Pro-Supernatural Bias (2)

Part two (of two) of Farrell Till's rebuttal of Dr. James Price's response to Jim Lippard's article "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah":

TILL

Contemporary records were also strangely silent about the earthquake at the time of Jesus's death, which allegedly shook open the graves of many saints who then went into the city and appeared unto many (Matt. 27:52-53).  Like the supernatural darkness at midday, word of such a remarkable event as this would surely have been spread through the region, if not the known world, so that references to it would have been left in contemporary records, but none exist.  The historian Seneca was born in 4 B.C., the same year that most New Testament scholars fix the time of Jesus's birth.  He and Pliny the Elder, another contemporary of Jesus, wrote detailed accounts of all of the known natural disasters and phenomena, past and present, earthquakes, floods, meteors, comets, eclipses, etc., but neither one mentioned either a three-hour darkness at midday or an earthquake that shook open tombs and resurrected "many" dead people.  In chapter 24 of *The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,* Edward Gibbon refers to the silence of Seneca and Pliny on the midday darkness and accepts this as reason to believe that no such event ever happened.

The silence of Josephus about such remarkable events as these is also hard to imagine.  His father, Matthias, was a priest in Jerusalem at the very time that Jesus was allegedly crucified and resurrected (*The Life of Flavius Josephus,* 2:7-12), so we can hardly imagine Josephus's father witnessing such phenomenal events as the midday darkness and the resurrection of "many" saints and not talking about them in the family circle as Josephus was growing up.  Likewise, we can't imagine Josephus not referring to these events if his father had indeed mentioned them. Josephus mentioned several minor Messianic claimants, whom history has now all but forgotten, but he made only two short, disputed references to a Messiah whose life was accompanied by truly amazing events. There is argument from silence; there is argument from unreasonable silence, and it is unreasonable to think that really remarkable events like these could have happened without any contemporary references to them having survived.

Pro-Supernatural Bias (1)

This is part one of a rebuttal by Farrell Till of 

part  of Dr.  James Price's response to Jim 

Lippard's  article The Fabulous Prophecies of 

the Messiah. It, along with part two which will be posted later,is an excellent short summary 

of many of the problems with the "evidences" Christian apologists give for Christianity. 

Regrettably, I have not been able to find the 

rest of Till's rebuttal. All Christians need to 

read this--a classic by Mr. Till from 1996:

From: Farrell Till

Subject: For M. Dawud: Response to Price 

Mr. Dawud: 

You have asked me to reply to Dr. James Price's response to Jim Lippard's article "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah," which Lippard had posted on his home page.  You wanted me to respond to it in *The Skeptical Review,* but Price's response totals 130k, and it would require more than two complete issues of TSR just to publish the text of Price's article.  Since his response consisted of many unsupported assertions, to adequately rebut many of his points, I would need much more space than he took to make the assertions.

This requirement is due to the obvious fact that assertions are generally brief but rebuttals of assertions require  detailed analysis and support. For that reason, I will not be publishing Dr. Price's response, because I would probably have to devote more than an entire year of publishing space in discussion of this one issue.

As a compromise, I intend to respond to Dr. Price via the internet.  I will have to do this in a series of replies that I can see taking at least a year to complete, because I do have many other demands on my time.  I will probably post these replies on my "Errancy" list, and I will send CCs to Dr. Price and people who have challenged me to debate him.  Dr. Price, of course, will be entitled to respond to any of my rebuttals, and I will also post them on the errancy list. 

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS: 

My general impression of Dr. Price's rebuttal article is not at all favorable.  It is slightly better than many attempts I have seen to prove biblical prophecy fulfillment, and it is certainly better than Dr. Hugh Ross's article on the subject that I published in the January/February 1996 issue of TSR and responded to in a series of three rebuttals.  This, however, is not saying very much, because Ross's article was, in my opinion, incredibly simplistic.  Price did at least try from time to time to present evidence to support his supposition rather than simply make bald assertions, and for that he is to be commended.  This compliment should not be construed to mean that Dr. Price did not at times make bald, unsupported assertions, because he certainly did, as I will be pointing out.  I am merely recognizing that some of his rebuttal arguments were accompanied by supporting information.

Quoting The Bible

The inimitable Farrell Till, not allowing a Christian to get by with merely quoting the Bible to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is true (amazing that they would even try that).

From the Errancy discussion list, February, 1998:

Christian: 

You are coming from the viewpoint that the Bible is errant; I am coming from the viewpoint that it is from God and therefore accurate. If you do not want me to use what the Bible says in order to discuss the Bible, then I see no point in being here. You were just asking about spiritual/resurrected bodies. If you don't believe in the Bible, why even discuss it? If you want to discuss the Bible among yourselves with no opposing viewpoint, please tell me why the group is looking for Christians to be involved? To what purpose? 

TILL 

You have a strange way of thinking. Of course, I understand  that you think that the Bible is accurate, but I won't allow  you to use this assumption to settle any issue that's being  debated. I would have to be crazier than a loon to permit that. Don't you think I know that the NT clearly teaches that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that there will be a final resurrection of all the dead? The issue is not whether the NT teaches these things, because clearly it does. The issue is whether the NT is correct in making these claims. I have no objection to you or anyone else quoting scripture as long as it is quoted simply to show what the NT says, but I have serious objections to your apparent belief that the mere citation of a scripture should be sufficient to settle an issue. If you are going to quote 1 Corinthians 15 as proof that there will be a final resurrection, then you have the obligation to present arguments that will show there are good reasons to believe that what this text says is true. You say that you have no objections to debating the errancy of the Book of Mormon, but if a Mormon were on the list to debate this issue, you surely would not stand still for allowing him simply to quote the Book of Mormon as proof of its own accuracy, would you? 

Farrell Till

Quote Of The Day

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.”
Benjamin Franklin  (1706-1790)

Blood In Heaven?

Farrell Till points out a discrepancy between the 9th chapter of Hebrews and I Cor 15:50. From the Errancy Discussion list, June 23, 1997:

TILL
In a posting that I will send simultaneously with this one, I showed how
that the Hebrew writer argued in the 9th chapter of his epistle that the
Holy Place and the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle were figures of things
to come. The priest entering the Holy of Holies once per year with blood to
offer for the sins of the people prefigured the entry of Jesus into heaven
with his own blood to offer a final atonement for the sins of all people.
This analogy is obvious from the following verses:

6 Such preparations having been made, the priests go continually into the
first tent to carry out their ritual duties;
7 but only the high priest goes into the second, and he but once a year,
and not without taking the blood that he offers for himself and for the sins
committed unintentionally by the people.

11 But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have
come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands,
that is, not of this creation),
12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of
goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal
redemption.

In the Hebrew writer's analogy, the items in the tabernacle and the
ceremonies performed there were figures of things to come under the
new covenant, and the Holy Place that the high priest entered once per
year with blood to offer prefigured the entry of Christ into heaven as a
high priest to offer his own blood for the sins of mankind. This is evident
from the following verse:

23 Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be
purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better
sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere
copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear
in the presence of God on our behalf.
25 Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters
the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own;
26 for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the
foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the
end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.

There can be no doubt at all that the Hebrew writer was arguing that
just as the items in the tabernacle had to be dedicated with blood, the
"heavenly things" that they had prefigured also had to be dedicated
with blood. He claimed, however, that the "sketches" or "copies" in
heaven had to be purified with a better sacrifice than those used to
purify the original types. Hence, to accomplish this purification
of the heavenly "sketches" or "copies," Jesus entered into HEAVEN
ITSELF with that "better sacrifice" (his own blood) to purify the
heavenly copies.

Now here is the problem. The apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that
"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven," but the Hebrew
writer claimed that Christ entered into heaven with his own blood to make
a "better sacrifice" than those that were used under the law to purify the
tabernacle. Isn't there a problem here?

Farrell Till

Take Your Pick

The late Joseph Crea was a fixture on the old alt.bible.errancy discussion list. He along with Farrell Till and a few others brought rationality and common sense to their discussions with die-hard inerrantists--pointing out with clarity the many discrepancies in the Bible. The following from May 17, 2000, is one of those instances:

frixen3 wrote:

Christians then do not pray to the cross. The cross is a reminder 

to us what was done there. We must also remember that "without 

the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22).

CREA
Funny, that's not what YHWH tells the Israelites back in the 
Old Testament. Take a look at Leviticus chapter 5, which 
covers the sacrifices needed to expiate sins. Starting at verse 

5 we read that the optimal sacrifice is a female sheep or goat, 

but [continuing at verse 6] if the contrite sinner can't afford 

such, then two doves will do. Proceeding to verses 11-13 we 

learn that if the repentant sinner can't even afford 2 doves, 

THEN AN OFFERING OF FLOUR would suffice to produce 

forgiveness of his sins. Blood, we can therefore see, is NOT 

A NECESSITY for the forgiveness of sins. Either the writer of 

Hebrews got it wrong, or else the author of Leviticus did. 

Take your pick.

  With Mettaa,
  Joseph Crea

Very Strange

Strange, that no disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration exists from any of the many thousands of alleged witnesses to the signs and wonders that Yahweh supposedly used to attest the man Jesus of Nazareth--very strange. So strange in fact, someone who is honestly searching for the truth just might be led to believe that none of these "attesting" miraculous signs and wonders ever happened.

One would think that if Yahweh truly doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) that he would have providentially given this type of supporting documentation. Instead, all we have is the biased testimony from the anonymous authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

From the Errancy Discussion list, June 14, 1998:

Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated

by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary 
or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a 
single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever 

corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke

knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, 

etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace 

information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary 

that they would have received wide attention. 

In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered 

into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to 
you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did 
through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim 
was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were 
witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no 
disinterested, independent corroboration of them?

Farrell Till