From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:01:17 GMT

In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.182128.18902@linus.mitre.org> zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>|In article <70217@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>
>|>Some have been presented on the net and I presented some from a book
>|>summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book _Why I Believe_ and here they are:

Myself and others have been examining the claims presented from Dr.
Kennedy's book and have found that the vast majority of his claims have
been distortions and even deceptions.  Most can easily be proven false
by spending a few minutes with a common encyclopedia.  I myself could
not believe that a scholar (I was fooled by his PHD!) could unload such
obvious lies on unsuspecting readers.  Historians are usually more
careful with history, if only because they know that readers and other
historians will keep them honest.

Now Richard has revealed that Dr. Kennedy has a ministry.  Finally it
makes more sense!  Dr. Kennedy's degree is probably in divinity and
almost certainly not in history.  I expect historians to be honest, but
I'm never surprised when a minister is deceitful and dishonest!  A
minister expects an audience that believes and dosen't question.  Even
if convincing proof is produced that the minister lied, his audience
will still defend him.  Historians, who's readers are generally alert
and questioning, have to be more honest and careful or they'll be torn
to bits!

Here we have a nice little example of how false beliefs (such as
religions) are started and maintained.  A liar like Dr. Kennedy says
something untrue.  People like Richard believe what they hear, not
necessarily because it sounds true, but perhaps because it verifies
something else they believe or because it makes them feel better about
their lifes.  People who think and investigate before they believe
expose the lie.  But now, the believers already believe and will 
defend the lies even in the face of strong counter evidence. 

>|>
>|>[8] Why I believe in Christ
>|>
>|>Dr. Kennedy states that the evidence for Christ is 
>|>overwhelming.  For those who honest seek the truth there is 
>|>abundant evidence.
>|>
>|>Some say Jesus never really existed - he was a myth.  
>|>Consider this - Historian J. Gilchrist Lawson says: "The 
>|>legendary, or mythical, theory of Christ's existence is not 
>|>held by any one worthy of the name scholar.  The evidences 
>|>of Christ existence are more than for any other event in 
>|>ancient history."  
>|
>|I've said before, there are several historical figures from the first
>|century and before for whom overwhelming evidence exists, particularly
>|compared to the trickle of evidence for a historical Christ.  It is
>|absurd that a "historian" could make this statement.  To quote
>|Professor Martin Noth from his _History of Israel_: "World history at
>|the time took no notice of him [Jesus of Nazareth]".
>
>The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
>but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.

I'm sure this argument would go over very well in a meeting of
historical scholars!  There is no reason to believe that the size of
the article in the encyclopedia is bigger because there is more
historical knowledge.  The encyclopedia may have contained everything
known about Jesus but certainly did not contain everything known about
Julius Caesar.  We have several historical books written by and about
Julius Caesar and know a great deal more about him than Christ!  Also,
myths don't become real because enough people write about them.  Just
curious, what encyclopedia are you using?

>At that time Jesus and his followers were not touching the world,
>but look at them soon after (Paul in Rome) and today.  He surely touches
>world history today.   On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) there
>were 3,000 converts to Christianity and soon after there were a
>total of 5,000 (Acts 4:4.)
>
>|>One reason we know this is that the Bible 
>|>tells us, but more than that we have support from the 
>|>following secular historians and writers of antiquity:
>|
>|I don't think Dr. Kennedy or J. Lawson checked out thier sources very
>|well nor did they expect anyone to do so.  Let's take a look at their
>|list of "secular historians and writers of antiquity":
>
>Generally you don't controvert any of the following, for Dr.  Kennedy 
>said that these men gave cursory evidence that was generally in line 
>with the Bible's account.  

First, Dr. Kennedy quotes a so-called-historian as saying: "The
evidences of Christ existence are more than for any other event in
ancient history."  Next, we are given a list of ancient writers and
historians providing support for the existence of Jesus.  Now you tell
us that Dr. Kennedy admits that the evidence is only cursory.  Is Dr.
Kennedy admitting that  J. Gilchrist Lawson has no idea what he is
talking about?  Why would he include a quote from this obvious idiot
and include this suspicious list of writers verifying Jesus?

>If you'd like, I'll send you the 
>mailing address for Dr. Kennedy's ministry.  

No thanks, I receive enough misinformation in the mail already!  I'm
not going to volunteer for more from someone who I already believe is a
deceiver.

>I quoted Dr. Kenndy's
>list and I, myself, cannot readily comment on these men.

This is the SECOND time you've posted large extracts from Dr. Kennedy's
book.  This is even after most of what he said had been proven wrong.
Please stop pushing his lies!

>|>Tacitus, the Roman historian; 
>|
>|Explains the word "Christians" in his _Annals_ (written AD 115-117):
>|"Christ, from whom they derive their name, was condemned to death by 
>|the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius."
>
>Not bad for supporting the Bible's claim.

I'd say this one line is about the only case of historical evidence for
Jesus.  You may argue that Tacitus researched and found actual evidence
of the crucifixion that happened some 80 years before he started
writing his _Annals_.  I'll argue that Tacitus, in defining Christians,
included a brief statement of their beliefs.  He may not have uncovered
any documentation of the claimed crucifixion but may have considered it
believable that another God wannabe cult leader was executed.  In any
case, this one line is not much verification for the claims made about
Jesus in the Bible.

>|>Suetonius; [AD 65-135] 
>|
>|Says in his account of the life of Claudius (emperor from AD 41-54) "He
>|drove the Jews out of Rome who were rioting because of Chrestus." It is
>|not at all clear he refers to Christ by name since he is more likely to
>|mean "christos" - The Anointed One - Greek translation of the Hebrew
>|"messias".
>
>Who does the Bible proclaim Jesus to be?  Is it not The Christ, The Messiah?

It does, but we are dealing with Jews here.  Almost without exception,
when Jews refer to the Messiah they DO NOT mean Jesus.  Christianity
was not very big with Jews either then or now.  Besides, we know that
Jews had a beef with Rome and it wasn't over Jesus.  This
dissatisfaction lead eventually to the destruction of Jerusalem in
70AD.  Many of these Jews believed that a Messiah (not Jesus) was
comming soon to free them from Rome.  This riot was probably an early
indication of the comming revolt.  Besides, Christians don't picture
their founders as rioters (at least this is counter to the gladiator
movies I've seen)!

>|>Pliny the younger; [AD 61-113]
>|
>|Documents his witness to the practice of Christianity while on
>|appointment in Asia Minor.
>
>A pretty early notice of the spread of Christianity - similar to 
>what is record about Paul's missionary trips.

Historical evidence of Christians but not necessarily of Christ.

>|From here on, the list looks like a random list of writers with
>|Roman sounding names!
>
>They are - so as to give some Roman input to the situation.
>
>|>Epictetus; [AD 55-135]
>|
>|Stoic philosopher.  I don't think he wrote about Christ or
>|Christianity, but his works greatly influenced early Christians and
>|were read by Origen, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory of Nazianus.
>
>I agree with your statement of "I don't think", not that I don't
>know that Epictetus wrote of Christ, but neither do you know he
>didn't.

I suspect he didn't because, if there were such an early reference to
Christ, it would probably have appeared among the early historical
references to Jesus in the books I'm using to attempt to verify Dr.
Kennedy's claims.  These books include _The Bible as History_ by Werner
Keller, from which I've taken the quotes for Tacitus and Suetonius, and
the _Encyclopedia Americana_, from which I've taken biographies and
facts about what each wrote about and what writings survive.  There is
no mention of Epictetus (or any of the other writers following this in
your list except for the Christians and anti-Christians) as someone who
wrote anything about Christ or Christianity.  Given the track record
for Dr.  Kennedy's research, I'm inclined to disbelieve until he is
verified by other sources.

>|>Lucian; [AD 120-180+]
>|
>|Rhetorician.  Satirized foibles and parodied myths and even ventured
>|into Science Fiction.  Don't know of anything he said about Christ,
>|but he would be a very appropriate spokesman for Christianity!
>
>Same.

Again, an early reference to Christ would probably be noted by other
historians.  But, if he did mention Christians, the best you can expect
from Lucian is that he thought they were ridiculous and made fun of
them!

>|>Aristides; [BC 530-468]
>|
>|You may want to check if there is another Aristides after Christ!
>|
>|>Galenus; Lampridius; 
>|
>|Can't find anything about them.
>|
>|>DioCassius; [AD 163-229+]
>|
>|Started his history of Rome in AD 229.  Only Volumes 36-54 covering
>|68-10BC survive (doubtful any references to Christ here).
>|
>|>Hinnerius; Libanius; 
>|
>|Can't find anything about them.
>|
>|>Ammianus; [330-398AD]
>|
>|Wrote history of Rome.  Only surviving volumes cover 353-378AD.
>
>The above comments neither support or denounce.

They denounce that Dr. Kennedy's list of impressive sounding names from
antiquity is a list of writers providing "overwhelming evidence" of a
historical Jesus.  What you have is one possible historical reference
(Tacitus) to Jesus, and a very small amount of historical evidence of
early Christians.

>|>Marcellinus; 
>|
>|You need to be more specific here.  I assume we can eliminate Gaius
>|Claudias Marcellinus (consul in 50BC) and the two Marcus Claudius
>|Marcellinus (BC 270-208 and BC 43-23).  You are left with the Pope St.
>|Marcellinus (Died AD 304), Pope Marcellinus I (Died AD 309) and other
>|popes.  Odd that popes are included in your list of secular historians
>|documenting Jesus!
>|
>|>Eunapius; 
>|
>|Can't find anything about him.
>|
>|>Zosimus. [died AD 418]
>|
>|Pope and Saint.  Unbiased historical proof of Jesus from a fifth
>|century pope?
>|
>|Now starts a list of writers who specifically wrote against
>|Christianity:
>|
>|>Lucian,
>|
>|Be more specific.  The satirist and sophist (AD 120-200) or St.
>|Lucian of Antioch (AD 240-312).
>|
>|>Celsus, [first century AD]
>|
>|Aulus Cornelius Celsus wrote on Agriculture, Philosophy, Military
>|Science, Medicine, and Jurisprudence.  Only his works on medicine
>|survive.  Is this where the reference to Christ and Christians is?
>|
>|>Porphyry, [AD 234-305]
>|
>|A Neoplatist philosopher and student of Plotinus.
>|
>|>Hierocles, 
>|
>|Can't find anything about him.
>|
>|>and Julian the Apostate [AD 332-363]
>|
>|Roman Emperor who attempted to redirect the recently Christianized
>|empire towards its Pagan heritage.  Called "the Apostate" for his
>|rejection of Christianity.
>|
>|>have written whole books against Christianity.  
>
>I'd have to refer you to Dr. Kenndy for the above references,
>if you'd like.

Dr. Kennedy didn't include references in his book?  Rather bad form for
a book claiming to report historical information.  I invite you to see
if you can find out about the writers I have no information on and post
your findings.  If you do, include some dates (likely showing that
hundreds of years passed before these authors were born).  I know that
people these days don't like to have to know historical dates, but
historians still find them necessary!  I don't recall any historian
ever giving a list of names like this before without including dates
(if known).  But, I can understand that the dates would be embarrassing
to Dr. Kennedy!

>|This is the ultimate in irony that someones writings against
>|Christianity are turned into more proof that Jesus existed!  Some day,
>|Christians may turn my words here into further proof of Jesus!
>
>Not likely.  Writings against are enough if they give evidence to
>confirm the events, but deny the reasons given for them.
>
>|Dr. Kennedy's long list of ancient "secular" writers providing proof of
>|Jesus comes down to a couple of historical statements about Christians
>|but almost nothing about Jesus.
>
>As was the purpose.

Dr. Kennedy's purpose in presenting a long list of ancient names was
probably to impress his readers that so many "secular historians and
writers of antiquity" had verified Jesus.  I guess he counted on
Christians believing what they are told without thinking or
investigating.  So he threw in a few popes and people apparently born
before Christ.

>|>Pontius Pilate wrote of his activities with 
>|>Jesus - "he described Christ's miracles - he tells of Herod 
>|>delivering Jesus over to him and the crowd making a great 
>|>uproar to have Christ tried and so he [Pilate] ordered him 
>|>crucified, but first had him scourged, although he found 
>|>nothing against him.  Much less he records that that day the 
>|>sun went dark and the moon turned as if to blood." [The 
>|>Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 8]  
>|
>|I've told you before that these are blatantly falsified letters.  They
>|are only traced back to the sixth or seventh century. They contradict
>|each other and known history.  I included a long description of what is
>|in those letters that you should have read!  No thoughtful Christian
>|historian will attempt to attach any validity to them.
>
>I read your comments.  Again, you said they agreed with the
>Bible, correct, or at least sounded like the Bible's account.
>The purpose was to show that other non-Christians (i.e., the
>Roman leaders) had comments on the trial (evidence) of Jesus.

I have a letter here.  It looks real old.  It says: "I did not rise
from the dead."  and it's signed "Jesus Christ".  My letter is at least
as authentic as these you mention!  Is my statement that they are fake
letters created by dishonest Christians not getting through?

[About prophecies fulfilled]
>
>|>Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the 
>|>prophecy.  It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have 
>|>its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no 
>|>more.  Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for 
>|>thirteen years and took it.  Many former inhabitants fled 
>|>for an island and made a new city of Tyre.  Two hundred and 
>|>fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander 
>|>the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them 
>|>into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to 
>|>take it.  He did - the old city was stripped.  Today the old 
>|>Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to 
>|>dry.
>|
>|If the only thing you believe is the Bible, you may note that somebody
>|named Jesus passed through Tyre (Matt 15:21).  At that time Tyre had a
>|larger population than Jerusalem and would have been the largest city
>|Jesus is said to have visited.  Tyre prospers long after that and is
>|still inhabited today.
>
>Tyre's population today is about 23,000 (1980), but was about
>40,000 at its destruction by Alexander the Great.  10,000 were
>killed and 30,000 sold as slaves.  Is Tyre the same city or does
>it hold the same name and sit down the coast?
>
>|Nearly all of Dr. D. James Kennedy's statements you've given from _Why
>|I Believe_ can easily be proven false by anyone with an encyclopedia!
>
>I looked in the encyclopedia today.  It confirmed all of the 
>prophesy, except the fact that it would not be rebuilt.  Again,
>I ask is town with the same name the same as the original town?
>
>Researchers testify to the fact that the Tyre of today is not the same
>as the Tyre of old.  Why is your historian more infallible than these?

I can't think of any city that is the same as it was!  Are you claiming
it has been moved.  Someone said here that the new city is built on the
old.

>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>
>
>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |
>
-- Steve