From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Subject: Re: News: Persecution / Human Rights
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 21:04:12 GMT

I wrote:
>> How do you decide that Josephus is a reliable witness and Matthew
>> is not? Do you think that what Matthew describes in in character
>> with Josephus' depiction of Herod?

On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 14:17:26 +1300, Tigger <>
wrote:
>Because Josephus is a respected and accurate historian, and Matthew
>had a religious wagon to push. Matthew had a reason to lie, Josephus
>did not. I think that what Matthew described is probably in character,
>which is why it was accepted. But the fact that Josephus didn't
>mention it means that either it didn't happen (to any rational
>person), or that it did but Josephus just somehow managed to neglect
>this greatest of tragedies (to people who desperately cling to their
>dogma).

Jospehus had a political barrow to push. None of us is without
bias or influence. I do not know of any published Josephus
scholars who make the claim that Josephus wrote about every
single atrocity of Herod, and that therefore if Josephus didn't
mention it, it didn't happen. Can you point me towards some
references on this matter?

>Okay, assuming I accept your sources (I might look into this further),
>what does it mean that Matthew was right? Sweet FA, really. Proving
>individual pieces of the bible are right still doesn't prove the
>whole. Even if Matthew is right about this, he has been wrong about
>other things. I have a list on my web page, which includes:
>     Isaiah's Immanuel is not about Jesus 
>     The authors of Matthew and Luke's geneaologies don't match
>     Out of Egypt is not a prophecy
>     Rachel weeping was not for the slaughter of the innocents
>     He will be called a Nazorean is not in the Bible
>     Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus
>     Healing on the sabbath incident
>     Jesus riding a donkey is not in the Old Testament 
>     Judas' betrayal money not in the Old Testament 
>     Soldiers gambling for Jesus' clothes not in the Old Testament 

If you attended one of my bible classes you would hear me on all
of these subjects. I have not had time to look them up on your
website, but I suspect that I would not disagree with much in
them. It is likely, however, that some of them fall into the same
unfortunate mistake that fundamentalist Christians often make. As
I mentioned earlier in our discussion, the authors of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Isaiah 52, psalm 22 etc) almost certainly did not
have Jesus in miond when they wrote their prophecies - but the
early Christians believed that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies,
and wrote their accounts of his life, teaching, death and
ressurection accordingly. 

>Even if every one of those is explained, there's hundreds more
>problems with the Bible. And only one problem is required to prove it
>is not of divine origins.

The universe is of divine origin, but it has many problems.

>Of course, you don't necessarily believe that it is, and think that it
>is fallible man's interpretations, so there is plenty of room for
>error in your own interpretations of it. I generally prefer to debate
>those that consider there to be no errors in it, as it's so easy.

So do I, for the same reason. 

>> I can tell you many parts of the Bible that are false. I can also
>> tell you many parts that are true. The veracity or otherwise of a
>> book about God neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.
>
>Soooo.... if you accepted that the entire bible is false, you would
>still believe in God? Would he still be the god described in the
>Bible?


But the entire Bible is not false.
Can you prove that it is?


>> >Besides, don't do the shuffle. As above, the point is, you claimed that
>> >the strength of people's belief is in some way evidence for the
>> >truthfulness of that belief. Why do people believe so strongly in Islam?
>> >Is it right?
>> 
>> Why don't you answer my question. Can you define a "non- whacko"
>> religion, or is "whacko religion" a tautology?
>
>DSS. Haven't used that in a while. The use of the term whacko is
>irrelevent to the discussion. As above, the discussion is whether the
>strength of people's belief validates the belief. Does it, or not?
>Since you used that argument.

You introduced the term "whacko religion" into the discussion. If
it is irrelevant, I wonder why you did that.

The strength of a person's belief does not validate it, but it
should be taken into account. 

If one person says "I believe that the world was created by
Barney the Dinosaur", and it is clear that they mean the whole
thing as a big joke, they have no right to be taken seriously.

If a million people say "I belive in God", and are willling to
devote their time, resources, and in some cases their whole lives
to the cause, then I think they should be taken more seriously.
It does not prove they are right, but personal committment and
wight of numbers do count for something; or do you disagree?

>> Where did you get the idea that the Bible is THE source document?
>
>Well, it's the original record of the original Christians, and, if you
>believe so, the only record of Jesus himself and what he was trying to
>do. What other source documents could there be?

There are three main sources of information about Christianity.
The Bible, the teaching and fellowship of the Church, and the
action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. None of
these is particularly useful outside the context of the other
two. For those who wish to study and examine Christianity, the
first two are acessible in any library, and the third is
accessible in conversation with any Christian. All have their
origins in God, but the first two are mediated through fallible
human beings, and therefore fallible and imperfect. 

>> Even if that were the case, it is a source document written,
>> copied, translated and interpreted by fallible human beings, and
>> therefore bound to contain errors and inconsistencies. How could
>> it be otherwise?
>
>Some believe that God literally dictated it, and that it contains no
>errors or inconsistencies.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am not one of those people.

>> You say "If it is wrong, the whole religion is wrong". I say it
>> is often wrong, but it is right in what matters - in what it
>> reveals to us about God, God's action in the past, and God's will
>> for us in the future. 
>
>If you agree that it's wrong on some counts, why believe that it's
>right on those others? You've said because it matches with your
>experiences of God. But aren't your experiences of God what you
>expected to experience during/after your conversion? (Assuming you're
>a born-again).

Why is it so important to you to label me?
If you are interested, I am a lifetime Christian. I cannot
remember a time when I did not have faith, but there have been
several times when God has clearly revealed himself to me and
changed the direction of my life. My experience of God is a daily
occurence - when I read the Bible, pray, and celebrate the
sacraments of the Church.

>> What evidence would convince you?
>
>Of what exactly? The existence of God, the correctness of the bible,
>the truthfulness of the Christian religion? Give me something to work
>with, and I'll tell you what would convince me.

The comment referred to God inspiring the authors of the Bible.

I would be happy to follow up any  or all of the points you made.

What evidence would convince you of the existence of God?
What evidence would convince you of the usefulness of the Bible
as a source of information about God?
What evidence would convince you of the truthfulness and
effectiveness of the Christian religion?

>> >> What qualifications do you have which empowers you to decide what
>> >> is true, and what is not?
>> >
>> >I am a member of a society.
>> 
>> Ahem. So am I.
>
>I forget what this is about. "....decide what is true..." about what?

I said that I have examined and tested the evidence, and decided
that Christianity is true. I am interested in your qualifications
to tell me that it is not true.

> So peace, comfort, feeling good do not exist?
>
>Sure they exist. Tell me, how do you measure comfort? How do you
>measure peace? 

How do you prove the existence of these things?
How do you prove the existence of God.

>And do my own experiences of greater peace and comfort,
>and the 'hole' in my life disappearing, after deciding upon atheism
>mean anything?

I don't doubt that you experience those things. 
I wonder why you spend so much energy opposing those who find
them in religion.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell