From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fool! There is no God!
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:03:06 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <rex.720833929@cyclops> rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker) writes:
[replying to me on the subject of the death of Jesus of Nazareth]
<Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering
<in the University of London,....one of England's outsanding scientists...

Where on earth does electrical engineering come in?  Jesus was
crucified, I think, not electrocuted.

<says of the New Testament documents:
<
<"We must take this evidence of experts as to the age and authenticity
<of this writing, just as we take the facts of astronomy on the
<evidence of astronomers who do not contradict each other.

I fail to see the analogy.  The evidence of astronomers is of a quite
different nature than the evidence of Gospel writers.

<This being so, we can ask ourselves whether it is probable
<that such book, describing events that occurred about thirty or forty
<years previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the
<stories of abnormal events in it were false or mythical.

Fine, I ask myself that, and I come up with an affirmative answer.
Even leaving alone the fact that we're talking of an age that was way
less enlightened than ours, the general public in all ages have been
remarkably good at believing what they want to believe, even if it
could be refuted by people who have a reason to know better.

<It is impossible, because the memory of all elderly persons 
<regarding events of thirty or forty years before is perfectly clear.

Yes, but the question is whether this makes a difference.  See
previous paragraph.

<No one could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died
<thirty-one years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue.

False analogy once more.  (1) This is the twentieth century and (2)
England is not expecting a messiah.  Besides, even nowadays one
encounters lots of widespread rumours, including absolutely idiotic
ones.  See previous paragraph but one.

<Hence there is a great improbability that the account of the
<resurrection given by Mark, is a pure invention.

That it is a pure invention may be improbable.  That it is anything
but a pure invention, however, is way less probable.  Therefore I
choose the second option.

<>>Note that during this period of time, the Roman soldiers performed
<>>almost countless crucifixions,
<>The more likely they were to pay less attention to each particular one.
<>_They_ had no particular interest in Jesus being dead (and they might
<>have been bribed to be more careless this time).
<
<On the contrary, it would seem that the disciples, or followers of Jesus were
<completely afraid of even being associated with him at this time,

Not necessarily.  Not unless you believe the cock and Peter story, and
it doesn't sound like something that actually took place.

<let alone try and bribe the Roman soldiers.

Bribing is always done discreetly.  They may have done that even
though they didn't want to be associated with Jesus in public.

<Also, to say that the Roman soldiers had no interest in Jesus being
<dead is not true. The common punishment for a Roman soldier for
<failing in his duties ( even such things as falling asleep on guard
<duty ), was death.

Yes, well, there's duties and duties.  The Roman commanders had no
interest in Jesus either.

<Pretty good incentive I think ... well it would have been for me :-)

Yet they certainly didn't behave as though they were afraid of losing
their own heads if they didn't make sure that Jesus was dead.  They
didn't break his legs, as they had been instructed to do in such cases.
They didn't even chop off his head, a very simple thing to do.  This
kind of thing makes one wonder.

<>>3) It is recorded that he was also flogged/whipped ( the common
<>>implement in this case being the so called cat-o-nine tails ).
<>Is it recorded anywhere except the Gospels, which were written by
<>people who were not eyewitnesses?

Still no answer to this question?  I see quotes from the same sources below.

<>By the way, does it really say that he was _flogged_, or just _beaten_?
<
<Mark 15:15 (NIV)
<	".....He had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified"
<Matthew 27:26 (NIV)
<	".....But he had Jesus flogged..."
<John 19:1 (NIV)
<	"Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged"

That's what the English translation says.  Some others (eg the
Bulgarian one) have it as `beaten', not `flogged'.  If you have the
Greek originals handy, feel free to quote them.  Our library is closed
on Saturday afternoon and all day on Sunday.

<>Pardon me, but no one has ever died from a crown of thorns, or from
<>being involved in the rather innocent "guess who hit you" game, which
<>I believe the Roman soldiers must have played among themselves from
<>time to time.
<
<Rather innocent???? Maybe from where we sit, but certainly not from
<where Jesus was I would suggest.

Jesus was among the Roman soldiers, who, as I said previously, had no
particular reason to hate him.  If he had been one of their sergeants,
maybe it would have been a different story.  As it is, I think that
the attitude of the soldiers towards Jesus is invented by the writers.

<>I think the body was handed over to his family and friends, whom he
<>might have instructed to bind him loosely.
<
<If Jesus had instructed them to bind the body loosely,
<they would surely have been suspicious, or at least curious as to why. On the
<contrary, the family and friends didn't seem to believe Jesus even though he
<repeatedly told them that he was going to die and come back to life.

Or so the New Testament says.  Then again, there were quite a few
people in the gang.  Maybe some of them were scared and confused, but
still there might have been a couple who knew more than the rest.

As for the disciples being later executed for their convictions,
Hitler paid for his convictions with his life as well.  Does that mean
that he was right in everything he believed?

<Look up "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell - Chapter 10. 
<I'm not sure about the availability of the book in Glasgow!!

Well, I won't go to Glasgow for it, even if it is available there.  :-)

<If you can't find the book - I will type in some stuff and mail it to
<you directly.

Thanks, but don't waste your time on that.

<1) John writes in John 19:33-36 that he saw blood and water flow from
<the wound. In fact he follows his testimony up with the following.
<John 19:35 " The man whpo saw it has given testimony, and his
<testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies
<so that you may believe"

Just because he says that it is true doesn't make it true.  Being
one's own witness is really convenient, but not really convincing.

<Obviously, he thought that this occurrance
<was in the least unusual and so he very clearly states that what he
<has said was not just a passing comment.

Or else he was aware that such an occurrence would have been unusual
if it had taken place, and made it up for good reason.

<2) Had Jesus been alive when his side was pierced, spurts of blood would have
<emerged with each heart beat. (Even if feigning death) Instead John states
<that "blood and water" flowed. The existance of the water (clearly distinct 
<from the blood ) is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the
<main arteries. This by itself is strong evidence that Jesus was dead.

Then my only explanation remains that John made this up.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21137 sci.cognitive:614 sci.psychology:4366 sci.research:1278