaning of the Christian message evokes a predictable torrent of reasons why it can't be true from folks like you, and I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ appeared today and healed your neighbor, you would reject him just as many rejected him 2,000 years ago. You put that down to reasonably skepticim. I put it down to something else, and you are welcome to your faith, just as I am welcome to mine.

When one disappears from a discussion one is doing poorly in, it does tend to leave the impression that the person is "bailing" out. If you felt that you were the one with the upper hand, I seriously doubt that you would have simply walked away as you did. I posted several follow-up messages to you, attempting to coax you into continuing, but to no avail. At the beginning of our discussion you wrote: "Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not." Then when I presented you with a very detailed list of reasons "why it is not," you suddenly decided that you would "simply not bother to respond." That, I am afraid, rather naturally serves as an admission of defeat on your part in anyone's estimation. If you wish to continue the discussion in the "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" string, I am still available. On the other hand, if you find that you are unable and unwilling to actually defend your beliefs, what exactly is your purpose here?

If you have anything to say in defense of your beliefs Starboard here is your chance and this is the place to do it. If defending your beliefs has suddenly become to much of a burden for you to "bother to respond," then again I ask, what exactly is your purpose here?

[catalyst]

Hi Mithrae,

Apologies for this taking so long, but given the info here, I had to edit it down a bit so (I hope) it would not come across as TLDR;. As it is, I condensed it down as much as possible. Also, just something. I notice you referenced Wiki. It is no secret that I personally don't find WIKI as a reliable source as I cannot be guaranteed that those citing it as a source of information, have actually taken time out to check the "references" in their entirety at the bottom of the link, for them to use it as a source in the first place. I wonder if you checked out all the reference sources provided for your wiki link on Nazareth for example to see if what they claimed on the WIKI page WAS reflected in the source material?

I personally do all my own research and it is extensive, hence I suppose it taking me so long to finish posts relating to not only this topic but also to others.

Anyway, I shall begin.



Mithrae wrote:

On the other hand, I still really don't see any reason to assume that p52 is from the original copy of John, and I don't think it's crucial to the question of the date of composition either. To my mind one of the more telling points on that score is the simple fact that the author of the appendix stated it was written by a disciple (21:24). Assuming that was an honest belief, whatever other value we assign or deny it it's clear that it would be increasingly untenable further into the second century - an alleged disciple would be 90 or so by the turn of the century.

When it comes down to it, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your position, Mithrae.
SHOW ME something prior to P52, if you claim some writings by a supposed apostle john, of "jesus of nazareth", existed prior.

The verse you seem to be hedging your bet on (J:21:24) on as to what's original and what is not, is unknown FROM the p52 rylands fragment. In fact that does not pop up until many a century AFTER, your proposed c.90CE (ish) date, and is found in a fragment P109, which dates to the mid to late third century CE (some biblical scholars push it down to "around" 200CE, but they never even try to navigate an earlier time), which BTW, is also subsequent to MY latter dating of the P52; being of the late 2nd century and early third.

Furthermore, all the P52 tells us is this:

This is the the english translation of:

RECTO: - "John" 18:31-33

for us
No one; that the w
signifying
die. Ent
P
sai
Jews

------

and


VERSO: - "John" 18:37-38

this (blank letter/space) .. have been born
world that I may bear
is of the truth
Says to him
And this
To the J
not any

------------


If push comes to shove Mithrae, it doesn't really tell us all too much does it, if anything at all, except of course, that it was in some way addressed to Jews, or related to Jews. There is no mention in that little snippet of Pilate, nor of "Jesus of Nazareth". We just have to suppose as much., given LATER christian apologetic claims and of course the biblical references, we see today to "back" these apologists. Interestingly, bible scholars these days are also checking into the viability of the words, seen in bibles across the world these days, to whether they would actually FIT onto the papryus, given the positioning of those legible words, on the papryus. Some are quite disturbed that they don't appear to.

As it stands, the p52 fragment is, in and of itself, no "proof" that "JOHN" wrote it, nor anything prior to it... period; nor "proof" of the biblical jesus character.

That is not to say though that there are scrolls from earlier times the writer of "john" yoinked. In fact it is clear that there is a heck of a lot of what is IN "john" in the DSS, so to me it is not surprising that those scrolls were used to invent the "jesus of nazareth" character and his alleged disciples.

mithrae wrote:

An argument from silence only goes so far

As opposed to the bellowing of many a christian apologist, centuries on, trying their damnest to squeeze the square peg, that is the "JON/JC" character, into a round hole? As it is clear that contemperous history of the time of his alleged lfe, bears no witness to ANYTHING about the man/god described in the bible.

The silence SHRIEKS that something ain't right about the whole story. Pliny the Elder for example was alive when all these people were supposedly trotting around spouting "the message" Jesus of Nazareth purportedly gave. Pliny the Elder was alive when the crucifixion and resurrection is claimed to have happened. Sure, he would have been around 7-10 years old at the time, but, frankly, word of raised dead wandering around the place in zombie like fashion is something, even in THIS day and age, would be worthy of mention, so one has to assume that the same would apply more so back then. Philo, same deal. NOTHING about "JON/JC", or anything to do with this characters alleged disciples, despite making OT references multiple times in his writings. Same goes for Seneca the Elder, who BTW would have been alive as an adult (like Philo), not only for the assumed crucifixion and resurrection, but also for the alleged virgin birth. He writes NOTHING about either. Seneca the Younger, born around 4BCE and dying around 69CE also mentions ZIP. Interesting too is, Pliny the Elder and Seneca the Younger, both refer briefly to the fire of Rome in july of 64CE (both were alive to witness the event), it seems that fired back then were not too much of an "event" as they seemed to happen every couple of years, but as it DID happen, they did mention it. Neither though mention the persecution of "JON/JC" following christians. They also both write of eclipses, but again, not once referencing anything to do with ANY christ model, let alone JC/JON. (supposedly, the sky darkened on his death.. which I have seen modern day apologists "claim" could be one of the eclipses Pliny/Seneca referred to) <--- which is just one example of apologists trying to "fit" mr square into the round, based on NOTHING.

Notice I mention those who would have been alive at the time Mithrae, and ALL OF THEM...SILENT.



mithrae wrote:

In the case of Paul, three possible reasons off the top of my head for his silence; he may have disagreed with Paul's theology and influence; he may have confined himself in his writings to the 'best' information from the Hebrew scriptures and Christian material directly regarding Jesus' life; or of course he may have known little or nothing about Paul at all.

If anything, Martyr seemed not backward in coming forward as to his disdain toward theology he personally did not agree with. His scathing commentary on Marcion is evidence of that. As such, I think you are clutching at straws regarding his silence on anything claimed to have been written by Paul.

Do you supposed trail-blazing evangelist Paul; travelling hither and yon; "setting up shop" with his "message" of "christ" in Galatia, Corinth, Phillipi, Rome, Ephesus...etc....then Greece... and Jerusalem and Caesarea, where he supposedly escapes the clutches of "murderous" Jews there, not only once, but three times? (acts 23-27), wasn't even a blip on Martyrs radar? (nor on contemperous historians of Paul's alleged lifetime radar)

On that score (albeit off-topic), it's worth noting that while he wrote some letters and Acts focuses on his activities, we really can't objectively say how influential Paul was in the early church compared to the likes of James, Peter, John, Apollos, Barnabas and so on. While I believe suggestions by a few fringe scholars that Marcion invented Paul are untenable, given Marcion's considerable influence in his day I think it's quite possible that he may have been responsible for greatly increasing recognition and integration of Paul and his ideas into what became the 'orthodox' stream of thought.

Again, as Martyr never mentions John, nor any of his alleged writings, that example has to be ruled out. Peter and Barnabas? They were part of the whole Paul "thing" so, how do you reckon Paul would have escaped Martyrs attention? As for James. You reckon Martyr ignored Pauls work, over the whole faith vs works "disagreement"? If as you claim that Martyr didn't care for Paul, then one would assume, he wold have referred to James, bit again ZIP. If you can perhaps elaborate if you want me to accept any of your notions as anywhere near valid, I would appreciate it. As it stands now, you aer clutching at straws.


As for Marcion. He certainly had the whole Pauline rhetoric down pat and hey, he even wrote a proto-gospel of Luke at some point too. I happen to go along with the supposed "fringe" scholars in their thought, in that Marcion was the writer of, at the very least, 10 of Paul's epistles. I do have evidence to support this case. Do you have any evidence to support any of your above assertions, or should I say.. shots in the dark?

mithrae wrote:

However in the case of the gospels, though Justin only (arguably) assigns a specific name to one of them, he uses them all in the form of both general information specifically referenced to the 'memoirs' of the apostles, and also direct quotation:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;� and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;� and gave it to them alone. ~ 1 Apology 66

I have to stop you there as it seems your have things wrong. You will see why below.


Mithrae wrote:

Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue with Trypho 106 (found only in Matthew 2:1)

I starting to wonder if you have read the entire dialogue at all Mithrae. You DO realise that Martyr didn't actually have any copies of "memoirs" in his hot little hand, don't you? He never saw any of the supposed "memoir" writings. It was all told to him when he was on a "meditative trek" into the wilderness, by some random bloke, whose name he didn't mention to Trypho. So, these 'memoirs" that Martyr was telling Trypho of, are I reckon are "purple monkey dishwasher" worthy. In fact, if you DO read the whole thing, the majority of it refers to Tanakh wrtings and OBVIOUS references to DSS material, BOTH which the NT owes a lot to, for if no other reason than to help create the "Jesus of Nazareth" character.


I am though for a little bit of fun, willing to continue with your "proof". OK, so the above is only shown in Matthew. What do you claim that proves? Given the fact that Martyr didn't have any "memoirs" in his hand but rather, was merely recalling what the nameless bloke had told him orally, which seems to "fit" with the whole recincarnation "vibe" of Zoroastrianism, or Mithrasism. You DO realise that the whole "star" and magi thing came from that, right? The claimed birth of "jesus of nazareth" is nothing more than the (claimed) reincarnation of Zarathustra when it gets down to brass tacks, with many a sprinkle of the Mitra story thrown in for good measure.

However, if you DO reckon that the "jesus of nazareth" nativity stuff has ZERO to do with that, and rather, it is an account of WITNESSES to the event, do you presume that Luke and Matthew were there to witness the birth?

BTW, rather than having to C&P your other comments relating to Martyr, again, given the above info, just how and WHEN do you reckon his purple monkey dishwasher account was compiled, to "show" them as being WRITTEN gospels as they are known NOW? Certainly not when Martyr was telling the story, that's for sure and certainly not when the Codex Sintucus was written, several centuries AFTER Martyr.

mithrae wrote:

From around 720BCE, give or take a couple of decades:
Isaiah 11:1 ----->*snip*

FIrst, I want to ask, where are you getting this 720BCE date from, Mithrae? What evidence do you have to support this notion, apart from some biblical scholars "think" it was/may have been written back then. There is no certainty to this claim and nothing even close to certainty of such dating. There IS however certainty that multiple copies were found with "The great Isaiah Scroll" and all of them dating from the second century BCE (120bce) to the turn of the Ist century BCE (100BCE). When saying copies, I am not suggesting that these were copies of "original" writings dating back to 700bce either; merely stating they are copies of the "great Isaiah scroll", dating a couple of decades prior to the copies of THAT written in 100BCE. If you study up on the DSS, you will see how much this makes sense. ALL of the biblical writings with the "messianic twist" to them, were found in the caves at Quaram. As for the nezer (sprount, branch) portion in Isaiah you pointd out, that was actually referenced in the thanksgiving psalms/hymns, which predate the "great isaiah scroll" by 50 odd years, given the evidentiary time frame I am working with.

Remember, originally biblical scholars thought that there was ONE writer of Isaiah and it was the record of this Isaiah fella himself. The more that has been learned through scholarship, (I did not say honest scholarship) the more nwe information comes to light, is that it was then presumed there were 2 authors of Isaiah and now, the more information that comes to light.. supposedly now THREE. There is much to Isaiah that could not have been written when YOU claim Isaiah was, as a lot of it relates to indicents that happened well over 150 years POST your "dating" of the work and the author was writing of the events in the first person.
It is so easy to reflect on things that may have happened in history and write about them much later Mithrae, unless of course you presume that Isaiah in 720BCE was giving off prophecy, not only as to some future "messianic" figure, but also about the babylonian conquest too?

Just letting you know too, Daniel was one thought to have been written around 600BCE but now as more information comes to light, also relating to the DSS, it is now known to have been written in the 160BCE's and any alleged "prophecy" as to "Jesus of Nazareth" in HIS writings is BOGUS as they relate purely to the events the writer of the book was living AT THE TIME. Again, this is just another work that has been skewed to try to "fit" "jesus of nazareth" into it.

mithrae wrote:

The term 'Messiah' may not have been applied until much later, but as far as I can see the most obvious interpretation of this is a reference to a sole messianic figure. The views of the community at Qumran were not the views of all Jews at the time (as is implied by the simple fact of their chosen isolationism), and of course even through the wider Jewish nation opinions no doubt would have varied. However even if Isaiah 11 is simply picking up again on Isaiah 9's hyperbole regarding the grand destiny of young Hezekiah, it's easy to see how passages like this sowed the seeds of the Messiah concept. Incidentally if Tired is reading this, I'd say it has considerable bearing on the question of whether Jewish messiah notions were largely derived from the Persians' Saoshyant or not.

Perhaps it may pay you to investigate further Mithrae. The term we know as Messiah was used elsewhere, long before it was introduced into Judaism. As I stated before, the "netzer": branch/sprout is also mentioned in the Manual of Discipline(4Q260-366), which represents COMMUNITY rule(as a whole), a community which had BRANCHED AWAY from traditional thought, but it did NOT prescribe to any sole messianic figure. This is also reflected in Thanksgiving Hymns/psalms written around the same time. It was never intended to, in its original meaning to refer to any SOLE "messiah", nor any messianic concept ...period.. It was not until the Hasmoneon period, when persecuted Pharisees joined the group that a "spin" of TWO Messiah's came into play:the preistly Aaronic and the Royal Davidic.(1QS 9-11). Perushim (Hebrew) is Pharisee (English) and quite literally means, the SEPARATE ONES. To boot, the Pharisees were PERSIAN of origin. As such, the messianic notions that interbred with Judasism, ARE clearly of Persian origin. As I stated earlier, at the time the Pharisees involved themselves with the Essenes, is when the Manual of Discipline was expanded upon and their messianic concept was added to the mix. If anything, modern day christians and even earlier christians have the Persians and their Zostoarian and Mitric "saviours" to thank for the christian "jesus christ" model.

Mithrae wrote:

The 'John the Baptist character of the NT' is also mentioned in some detail by Josephus, with minor variations against the Christian portrayal. In fact most scholars consider that Jesus being baptised by John was somewhat embarrassing to the early Christians, implying inferiority, so that gMatthew has John protest that he's not worthy to do it and gJohn omits the baptism entirely (albeit possibly for other reasons) and has John frequently testify how much greater Jesus is. I think you'd need a lot of contrary evidence to plausibly suggest that John the Baptist wasn't historical.

Actually, when it comes down to it, it is you who has to provide evidence to support the notion that "John the Baptist" DID actually live at the time "Jesus of Nazareth" was purported to have lived, if all you have are ONE historian POST the time making reference to him and scriptural references. Also as to Josephus, his writings mentioned "john the baptist" in MINOR detail, and scholars these days are questioning the authenticity of those few chapters about him in Josephus' writings. There are several reasons to believe the john the baptist references accredited to Josephus, are later interpolations and those are:

1. John the Baptist is not mentioned in the early greek version of Antiquities, but pops up in the later Latin version.

2. In Antiquities, the John the Baptist reference seems to be somewhat intrusive and interupts the flow of the text. It doesn't FIT in context at all, but without it, the preceeding paragraph and the one thereafter, fit seamlessly.


To show the point, here is paragraph 1 & 3 without the John The Baptist reference:

1. . . . . So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod’s army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas’s army.. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. . .

3. In the John the Baptist paragraph the author writes that the reason Herod’s army was defeated by Aretas was because God was punishing him for his unjust treatment of John. and it is as follows: (this is the paragraph that was popped in between the two referenced above):

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

That however flies in the face of what Josephus states elsewhere, just a few short chapters later. In Antiquities 18.7.2 Josephus writes: "And thus did God punish Herodias for her envy at her brother, and Herod also for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman."


4. Also, John is not mentioned in any way, shape or form in WARS, which seems strange considering the above paragraphs 1 and 3 are referenced there.

May I ask Mithrae, have you ever actually READ the references you cite (as in Josephus as per the above example but also Martyr and Tacitus et al) or do you just rely on snippets referring TO these writer you find on the net? With respect to you, all I see you doing with your argument is paraphasing (at best) fallicious arguement found dime a dozen at the many CA sites across the internet. That is hardly honest scholarship, Mithrae.


mithrae wrote:

'Yeshua' or 'Yehoshua' means 'the Lord is salvation' (source) and obviously was the name of Moses' successor, as well as several others in the Tanakh (a field-owner in 1 Samual 6:14, a city governor in 2 Kings 23:8, and the post-exilic high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak in Haggai/Zechariah). The Greek equivalent Jesus (source) is shared in the NT by Jesus Barabbas, the robber released by Pilate, and Paul's associate Jesus Justus (Colossians 4:11). I'm not sure where you've got your information, but again it'll take a lot of convincing to make your case that 'Yeshua' was not a name.

Ohh.. STRONGS CONCORDANCE is your source of clarification. *sigh* Yeah.. better check that out and see if the "stronger Strong's" has fixed that stuff up... I appreciate it is a work (stronger strongs) in progress and can take some time, but they ARE working on their errors. FTR, when I want to know exactly what a word i Hebrew means, I ask a Jew. (one of my best friends is a Jewess living in Tzfat, Israel and she and her husband are my "go to's" as to getting correct translation). As such,yes, I appreciate that Joshua was a Yeshua... Yeshua Ben Nun - a title and obviously so considering he was supposedly God's CHOSEN successor to Moses after all. You will note too, that Yeshu Ben Nun's original name was Hoseah. (see Numbers) High priests, also make sense as a TITLE given to those "of God". In 1 Samuel 6, the dude is a Joshua. 2 Kings, again, you have to look at the significance of the character. As to Barabbas, his name was NOT Jesus Barabbas. Even the completely far right and rigid apologists agree the "jesus" bit in it is, not an interpolation, but actually more like a TYPO left in, in later biblical translantions. It is not in the KJV1611 for example, nor is it present in the Codex Sinticus. As to Pauline writings... yes Paul mentions a RIVAL "saviour" that the writer calls "JESUS"....who is this RIVAL "saviour" also known as "Jesus"??

Just something Mithrae, if you don't reckon it IS a "title", then why aren't ALL the Joshua's referred to in the biblical writings, ALL just named JESUS if as you claim it IS a name and they all mean the SAME THING and it is merely nothing BUT a name givin at birth during those times? Why for example wasn't the Joshua in 1 Samuel changed to the greek Ioeusus, in the LXX if it were merely, just a name, rather than title? Riddle me that!!

mithrae wrote:

Zadokites were the descendants of David's priest Zadok. I've only checked a few websites regarding them, but none of them have mentioned a connection with Zoroastrianism. And if (just guessing here) they were to some extent the forerunners of the Saducees, then views such as denial of a resurrection would be decidedly non-Zoroastrian. Do you have a handy source for that?

I am fully aware that the Zadokites were descendants of Zadok, however, after the conquest of (or fall of) Babylon, much of the preisthood mindset changed due mainly by influence of the Persians. Hence the Zoroastrianistic "link" and influence of Zostoarism. It's hardly rocket science to work that out and frankly perhaps the sites you have been ""checking out" don't want to identify the glaringly obvious link. I know I have a link somewhere in my book marks which refer to this in some way. I will post it when I find it. (my daughter used me PC and I asked her to save it.... I just dont' know where she did) - so as it stands right now :TBA...

Even to give you a more modern day example of what happens when people with certain belief systems "take over"; invariably it is THEIR belief system near forced (and in many cases WAS forced) on the conquered, or more recently in history..the colonised. It is even happening in this day and age Mithrae. THAT is how religious thought spreads.


Mithrae wrote:

Interesting. The NT might also allude to this, with folk asking John the Baptist first whether he's the Messiah, then if he's the Prophet or Elijah. Ironically, while the Christian view of Jesus may not align with those earlier views, one of the common criticisms is that he can't have been Messiah because he didn't fit the [Davidic/royal] criteria; the dual perspectives on Messiahs is suggested as a Christian fiction.

It seems that the NT does more than allude to it, it copies it. Remember, the TR was back over 150 years prior to the jesus of nazareth character's supposed lifetime even "began". The TR's teachings were prior to ANY messianic thought popping into the equation in Judaism.Yeshua Ben Sira wrote the Psalms Scroll & The Book of Wisdom, around the same time of the TR and the onus was NOT on any sole Messiah or dual messiah's at all. The writings related to the COMMUNITY as a whole. They believed in the concept of eternal life. They believed that there was life after death and the resurrection of ALL not just ONE, and not because of ONE person's claimed "sacrifice" to allow it to happen.

That is the beauty of researching the DSS, Mithrae. It gives a far better understanding into what WAS back then, as opposed to what we have all been lead to BELIEVE happened back then. Even in the DSS writings of the 1st century CE, there is NO mention of this "jesus of nazareth" fellow, whom supposedly went around telling assorted different religious sects that their teachings were wrong and frankly they were not in any of their writings and some of them DO date into the 1st centiry CE. NOTHING about this "virgin birth", nothing about some sole person being offed and then ressurected for the "multitudes" sins. Surely if nothing else, THEY as a religious community would have written SOMETHING about this "rogue", going against their teachings, or even SWIPING their teacings, if he actually existed in reality.

What you don't seem to understand is that a vast majority of the DSS writings, from 170BCE through to before 1CE were swiped and used in the NT.
On another thread I showed just ONE example of this and it was in reference to the "Sermon on the Mount". What "jesus of nazareth" allegedly said was plageraised from the Book of Wisdom (again, written by Yeshua Ben Sira). So sure a "Jesus" DID "say" such things, actually WRITE such things, but it was NO Jesus of Nazareth saying them NOR writing them. This is just one of MANY examples of plageriasm from the DSS and it is also obvious in the writings of John. In fact, "gospel of john" writings take A LOT from the older DSS writings: "sons of dark and light" is from the Manual of Discipline

Mithrae wrote:

Non-biblical historical references to Nazareth in the 1st and 2nd centuries are few and far between - most notably, Josephus doesn't mention it amongst the 60-odd (from memory) Galilean towns he does name. It's not particularly weak as far as arguments from silence go, and at least demonstrates that Nazareth couldn't have been more than a small village in Jesus' day.

Frankly, it is odd that Josephus does not mention it at all, considering in his writings in LIFE, he lived in a little town only 1 mile away from where Nazareth is NOW located for some time in his life and at the very least, would have had to have passed through there from time to time. It also seems strange that he would not mention this place, IF it existed, as THE assumed "christ" allegedly grew up there... and WOW.... so CLOSE to where Josephus HIMSELF lived? It should be noted too that Josephus himself was at one time Govenor of galilee, and he also lived in Cana, a place where this "JON" allegedly did one of his "miracles"- (water to wine). Now even THAT one would stick in the memory banks in this day and age to be passed on to future generations.. but...NOPE... Josephus said nothing.

If you are one of those believing that the TF is authetically penned in its entirety by Josephus, then his neglecting to mention Nazareth as the place ths wonder worker grew up, makes no sense.

The similarity to netser/branch is worth noting of course, though it's not the only possible association. But as far as Jesus' connection with the term goes, again it's widely believed by scholars that Jesus' obscure Galilean origins were a little embarrassing to many early Christians. The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke place his birth in Bethlehem instead of Galilee, and John's characters question whether "anything good can come from Nazareth" or Galilee (1:46, 7:52). Like his baptism by John, this is one of the points where early Christian beliefs and the content of their writings is considered difficult to understand unless it had a basis in history.

As the writer of John obviously got a lot of his material from the Essenes, it is not unlikely that he would question the subtle differences between the teachings of Older DSS writings, as to the Nazerene "sect". If you take that into account, the original wording could well have been "can anything good come from a Nazarene", which BTW in the Hasmoneon Period, one Yeshua Ben Pandira WAS. (a Nazarene) - born a bastard child - had "disciples" (but only 5 - the 12 "thing" comes from Mithrathism), was hung on the eve of Passover, where Salome watched in tears as she into his "teachings"...etc etc etc... he even had "40 days" of "hell" prior to his tree death, as he was on public display for that period of time so as to see if anyone would speak up for him or stone him. (wow any of this sound familiar?) *shrug* Having read the NT, I personally see where elements from this dudes life have been "tweaked" to accomodate one assumed to have lived 100 odd years after this guy's REAL life experiences.

I have already made comments on the "vigrin birth" situation, so I don't see the need to go over that again down here.

But most tellingly, while the "Nazareth didn't exist" claim may have had some rather small merit in the past, it seems that archaeology has continued to find new things over the decades and among them are indications of settlement at Nazareth prior to the Jewish revolt. From a 2009 excavation:
Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE".

Yes, one of the first findings over the past decade or so was of TOMBS, which rules out any any concept of there having been residential inhabitence there. I also suggest you see what the official report of the IAA have to say on the matter before quoting the Foreign Affairs site as to conclusion, Mithrae.Ms Yardenna Alexandre got verbally smacked around for voicing such a conclusion, based on squat. Just saying, I am always amused at how these "christian" findings seem to pop up around 25th December. (in sweet-sickly voice - It's a xmas miracle!!!)


Mithrae wrote:

Concepts of 'son of man,' God's elect and an anointed are to be found in the much earlier books of Ezekiel and Daniel also, of course.

No as I stated before, Daniel was written around 160 BCE and no earlier. Ezekiel... ALSO a DSS work(4Q385).

Catalyst.

[Mithrae]

Hi Mithrae,

Apologies for this taking so long, but given the info here, I had to edit it down a bit so (I hope) it would not come across as TLDR;. As it is, I condensed it down as much as possible. Also, just something. I notice you referenced Wiki. It is no secret that I personally don't find WIKI as a reliable source as I cannot be guaranteed that those citing it as a source of information, have actually taken time out to check the "references" in their entirety at the bottom of the link, for them to use it as a source in the first place. I wonder if you checked out all the reference sources provided for your wiki link on Nazareth for example to see if what they claimed on the WIKI page WAS reflected in the source material?

No worries about the delay, though I confess I don't know what TLDR means I'm a big fan of Wikipedia as a source for general information and perspectives, and perhaps a point from which to investigate further. I agree that it has its failings and have on occasion pointed them out to those I've talked with, as I'd expect others to do when I use it as a source if its information is suspect. When push comes to shove of course, even published books often have major flaws and even moreso for websites - at least Wikipedia has some measure of control in the form of its guidelines and peer review. I figure that when I express a view which I don't consider particularly controversial or I'm too lazy at the time to further justify, a Wiki link for background info and perhaps supporting references is better than nothing. On that point I note that you've made quite a few claims in your post with no referencing whatsoever, which we all do at times of course; but when they're points more or less central to the discussion I'd say that even a Wiki link is better than mere assertion.

For example:

• Catalyst wrote: If you take that into account, the original wording could well have been "can anything good come from a Nazarene", which BTW in the Hasmoneon Period, one Yeshua Ben Pandira WAS. (a Nazarene) - born a bastard child - had "disciples" (but only 5 - the 12 "thing" comes from Mithrathism), was hung on the eve of Passover, where Salome watched in tears as she into his "teachings"...etc etc etc... he even had "40 days" of "hell" prior to his tree death, as he was on public display for that period of time so as to see if anyone would speak up for him or stone him. (wow any of this sound familiar?) *shrug* Having read the NT, I personally see where elements from this dudes life have been "tweaked" to accomodate one assumed to have lived 100 odd years after this guy's REAL life experiences.

Here you simply claimed that there was this fellow who lived in the Hasmonean period and all this stuff happened to him, without providing even the slightest basis for your claim. Of course, this 'person' is semi-famous - and only semi-famous, rather than #1 on the atheist argument list - because there are actual references to him, but they occur in the Talmud and were written a good half-century and more after the gospels were. In fact from memory the story you've given above is actually a mish-mash of multiple passages in the Talmud - one of these says that 'Yeshu was hanged on the eve of Passover' and mentions the 40 days prior in which (again from memory) heralds asked in Jerusalem if any would speak in his defence. Other passages talk about a son of Pandira, and still others are widely regarded as talking about a Yeshua/Jesus in Hasmonean times - and none of them mention anyone called Salome, from memory, nor the notion that the fellow was a 'nazarene.'

Of course if you're not talking about the Talmud passages and have a handy link for a single, pre-Christian source regarding the story above, I'd be only too happy to see it. Until then, your various comments about Wikipedia and "have you ever actually READ the references you cite" really only make me wonder why you cite so few references yourself! Whether you're right or wrong, attempting to belittle your discussion partner on the basis of referencing while failing to provide your own is neither good communication nor good debate.

-

On the other hand, I still really don't see any reason to assume that p52 is from the original copy of John, and I don't think it's crucial to the question of the date of composition either. To my mind one of the more telling points on that score is the simple fact that the author of the appendix stated it was written by a disciple (21:24). Assuming that was an honest belief, whatever other value we assign or deny it it's clear that it would be increasingly untenable further into the second century - an alleged disciple would be 90 or so by the turn of the century.

When it comes down to it, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your position, Mithrae. SHOW ME something prior to P52, if you claim some writings by a supposed apostle john, of "jesus of nazareth", existed prior.

Without checking back on our specific exchange, early in the thread I suggested gJohn as a source for 'reasonable' consideration regarding the alleged resurrection. You made the claim that p52 is from the original John, which you have not supported - since it's unsupportable, I've simply been assuming your tacit retraction of the claim, but do let me know if you stand by it and have evidence to support it. As far as John goes for a 'reasonable' source of Jesus information, I provided a link to my thread on the subject - feel free to post any genuine evidence either there or here if, contrary to the bulk of scholars, you want to argue that a 90s CE date for John is not even reasonable.

-

The silence SHRIEKS that something ain't right about the whole story. Pliny the Elder for example was alive when all these people were supposedly trotting around spouting "the message" Jesus of Nazareth purportedly gave. Pliny the Elder was alive when the crucifixion and resurrection is claimed to have happened. Sure, he would have been around 7-10 years old at the time, but, frankly, word of raised dead wandering around the place in zombie like fashion is something, even in THIS day and age, would be worthy of mention, so one has to assume that the same would apply more so back then. Philo, same deal. NOTHING about "JON/JC", or anything to do with this characters alleged disciples, despite making OT references multiple times in his writings. Same goes for Seneca the Elder, who BTW would have been alive as an adult (like Philo), not only for the assumed crucifixion and resurrection, but also for the alleged virgin birth. He writes NOTHING about either. Seneca the Younger, born around 4BCE and dying around 69CE also mentions ZIP. Interesting too is, Pliny the Elder and Seneca the Younger, both refer briefly to the fire of Rome in july of 64CE (both were alive to witness the event), it seems that fired back then were not too much of an "event" as they seemed to happen every couple of years, but as it DID happen, they did mention it. Neither though mention the persecution of "JON/JC" following christians. They also both write of eclipses, but again, not once referencing anything to do with ANY christ model, let alone JC/JON. (supposedly, the sky darkened on his death.. which I have seen modern day apologists "claim" could be one of the eclipses Pliny/Seneca referred to) <--- which is just one example of apologists trying to "fit" mr square into the round, based on NOTHING.

A semi-valid argument if Jesus could only possibly have been a miracle-worker with many thousands of followers in his life, who suddenly turned against him one Passover, but somehow re-gained thousands of followers in the year or two after his death. Most historians have considered the possibility that the gospels and Acts are somewhat embellished, exaggerated accounts.

However I'm always open to learning new things from well-read folk. I wonder, is there even a single known reference to Hillel the Elder, a huge figure in the development of Rabbinic Judaism who died around 10 CE, from within a century of his death? By Philo? Or Josephus, maybe? I'll happily talk further about whether arguments from silence can validly imply non-existence if you give me an answer to that problem.

-

In the case of Paul, three possible reasons off the top of my head for his silence; he may have disagreed with Paul's theology and influence; he may have confined himself in his writings to the 'best' information from the Hebrew scriptures and Christian material directly regarding Jesus' life; or of course he may have known little or nothing about Paul at all.

If anything, Martyr seemed not backward in coming forward as to his disdain toward theology he personally did not agree with. His scathing commentary on Marcion is evidence of that. As such, I think you are clutching at straws regarding his silence on anything claimed to have been written by Paul.

Do you supposed trail-blazing evangelist Paul; travelling hither and yon; "setting up shop" with his "message" of "christ" in Galatia, Corinth, Phillipi, Rome, Ephesus...etc....then Greece... and Jerusalem and Caesarea, where he supposedly escapes the clutches of "murderous" Jews there, not only once, but three times? (acts 23-27), wasn't even a blip on Martyrs radar? (nor on contemperous historians of Paul's alleged lifetime radar)

Marcion was a major figure of controversy in the mid-second century; why on earth should JM be timid in picking his side and expressing a view? But you've provided counter-argument to your own view by listing accomplishments of Paul. If he disagreed with the views of famous Paul, JM might risk alienating himself even from the anti-Marcion crowd. Though as I've pointed out, Paul's actual influence in the 1st century is known mostly from the fact that his letters and Acts (apparently written by one of his companions, contrary to your claim) constitute a large part of the NT.

In fact Marcion himself was probably responsible in no small part for that, since his canon consisted of Paul's letters and Luke. If Marcion had simply invented Paul out of thin air, we'd expect this to be a major charge made against him (by Justin Martyr along with others). The absence of such a charge suggests that they did not disagree with Marcion about Paul and his writings. In any case I gave three possibilities off the top of my head, and while I acknowledge that the third is somewhat weak you've hardly made a strong case that Justin Martyr had never heard of Paul, let alone that Marcion invented him. Again; arguments from silence are rarely compelling.

On that score (albeit off-topic), it's worth noting that while he wrote some letters and Acts focuses on his activities, we really can't objectively say how influential Paul was in the early church compared to the likes of James, Peter, John, Apollos, Barnabas and so on. While I believe suggestions by a few fringe scholars that Marcion invented Paul are untenable, given Marcion's considerable influence in his day I think it's quite possible that he may have been responsible for greatly increasing recognition and integration of Paul and his ideas into what became the 'orthodox' stream of thought.

Again, as Martyr never mentions John, nor any of his alleged writings, that example has to be ruled out. Peter and Barnabas? They were part of the whole Paul "thing" so, how do you reckon Paul would have escaped Martyrs attention? As for James. You reckon Martyr ignored Pauls work, over the whole faith vs works "disagreement"? If as you claim that Martyr didn't care for Paul, then one would assume, he wold have referred to James, bit again ZIP. If you can perhaps elaborate if you want me to accept any of your notions as anywhere near valid, I would appreciate it. As it stands now, you aer clutching at straws.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you now suggesting that John, Peter, Barnabas and James did not exist?

To refresh your memory, you claimed regarding Justin Martyr it "Certainly doesn't seem that" "he was actually a 'christian' in the name of 'Jesus of Nazareth' = 'Jesus Christ'." I don't care whether or not you accept the majority scholarship on this matter - as I said in my first reply, it's more or less a side topic. However I do feel obliged to point out that you've made a major claim there, and instead of backing up your claim you're accusing me of "clutching at straws" with notions which aren't "anywhere near valid." Again, not a very good debate tactic.

Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue with Trypho 106 (found only in Matthew 2:1)

I starting to wonder if you have read the entire dialogue at all Mithrae. You DO realise that Martyr didn't actually have any copies of "memoirs" in his hot little hand, don't you? He never saw any of the supposed "memoir" writings. It was all told to him when he was on a "meditative trek" into the wilderness, by some random bloke, whose name he didn't mention to Trypho. So, these 'memoirs" that Martyr was telling Trypho of, are I reckon are "purple monkey dishwasher" worthy. In fact, if you DO read the whole thing, the majority of it refers to Tanakh wrtings and OBVIOUS references to DSS material, BOTH which the NT owes a lot to, for if no other reason than to help create the "Jesus of Nazareth" character.

I am though for a little bit of fun, willing to continue with your "proof".

I haven't read the whole Dialogue with Trypho, and did not claim to have done so. You have claimed that Justin Martyr didn't have copies of these memoirs while he was writing, and have not provided a shred of evidence to support that view. You haven't even provided references for this meditative trek story, or even a single "OBVIOUS reference" to DSS material in Justin Martyr's work. Your patronising tone in such a context is, again, not a very strong form of debate.

OK, so the above is only shown in Matthew. What do you claim that proves? Given the fact that Martyr didn't have any "memoirs" in his hand but rather, was merely recalling what the nameless bloke had told him orally, which seems to "fit" with the whole recincarnation "vibe" of Zoroastrianism, or Mithrasism. You DO realise that the whole "star" and magi thing came from that, right? The claimed birth of "jesus of nazareth" is nothing more than the (claimed) reincarnation of Zarathustra when it gets down to brass tacks, with many a sprinkle of the Mitra story thrown in for good measure.

However, if you DO reckon that the "jesus of nazareth" nativity stuff has ZERO to do with that, and rather, it is an account of WITNESSES to the event, do you presume that Luke and Matthew were there to witness the birth?

BTW, rather than having to C&P your other comments relating to Martyr, again, given the above info, just how and WHEN do you reckon his purple monkey dishwasher account was compiled, to "show" them as being WRITTEN gospels as they are known NOW? Certainly not when Martyr was telling the story, that's for sure and certainly not when the Codex Sintucus was written, several centuries AFTER Martyr.

To refresh your memory, you claimed the following:

• catalyst wrote: Odd though how NONE of these gospels were known of by Martyr a mere 20 years earlier? . . . . One has to wonder, considering Martyr had no clue who John, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul were, if he was actually a "christian" in the name of "Jesus of Nazareth" = "Jesus Christ". Certainly doesn't seem that way, as in the oracles of the apostles he does cite, there is no mention of all the OTT stuff, this "jesus of nazareth" fella has been claimed to have done, and again, if all these miraculous things HAD been done, isn't it logical to assume these followers would have recorded all of THAT stuff?

For starters, if a star rising at Jesus' birth and leading magi to come and worship him is not over-the-top stuff, what is? From that alone, we see that your claim above is incorrect. Secondly, I provided referenced quotes from Justin Martyr which include material specific to each of the four gospels, and referenced by him as coming from the 'memoirs of the apostles' which he also called 'gospel' or 'good news.'

Your response was patronising and belittling, saying you're "starting to wonder" whether I'd read the whole work but "for a little bit of fun" being willing to continue with my 'proof.' However you did not even provide a reference for this meditative trek story you mentioned, let alone a shred of evidence for your claim that Justin Martyr "didn't actually have any copies of 'memoirs' in his hot little hand." The bit above about Zoroastrianism and eyewitness of Jesus' birth seems to be nothing more than an attempt to divert the topic. It is a fact, which I have shown with these little things called 'references,' that Justin Martyr attributed to 'memoirs of the apostles' various details which are specific to each of the four gospels including some direct quotes.

-

From around 720BCE, give or take a couple of decades:

• Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse,
  And a Branch [netser] shall grow out of his roots.
  2 The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him,
  The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
  The Spirit of counsel and might,
  The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
  3 His delight is in the fear of the LORD,
  And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes,
  Nor decide by the hearing of His ears;
  4 But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
  And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
  He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
  And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
  5 Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins,
  And faithfulness the belt of His waist.
  6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, etc etc

FIrst, I want to ask, where are you getting this 720BCE date from, Mithrae? What evidence do you have to support this notion, apart from some biblical scholars "think" it was/may have been written back then. There is no certainty to this claim and nothing even close to certainty of such dating. There IS however certainty that multiple copies were found with "The great Isaiah Scroll" and all of them dating from the second century BCE (120bce) to the turn of the Ist century BCE (100BCE). When saying copies, I am not suggesting that these were copies of "original" writings dating back to 700bce either; merely stating they are copies of the "great Isaiah scroll", dating a couple of decades prior to the copies of THAT written in 100BCE. If you study up on the DSS, you will see how much this makes sense. ALL of the biblical writings with the "messianic twist" to them, were found in the caves at Quaram. As for the nezer (sprount, branch) portion in Isaiah you pointd out, that was actually referenced in the thanksgiving psalms/hymns, which predate the "great isaiah scroll" by 50 odd years, given the evidentiary time frame I am working with.

Remember, originally biblical scholars thought that there was ONE writer of Isaiah and it was the record of this Isaiah fella himself. The more that has been learned through scholarship, (I did not say honest scholarship) the more nwe information comes to light, is that it was then presumed there were 2 authors of Isaiah and now, the more information that comes to light.. supposedly now THREE. There is much to Isaiah that could not have been written when YOU claim Isaiah was, as a lot of it relates to indicents that happened well over 150 years POST your "dating" of the work and the author was writing of the events in the first person.
It is so easy to reflect on things that may have happened in history and write about them much later Mithrae, unless of course you presume that Isaiah in 720BCE was giving off prophecy, not only as to some future "messianic" figure, but also about the babylonian conquest too?

Once again, to refresh your memory you made the claim that:

• It appears that the whole messianic concept within Judaism, as it is understood today, came to light around the end of the Maccabean period/ beginning of the Hasmoneon Period, so the 2nd century BCE.

I provided a reference to a messianic concept from long before then. In response you have said that parts of Isaiah must have been written 150-200 years later than 720 BCE. But regardless of whether Isaiah 11 is from the 8th century or the 6th, it still disproves your claim - the messianic concept was around long before the Maccabean era.

Just letting you know too, Daniel was one thought to have been written around 600BCE but now as more information comes to light, also relating to the DSS, it is now known to have been written in the 160BCE's and any alleged "prophecy" as to "Jesus of Nazareth" in HIS writings is BOGUS as they relate purely to the events the writer of the book was living AT THE TIME. Again, this is just another work that has been skewed to try to "fit" "jesus of nazareth" into it.

Off-topic again, but as luck would have it I started a thread about Daniel the day before you posted. I'd value your insight there.

The term 'Messiah' may not have been applied until much later, but as far as I can see the most obvious interpretation of this is a reference to a sole messianic figure. The views of the community at Qumran were not the views of all Jews at the time (as is implied by the simple fact of their chosen isolationism), and of course even through the wider Jewish nation opinions no doubt would have varied. However even if Isaiah 11 is simply picking up again on Isaiah 9's hyperbole regarding the grand destiny of young Hezekiah, it's easy to see how passages like this sowed the seeds of the Messiah concept. Incidentally if Tired is reading this, I'd say it has considerable bearing on the question of whether Jewish messiah notions were largely derived from the Persians' Saoshyant or not.

Perhaps it may pay you to investigate further Mithrae. The term we know as Messiah was used elsewhere, long before it was introduced into Judaism. As I stated before, the "netzer": branch/sprout is also mentioned in the Manual of Discipline(4Q260-366), which represents COMMUNITY rule(as a whole), a community which had BRANCHED AWAY from traditional thought, but it did NOT prescribe to any sole messianic figure. This is also reflected in Thanksgiving Hymns/psalms written around the same time. It was never intended to, in its original meaning to refer to any SOLE "messiah", nor any messianic concept ...period.. It was not until the Hasmoneon period, when persecuted Pharisees joined the group that a "spin" of TWO Messiah's came into play:the preistly Aaronic and the Royal Davidic.(1QS 9-11). Perushim (Hebrew) is Pharisee (English) and quite literally means, the SEPARATE ONES. To boot, the Pharisees were PERSIAN of origin. As such, the messianic notions that interbred with Judasism, ARE clearly of Persian origin. As I stated earlier, at the time the Pharisees involved themselves with the Essenes, is when the Manual of Discipline was expanded upon and their messianic concept was added to the mix. If anything, modern day christians and even earlier christians have the Persians and their Zostoarian and Mitric "saviours" to thank for the christian "jesus christ" model.

My comments, which you quoted, specifically made reference to the Persian concept of a 'Saoshyant' which I'd been discussing with Tired of the Nonsense. You replied that "it may pay you to investigate further," though you didn't actually add any information on that point. You provided no reference for your claim that "The term we know as Messiah was used elsewhere, long before it was introduced into Judaism." In fact, I had already previously in the thread posted all that I'd found regarding the Persian concept from before the time of Christ, with references and even links to the relevant Zoroastrian Yashts. And in this particular post which you quoted I pointed out that Isaiah 9 contains considerable hyperbole about expectations for the young prince Hezekiah, which would make a plausible basis for the concepts in ch11.

I commend your knowledge and referencing of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but besides that all you're giving me is condescension and unsupported claims. Just because the DSS contain these references to messianic concepts as you describe is not evidence that the concept didn't exist earlier, nor that it was derived from Persian culture - and certainly not that it was derived from Persian culture only in the 2nd century, rather than in the 6th and 5th centuries when the Jews in exile were initially exposed to the ideas! But even then, you've given no evidence that Isaiah 11 was written later than the 8th-century date which the text mentions.

-

The TR did NOT see, nor think of himself as a Messiah and in fact, quite the contrary. Interestingly too, many a serious scholar equate the "john the baptist" character of the NT, with the ToR - "'He who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' (1QH). If that IS the case, then it would be pretty impossible for him to be a contemporary of "Jesus of Nazareth" some 150 + years later, now wouldn't it.

The 'John the Baptist character of the NT' is also mentioned in some detail by Josephus, with minor variations against the Christian portrayal. In fact most scholars consider that Jesus being baptised by John was somewhat embarrassing to the early Christians, implying inferiority, so that gMatthew has John protest that he's not worthy to do it and gJohn omits the baptism entirely (albeit possibly for other reasons) and has John frequently testify how much greater Jesus is. I think you'd need a lot of contrary evidence to plausibly suggest that John the Baptist wasn't historical.

Actually, when it comes down to it, it is you who has to provide evidence to support the notion that "John the Baptist" DID actually live at the time "Jesus of Nazareth" was purported to have lived, if all you have are ONE historian POST the time making reference to him and scriptural references.

I did provide evidence. And while I'd be the last to say that a majority scholarship view is the last word in a discussion, if you're making claims which disagree with the generally held views you're really not providing a strong argument by essentially saying "Oh no, I don't have to prove anything, you do and measly things like information from historians of the period don't really count!"

1. John the Baptist is not mentioned in the early greek version of Antiquities, but pops up in the later Latin version.

Reference please.

3. In the John the Baptist paragraph the author writes that the reason Herod’s army was defeated by Aretas was because God was punishing him for his unjust treatment of John. and it is as follows: (this is the paragraph that was popped in between the two referenced above):

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

That however flies in the face of what Josephus states elsewhere, just a few short chapters later. In Antiquities 18.7.2 Josephus writes: "And thus did God punish Herodias for her envy at her brother, and Herod also for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman."

4. Also, John is not mentioned in any way, shape or form in WARS, which seems strange considering the above paragraphs 1 and 3 are referenced there.

May I ask Mithrae, have you ever actually READ the references you cite (as in Josephus as per the above example but also Martyr and Tacitus et al) or do you just rely on snippets referring TO these writer you find on the net? With respect to you, all I see you doing with your argument is paraphasing (at best) fallicious arguement found dime a dozen at the many CA sites across the internet. That is hardly honest scholarship, Mithrae.

In Antiquities book 18 chapter 7 Josephus describes how Herodias, out of envy for her brother Agrippa's success, urged her husband Herod to go to Caius seeking greater honours. Hearing of this, Agrippa also sent an envoy to Caius accusing Herod of plotting treachery. Caius believed Agrippa's accusations and deposed and exiled Herod - "And thus did God punish Herodias for her envy at her brother, and Herod also for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman."

As you've quoted, a couple of chapters earlier Josephus describes Herod's conflict with Aretas and the destruction of Herod's army; he also mentions that many Jews believed this to be God's punishment for the execution of John the Baptist. You are very obviously incorrect in associating chapter 7 with chapter 5 - yet you're the one asking if I've read it? It's so ironic as to almost beggar belief



It's getting late, so I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks for the response

[Starboard Tack]

I didn't so much 'bail' and simply not bother to respond. The meaning of the Christian message evokes a predictable torrent of reasons why it can't be true from folks like you, and I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ appeared today and healed your neighbor, you would reject him just as many rejected him 2,000 years ago. You put that down to reasonably skepticim. I put it down to something else, and you are welcome to your faith, just as I am welcome to mine.

When one disappears from a discussion one is doing poorly in, it does tend to leave the impression that the person is "bailing" out. If you felt that you were the one with the upper hand, I seriously doubt that you would have simply walked away as you did. I posted several follow-up messages to you, attempting to coax you into continuing, but to no avail. At the beginning of our discussion you wrote: "Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not." Then when I presented you with a very detailed list of reasons "why it is not," you suddenly decided that you would "simply not bother to respond." That, I am afraid, rather naturally serves as an admission of defeat on your part in anyone's estimation. If you wish to continue the discussion in the "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" string, I am still available. On the other hand, if you find that you are unable and unwilling to actually defend your beliefs, what exactly is your purpose here?

If you have anything to say in defense of your beliefs Starboard here is your chance and this is the place to do it. If defending your beliefs has suddenly become to much of a burden for you to "bother to respond," then again I ask, what exactly is your purpose here?

To learn if there are any coherent arguments to be made by atheists, so I can better understand their position and compare it to my own. The pursuit of truth would be the purpose. When what I read is the same old same old, the exercise becomes tedious, and I would frankly rather gouge my eye out with a clam knife than spend time rebutting the same arguments over and over again. As I said, you have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. Mine, I think, are based on a reasonable interpretation of science, history and logic. You feel the same with yours, and as I am very familiar with your beliefs, I'm not learning much from you, and I know you aren't going to learn much from me, what with my belief in "flying corpses" and all. So, Cheers!

[McCulloch]

I didn't so much 'bail' and simply not bother to respond. The meaning of the Christian message evokes a predictable torrent of reasons why it can't be true from folks like you, and I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ appeared today and healed your neighbor, you would reject him just as many rejected him 2,000 years ago. You put that down to reasonably skepticism. I put it down to something else, and you are welcome to your faith, just as I am welcome to mine.

You are welcome to your speculations.

To learn if there are any coherent arguments to be made by atheists, so I can better understand their position and compare it to my own.

This is an admirable goal, a reflection of the reason why I am here.

When what I read is the same old same old, the exercise becomes tedious, and I would frankly rather gouge my eye out with a clam knife than spend time rebutting the same arguments over and over again.

I certainly hope that this is hyperbole. However, it seems as if both sides do have a long list of re-used and reusable arguments. In keeping with Jesus' message about do unto others, I expect that Starboard Tack will not bring up any Christian apologetic arguments that have already been refuted. Or book an appointment with your optometrist and a clam knife.

As I said, you have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. Mine, I think, are based on a reasonable interpretation of science, history and logic.

On this we disagree. But since you claim that your beliefs are based on reason, science, logic and the historical method, you should be able to present and defend your reasons in debate. Right?

[Starboard Tack]

I didn't so much 'bail' and simply not bother to respond. The meaning of the Christian message evokes a predictable torrent of reasons why it can't be true from folks like you, and I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ appeared today and healed your neighbor, you would reject him just as many rejected him 2,000 years ago. You put that down to reasonably skepticism. I put it down to something else, and you are welcome to your faith, just as I am welcome to mine.

You are welcome to your speculations.

To learn if there are any coherent arguments to be made by atheists, so I can better understand their position and compare it to my own.

This is an admirable goal, a reflection of the reason why I am here.

When what I read is the same old same old, the exercise becomes tedious, and I would frankly rather gouge my eye out with a clam knife than spend time rebutting the same arguments over and over again.

I certainly hope that this is hyperbole. However, it seems as if both sides do have a long list of re-used and reusable arguments. In keeping with Jesus' message about do unto others, I expect that Starboard Tack will not bring up any Christian apologetic arguments that have already been refuted. Or book an appointment with your optometrist and a clam knife.

As I said, you have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. Mine, I think, are based on a reasonable interpretation of science, history and logic.

On this we disagree. But since you claim that your beliefs are based on reason, science, logic and the historical method, you should be able to present and defend your reasons in debate. Right?

Sure, quite a reasonable request. So let's recap:

1. Time, space, matter and energy popped into existence 13.73 billion years ago. From wherever it came, it came from outside of the space time that didn't exist until the singularity, therefore supernatural causation is demonstrated.

Same old same old rebuttal: The unmeasurable multiverse; novel theories about the lack of causality for whatever comes into existence; objections to the word 'supernatural.'

2. Since supernatural causation is demonstrated, the causal agent can only be a natural, unthinking, unguided process or an entity that is thinking and purposeful. Since the universe displays overwhelming design features essential for life, a designer not a natural process is indicated.

Same old same old rebuttal: The multiverse; novel theories of statistics that posit that whatever is, must be; the observations and measurements of fine tuned design are false; life as we don't know it can exist inside of stars, or black holes, etc. so there is nothing unusual about life as we do know it.

3. The Hebrew Bible is the only religious text that describes creation ex nihilo and is therefore the only such text that accurately describes what is observed. Sufficient other examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate it as inspired by some force imparting knowledge outside what could be known at the time of the writing, therefore the Bible is probably a reliable text in describing the supernatural reality required by the circumstances of creation.

Same old same old rebuttal: There's no such thing as creation ex nihilo, the Hebrews were copying somebody else's writing; the words don't mean what they appear to mean; the authors were ignorant sheepherders; the Catholic church made it all up.

4. The origin of life is completely inexplicable. It cannot have happened on primordial earth because the chemistry is impossible under the conditions that were available. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the same supernatural intellect that brought space time into existence brought life into existence. One singularity to bring the inanimate into existence then another singularity to bring the animate into existence begins to require an agent the operates purposefully outside the laws of physics to account for the singularities

Same old same old rebuttal: You're using the God in the gaps argument and we'll figure it out later; we already have figured it out; yes, it's impossible on early earth which is why is happened on Mars, or Europa, or Titan or a gas cloud. Or maybe aliens done it.

5. Jesus Christ lived, claimed to be God, performed miracles, was crucified and was resurrected, all in front of witnesses. Jesus Christ is who he says he is.

Same old same old rebuttal: The Catholic church made it all up; the witnesses were lying; the apostles didn't die defending their assertion of Christ's resurrection; the gospels were written by Constantine; the resurrection story is just recycled Egyptian mythology; you're a fool for believing in flying corpses.

6. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Intelligence exists. Therefore, a greater intelligence is required to explain what is observed.

Same old same old rebuttal: The effect can be greater than the cause; nothing can create something, intelligence is simply the outworking of unguided processes, a.k.a. the effect can be greater than the cause.

7. Information is contained chemically in the universal genetic code. The error trapping capabilities of the code and the amount of information it contains for even the simplest life could not have come into existence through random processes under any possible time frame available, therefore an intelligence created that code.

Same old same old rebuttal: Biologists all believe in evolution, therefore you are wrong; DNA exists therefore it must have a natural explanation; provide 12 peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the odds calculations against natural formation of code can't happen, etc.

8. Evolution has theoretical explanations for how major changes in living entities comes about, but no empirical data proving the theory. The Cambrian explosion is unexplained, the origin of life is unexplained, no known evolutionary change creating novel new living entities has been observed but only implied from skeletal evidence, mass radiation events are unexplained. Therefore a guiding hand must have created the diversity of life over time since the naturalistic explanation fails.

Same old same old rebuttal: The fossil evidence is definitive; stasis without change is explainable; rapid change is explainable by the same process; all those biologists can't be wrong; slow breeding whales evolve because they sexually reproduce, daddy long legs don't evolve even though they sexually reproduce but in both cases evolution is responsible, etc. etc. Oh yes, and you believe in flying corpses so what do you know.

My summary of the rebuttals is probably crude, but if I have missed any or not acknowledged better challenges, let me know.

[McCulloch]

So let's recap:

1. Time, space, matter and energy popped into existence 13.73 billion years ago. From wherever it came, it came from outside of the space time that didn't exist until the singularity, therefore supernatural causation is demonstrated.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The unmeasurable multiverse; novel theories about the lack of causality for whatever comes into existence; objections to the word 'supernatural.'
   
   [font=Georgia]The way you word it, it makes it sound as if there was a time before time, space, matter and energy came into existence. Think about the problem. A time before there was time. How can that be? It should be tautological, there was no time when there was not time. The universe did not pop into existence 13.73 billion years ago. The universe has existed for all time. Just there was no time before 13.71 billion years ago. Where did time come from? Where did space come from? I really don't know. Neither do you. [/font]
2. Since supernatural causation is demonstrated, the causal agent can only be a natural, unthinking, unguided process or an entity that is thinking and purposeful. Since the universe displays overwhelming design features essential for life, a designer not a natural process is indicated.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The multiverse; novel theories of statistics that posit that whatever is, must be; the observations and measurements of fine tuned design are false; life as we don't know it can exist inside of stars, or black holes, etc. so there is nothing unusual about life as we do know it.
   
   [font=Georgia]If the universe displays overwhelming design features indicating that it was deliberately designed for life, then there would be a whole lot more life in it. For example, if I were to tell you that I had designed a farm the size of Australia with the express purpose of growing yeast, and in three thousand years, it managed to produce 1.2 grams of yeast, you would not conclude that my design was that amazing. Life adapted to one small place in the universe, not the other way around. [/font]
3. The Hebrew Bible is the only religious text that describes creation ex nihilo and is therefore the only such text that accurately describes what is observed. Sufficient other examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate it as inspired by some force imparting knowledge outside what could be known at the time of the writing, therefore the Bible is probably a reliable text in describing the supernatural reality required by the circumstances of creation.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: There's no such thing as creation ex nihilo, the Hebrews were copying somebody else's writing; the words don't mean what they appear to mean; the authors were ignorant sheepherders; the Catholic church made it all up.
   
   [font=Georgia]The Hebrew Bible is somewhat ambiguous about creation ex nihilo. Before God said, "Let there be light" there was chaos and water. Nothing is said about where those came from. The text of Genesis is quite inaccurate about the progression of creation.
   
   The examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate nothing. They do not demonstrate any knowledge outside of what could have been known or guessed at the time. [/font]
4. The origin of life is completely inexplicable. It cannot have happened on primordial earth because the chemistry is impossible under the conditions that were available. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the same supernatural intellect that brought space time into existence brought life into existence. One singularity to bring the inanimate into existence then another singularity to bring the animate into existence begins to require an agent the operates purposefully outside the laws of physics to account for the singularities
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: You're using the God in the gaps argument and we'll figure it out later; we already have figured it out; yes, it's impossible on early earth which is why is happened on Mars, or Europa, or Titan or a gas cloud. Or maybe aliens done it.
   
   [font=Georgia]You are right, we don't know everything. The origin of life is a rare event, but since it did happen, it is not impossible. We just have not figured it out yet. Heck, I haven't figured out why the electron emission in the absence of light increase as the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased. Or how axons branching out from neurons find their targets. This process is crucial to nervous system development, allowing the building up of the brain. It must be supernatural! [/font]
5. Jesus Christ lived, claimed to be God, performed miracles, was crucified and was resurrected, all in front of witnesses. Jesus Christ is who he says he is.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The Catholic church made it all up; the witnesses were lying; the apostles didn't die defending their assertion of Christ's resurrection; the gospels were written by Constantine; the resurrection story is just recycled Egyptian mythology; you're a fool for believing in flying corpses.
   
   [font=Georgia]The man Jesus probably lived and was put to death, and had a small group of zealous followers by the middle of the century. The rest is hearsay written by late first century promoters of a new religion, uncorroborated by any contemporary sources. [/font]
6. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Intelligence exists. Therefore, a greater intelligence is required to explain what is observed.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The effect can be greater than the cause; nothing can create something, intelligence is simply the outworking of unguided processes, a.k.a. the effect can be greater than the cause.
   
   [font=Georgia]Yes, the effect can have greater complexity than the cause. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Please refute this rather than dismiss it as the same old rebuttal. [/font]
7. Information is contained chemically in the universal genetic code. The error trapping capabilities of the code and the amount of information it contains for even the simplest life could not have come into existence through random processes under any possible time frame available, therefore an intelligence created that code.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: Biologists all believe in evolution, therefore you are wrong; DNA exists therefore it must have a natural explanation; provide 12 peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the odds calculations against natural formation of code can't happen, etc.
   
   [font=Georgia]See item (3). [/font]
8. Evolution has theoretical explanations for how major changes in living entities comes about, but no empirical data proving the theory. The Cambrian explosion is unexplained, the origin of life is unexplained, no known evolutionary change creating novel new living entities has been observed but only implied from skeletal evidence, mass radiation events are unexplained. Therefore a guiding hand must have created the diversity of life over time since the naturalistic explanation fails.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The fossil evidence is definitive; stasis without change is explainable; rapid change is explainable by the same process; all those biologists can't be wrong; slow breeding whales evolve because they sexually reproduce, daddy long legs don't evolve even though they sexually reproduce but in both cases evolution is responsible, etc. etc. Oh yes, and you believe in flying corpses so what do you know.
   
   [font=Georgia]Creationism does a worse job of explaining the fossil record than evolution. See item (3). [/font]

In no place have I made any reference to the unfounded and unsupported Christian belief that the eternal God became a human, was put to death, rose from the grave and ascended bodily into the clouds.

[Starboard Tack]

So let's recap:

1. Time, space, matter and energy popped into existence 13.73 billion years ago. From wherever it came, it came from outside of the space time that didn't exist until the singularity, therefore supernatural causation is demonstrated.
   
   Same old same old rebuttal: The unmeasurable multiverse; novel theories about the lack of causality for whatever comes into existence; objections to the word 'supernatural.'
   
   [font=Georgia]The way you word it, it makes it sound as if there was a time before time, space, matter and energy came into existence. Think about the problem. A time before there was time. How can that be? It should be tautological, there was no time when there was not time. The universe did not pop into existence 13.73 billion years ago. The universe has existed for all time. Just there was no time before 13.71 billion years ago. Where did time come from? Where did space come from? I really don't know. Neither do you. [/font]

The universe has not "existed for all time." That is a statement that flies directly in the face of virtually all current understanding of cosmology as well as what you seem to be saying about time itself. I'm not sure what theory you are advancing here, but it sounds like you are saying that space existed, but time did not and space came into being when time came into being?? And yes, I do know where space time came from. It came from outside space time. The cause of its coming into being is a matter of logic and reason, as explained below. Perhaps consult Alex Vilenkin's book "Many Worlds in One" where he states:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. "

[*]Since supernatural causation is demonstrated, the causal agent can only be a natural, unthinking, unguided process or an entity that is thinking and purposeful. Since the universe displays overwhelming design features essential for life, a designer not a natural process is indicated.

Same old same old rebuttal: The multiverse; novel theories of statistics that posit that whatever is, must be; the observations and measurements of fine tuned design are false; life as we don't know it can exist inside of stars, or black holes, etc. so there is nothing unusual about life as we do know it.

[font=Georgia]If the universe displays overwhelming design features indicating that it was deliberately designed for life, then there would be a whole lot more life in it. For example, if I were to tell you that I had designed a farm the size of Australia with the express purpose of growing yeast, and in three thousand years, it managed to produce 1.2 grams of yeast, you would not conclude that my design was that amazing. Life adapted to one small place in the universe, not the other way around. [/font]

You make an assertion without evidence or support. Who says the universe should have more life in it? You? And your proof would be? You further state that "life adapted to one small place in the universe". Again, says who? And when you say "adapted" do you mean as in "comes into existence?" That is the first problem you have to solve before making unsupported statements about the ubiquity of life. Where did this life come from? Incidentally, the argument that the universe could not be created by God in order to create humanity on earth since there is way too much useless stuff out there has been thoroughly refuted by our understanding of cosmic expansion. In order to have just one earth anywhere in the universe, you have to have exactly, precisely all that stuff out there, given the laws of physics we observe. So yes, if the laws of physics required you to have a farm the size of Australia to grow 1.2 grams of yeast, I guess you'd have to have a farm the size of Australia if you wanted any yeast at all.

[*]The Hebrew Bible is the only religious text that describes creation ex nihilo and is therefore the only such text that accurately describes what is observed. Sufficient other examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate it as inspired by some force imparting knowledge outside what could be known at the time of the writing, therefore the Bible is probably a reliable text in describing the supernatural reality required by the circumstances of creation.

Same old same old rebuttal: There's no such thing as creation ex nihilo, the Hebrews were copying somebody else's writing; the words don't mean what they appear to mean; the authors were ignorant sheepherders; the Catholic church made it all up.

[font=Georgia]The Hebrew Bible is somewhat ambiguous about creation ex nihilo. Before God said, "Let there be light" there was chaos and water. Nothing is said about where those came from. The text of Genesis is quite inaccurate about the progression of creation.

Relying only on Genesis, Nahmanides was not confused about creation ex nihilo. The text clearly states that there was a beginning of the 'heavens and earth.' Things that have a beginning have not existed before, therefore creation ex nihilo, since without space time, you have, well, nihilo.

The examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate nothing. They do not demonstrate any knowledge outside of what could have been known or guessed at the time. [/font]

A statement easily refuted, and generally made without the benefit of knowledge of Scripture. Explain the identification of Cyrus as the future ruler of Persia 150 years before he was born. Explain the prophecies relating to the birth of Jesus Christ made centuries before he was born.

[*]The origin of life is completely inexplicable. It cannot have happened on primordial earth because the chemistry is impossible under the conditions that were available. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the same supernatural intellect that brought space time into existence brought life into existence. One singularity to bring the inanimate into existence then another singularity to bring the animate into existence begins to require an agent the operates purposefully outside the laws of physics to account for the singularities

Same old same old rebuttal: You're using the God in the gaps argument and we'll figure it out later; we already have figured it out; yes, it's impossible on early earth which is why is happened on Mars, or Europa, or Titan or a gas cloud. Or maybe aliens done it.

[font=Georgia]You are right, we don't know everything. The origin of life is a rare event, but since it did happen, it is not impossible. We just have not figured it out yet. Heck, I haven't figured out why the electron emission in the absence of light increase as the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased. Or how axons branching out from neurons find their targets. This process is crucial to nervous system development, allowing the building up of the brain. It must be supernatural! [/font]

Yes, the "science in the gaps" argument that we just haven't figured it out yet is a common rebuttal. Your examples are legitimate scientific questions, but you are presenting them in an apples to oranges comparison. Our understanding of how axons branch and find their targets is an area of inquiry where we are getting closer to the answer, therefore a naturalistic explanation would be presumed http://mr.caltech.edu/press_releases/11914 . With origins of life research, more research isn't getting us closer to an answer, it is getting us farther away from a workable theory, therefore a naturalistic explanation is likely excluded. Big difference. The more we learn about primordial chemistry, the more we know life could never have developed, which is why there is such enthusiasm for panspermia - the researchers know a terrestrial source for life isn't in the cards. Which I would agree with, by the way. Just not the extraterrestrial source the naturalist prefers....

[*]Jesus Christ lived, claimed to be God, performed miracles, was crucified and was resurrected, all in front of witnesses. Jesus Christ is who he says he is.

Same old same old rebuttal: The Catholic church made it all up; the witnesses were lying; the apostles didn't die defending their assertion of Christ's resurrection; the gospels were written by Constantine; the resurrection story is just recycled Egyptian mythology; you're a fool for believing in flying corpses.

[font=Georgia]The man Jesus probably lived and was put to death, and had a small group of zealous followers by the middle of the century. The rest is hearsay written by late first century promoters of a new religion, uncorroborated by any contemporary sources. [/font]

There are 9 extant copies of Josephus' The Jewish War, which is accepted as fairly accurate; 30 extant copies of Plato's writings which are accepted as accurate portrayals of his thought, 650 extant copies of Homer's Iliad which are considered authentic, and 24,000 extant copies of the Gospels, which you reject. That rejection is a philosophical preference, and no more. The spread of Christianity is inexplicable if the way folks like you describe the Gospel story is accurate.

[*]The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Intelligence exists. Therefore, a greater intelligence is required to explain what is observed.

Same old same old rebuttal: The effect can be greater than the cause; nothing can create something, intelligence is simply the outworking of unguided processes, a.k.a. the effect can be greater than the cause.

[font=Georgia]Yes, the effect can have greater complexity than the cause. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Please refute this rather than dismiss it as the same old rebuttal. [/font]

An increase in complexity requires an input of energy where the sum of the inputs must be at a minimum at least equal to the effect. However, there is always some bleed of energy from every system which is why the effect is never equal to the cause, much less greater than the cause. This is basic thermodynamics. No more refutation is required than that, unless you feel that thermodynamics need to be further proven.

[*]Information is contained chemically in the universal genetic code. The error trapping capabilities of the code and the amount of information it contains for even the simplest life could not have come into existence through random processes under any possible time frame available, therefore an intelligence created that code.

Same old same old rebuttal: Biologists all believe in evolution, therefore you are wrong; DNA exists therefore it must have a natural explanation; provide 12 peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the odds calculations against natural formation of code can't happen, etc.

[font=Georgia]See item (3). [/font]

Same response. Science in the gaps doesn't cut it. Where a naturalistic explanation is receding in probability, demanding same is no longer science but religion by another name.

[*]Evolution has theoretical explanations for how major changes in living entities comes about, but no empirical data proving the theory. The Cambrian explosion is unexplained, the origin of life is unexplained, no known evolutionary change creating novel new living entities has been observed but only implied from skeletal evidence, mass radiation events are unexplained. Therefore a guiding hand must have created the diversity of life over time since the naturalistic explanation fails.

Same old same old rebuttal: The fossil evidence is definitive; stasis without change is explainable; rapid change is explainable by the same process; all those biologists can't be wrong; slow breeding whales evolve because they sexually reproduce, daddy long legs don't evolve even though they sexually reproduce but in both cases evolution is responsible, etc. etc. Oh yes, and you believe in flying corpses so what do you know.

[font=Georgia]Creationism does a worse job of explaining the fossil record than evolution. See item (3). [/font][/list]

Incorrect. Creationism predicts that first life will be complex, evolution says it will be simple. First life is complex - edge creationism. Evolution predicts that change will happen step wise in response to increased selective pressure, creationism predicts new creatures will appear suddenly, which is what is observed - edge creationism. Evolution predicts that the appearance of life should only happen once because it is a "happy accident". Creationism predicts that God will re-create life many times in response to extinction events, which is what the record shows - edge creationism. Evolution predicts that homo sapiens sapiens should be the product of transitional species changing over time. Creationism predicts that modern humans would appear in a very small population suddenly without fossil analogs, which is what is found - edge creationism.

In no place have I made any reference to the unfounded and unsupported Christian belief that the eternal God became a human, was put to death, rose from the grave and ascended bodily into the clouds.

I don't believe I said you did, so I'm not sure what your point is here.