From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:04:28 GMT

In article <74415@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.232451.14844@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>|
>|(rpitts)
>|/Is it not logical that one would get one's information about Jesus 
>|/from his contemporaries?
>|
>|Only if his contemporaries are:
>|
>|a.  trustworthy
>
>Trust is given by the fact that these men gave their lives for the
>message - that Jesus the Christ came from God and humbled himself
>in the form of a man, lived and taught God in love, was killed for
>this message, was buried, ROSE FROM THE GRAVE on the third day,
>and ascended into heaven.

Many have died to promote Islam.  In pre-revolutionary Russia many
radicals suffered for "preaching" communism.  This is an indication of
strength of belief, NOT trustworthiness of the message.  By your logic
I ought to be a Christian *and* a Muslim *and* a communist etc.

>|b.  unbiased
>
>Are you unbiased????

How about "non-partisan?"  Example:  During our recent presidential
campaign, we had "spin doctors" come on the tube after each debate and
tell us their candidate won.  Should we take their word at face value?
Of course not.  I'm much more likely to believe the view of someone
whose political future doesn't depend on the outcome of the election.

So if we had a contemporary Roman historian say, without any
particular reason to believe in Christianity, report that some of the 
things that happened during the Crucifxion (darkness during the day,
rending of the curtain in the temple, resurrection of saints who went
into the city etc.) actually happened, that would lend a lot of weight
to the biblical account.  This also applies under the heading
"independently verifiable."

>|c.  independently verifiable--one thief vouching for another is not a 
>|    good character reference.
>
>The Bible is a collection of books - not one big book.  These books
>were written by multiple people and assembled into the one volume.
>However, we (Christians) believe that God inspired men to write these
>books - so if you believe God was behind them, as we do, then you
>would tend to agree that they are trustworthy, for surely the One
>who inspired these books for hundreds of years is far superior to
>mere man.  On the other hand, if mere men wrote them, then they should
>be considered individual works.
>
>If these books were separately bound and handed to you, would you 
>accept them?

I'd say this still comes under the heading of "one thief vouching for
another."  

>|(rpitts)
>|/I can understand the logic you use to say that Muhammad received direct
>|/revelations about Jesus, but you might want to consider that revelations
>|/were not needed about Jesus' life on this earth, for there were people
>|/with him and they wrote about him (i.e., the New Testament.)  
>|
>|You didn't wait very long before you committed Error #1, did you?
>|
>|Quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct (or that Christ's
>|claims are true) is circular reasoning and will not be accepted.  Citing
>|people whose testimony appears nowhere except the Bible is also circular 
>|reasoning and will likewise not be accepted.
>
>Discounting everthing by you desire to have it some other way is
>not a reason either.  You try to cast doubt by your questions, but
>that doesn't prove your case.

You don't have to *try* to cast doubts, believe me.

>|And, considering that the rest of your post is nothing but you expositioning
>|on further bible passages, it is equally invalid.
>|
>|Have you anything better, or is this all there is?
>
>Have you anything more than a wide paint brush?  Let me pose this
>idea.  If all of the things happened the way the multiple books 
>collected in the Bible depict them to have occurred (which I believe),
>then would you expect any less of the people that wrote them, than
>what they wrote?  These men suffered greatly for the Message of Jesus.
>They gave their lives - if this wasn't true, why would those who were
>eye witness have done such?

1)  Not universally accepted that the authors of the Gospels were
truly the Apostles to whom the Gospels were attributed to;

2)  If Islam weren't true, why would the first Muslims have fought so
hard, and suffered so much to establish it?

SD