Ch 2 — My response – Part 1.

Hello:

Here is my response to part 1 of the skeptics speak.  As I noted in a previous comment general objections only merit a general response or denial.  In Part 1 Robert makes 4 general responses and I will reply in a much detail as I need to respond.  Here is Robert’s first general objection:

“First, let us be reminded that, even granting the highly dubious claim the gospels are really authored by whom church tradition said they are, two of the so-called eyewitnesses are indisputably not (Mark and Luke). I realize you’ve argued they are like eyewitnesses, but that doesn’t change the fact they purportedly only spoke to them. To include them in a discussion which “focuses on the eyewitnesses” is a bit…well, dishonest.”

My first response is Robert’s objection is it is a strawman. The flaws in it are I said nothing about church tradition and I never said Mark and Luke were eyewitnesses.  In fact, I admitted they were not eyewitnesses.  What I did say about Mark was he became Peter’s personal secretary and wrote down what Peter preached (see My Response.)  While the name on the syllabus said Mark, the content was Peter’s.  Peter was an eyewitness.  Luke claimed to have made a careful investigation and Luke was a first-rate historian (Id.).  While Robert claims the only purportedly talked to these eyewitnesses, he again offers no proof to support his assertion.  Finally Robert makes a personal attack and even after having it pointed out to him this violated the rules of the blog Robert stood by the personal attack.  Due to his repeated violations Robert has lost his posting privilege.

“Second, these tests are applicable only to the <i>living</i>, because only the living can answer challenges to their testimony, which helps establish veracity. The farcical nature of Strobel’s attempt to set up his book akin to a courtroom proceeding really shines through here. There’s no hostile attorney cross-examining the experts or the “witnesses”. There isn’t even any opposing experts or witnesses!”

The statement that the tests are applicable only to the living is actually false and the reason given for that statement is also false.  Here is why.  First, any testimony given by any witness is presumed to be true as well as any witness meeting the rules of evidence is presumed to be a competent witness.  These presumptions are reputable.  What this means is the testimony is true until the side challenging it shows it not to be true.  This places the burden of proof squarely on the challenging party.  While a witness who is living may rehabilitate his own testimony it is not true a person must rehabilitate their own testimony.  For example, character witnesses can be called to bolster the credibility of a deceased witness.  How does this work?  In our example, A man is murdered.  However, before he dies he tells a witness “John Smith shot me”.  The man then dies.  John Smith is indicted for murder.  The victim’s out of court accusation is allowed in due to an exception in the hearsay rule known as a dying declaration.  (http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dying-declaration/).   John Smith claims he was 200 miles way when it happened attending a conference.  An investigation shows John Smith did not attend the conference and was seen in a local bar 10 minutes way from the scene 3o minutes before the murder took place. The investigator’s testimony bolsters the  victim’s  story. 

The second part of this general objection has previously been refuted.  First,  Strobel does not set his book up akin to a courtroom proceeding.  As I previously pointed out in a prior post Strobel’s book recounts his search when he was a skeptic trying to disprove  Christianity.  Assuming for the sake of argument a court room approach, the skeptic Strobel was would be the hostile attorney.   Second Strobel actually cites scholars is defense of the skeptical position.  See CFC at 369 – 375; 377.)  (He is talking to the people he is interviewing to see what they have to say in response to the skeptics position.  What has happened here is a confusion pf the author who is writing the story of himself years earlier.  I warned of this in an earlier post.  (See The Case For Christ — The beginning — Part Three (paragraph 4).)

“Third, we have indisputable evidence that the gospels have been “tampered” with. Significant material has been added (e.g., the ending of Mark). Words changed. Verses removed. Grammar modified. Since no gospel originals exist, no one can say what they first said. What’s in contemporary gospels does not mirror what’s in our earliest gospel manuscripts. So much for accuracy”

This general objection will be addressed in more detail when we get to Chapter Three.  However, I often hear people say I have indisputable proof of this or that.  The problem with that is it is very easy to say.  The funniest part of this objection is the roots of its demise is the admission that no originals exist.  Since the originals do not exist there is no way to know what they sy and to prove they have been tampered with.

“Fourth, there are many claims left unexamined which bear on the veracity of the alleged eyewitnesses. For example, Blomberg says many apparent contradictions turned out not to be contradictions. But what of those that remain unresolved, such as Jesus’ genealogy or the date of his birth? What of the people, places, and fantastic events that remain unconfirmed, such as the splitting of the temple “from top to bottom,” and the OT characters who rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem, allegedly seen by numerous people? What do these say about gospel veracity? If the gospels are unbelievable or mistaken on these matters, what others are they unbelievable or mistaken on? Is it Blomberg’s contention that the gospels accurately recorded everything? If not, where are they mistaken, and how does Blomberg determine where the mistakes are?”

There are several things to say about number four here.  First, As I have pointed out above there is Mathew and John who are eyewitnesses so those two are not alleged eyewitnesses.  Mark wrote his gospel basd upon the eyewitness of Peter.  Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and wrote his gospel after carefull examination of all things.  Second, there still are some contradictions which have not been resolved.  However,  there are fewer today than there were 50 years ago.  Let’s take a look at some of these.  First, The differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke.  There are two different options to explain it.  One is Joseph’s lineage –Matthew — by which the kingly lineage is traced.  Luke presents Mary lineage.  Since both are from David’s line they converge at some point when you go back.  (CFC  at 60.)  The other explanation is both are Joseph’s lineage.  Luke is the human lineage while Matthew is the legal lineage necessary to confirm Jesus birth as king of the Jews.  (Id at 60-61.)    The date of Jesus birth reflects a problem with the difference between the Jewish lunar Calendar and the solar calendar we use.  None of the gospels claim the temple was split from top to bottom.   Third, while some of the events have not yet been confirmed  this does not make these events contradictions.   Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School who wrote a famous treatise on evidence said the discrepancies while having substantial agreement makes them trustworthy.  (Id at 58).  Finally, at the risk of sounding a bit like a broken record, it is Robert who has the burden of proof when asserting mistakes and contradictions.  Since he made general objections and offered no proof he has failed to meet that  burden.

Next Time — The skeptics speak — Part 2.

Ron

Advertisement