Ooh, Richard, what kind of evidence?

Submitted by Glenn Hohnberg on Thu Oct 27th, 10.58am

The other quote my children love from Chicken Run is all about the pies when the Chicken Pie making machine arrives. I couldn’t resist so here it is:

     Mr. Tweedy: What is it?
     Mrs. Tweedy: It's a pie machine, you idiot. Chickens go in, pies come out.
     Mr. Tweedy: Ooh, what kind of pies?
     Mrs. Tweedy: Apple.
     Mr. Tweedy: My favourite.
     Mrs. Tweedy: Chicken pies, you great lummox.

Why are we on the Chicken Run theme again? Well, we’ve come back to Richard Dawkins' fine quote that I like: “But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.”

Yes, finally something we agree on. But what kind of evidence would you look at, Richard? Ahh, forthcoming evidence. (My favourite.)

So, if that is the case, how come you, Richard, never interact with any of these scholarly works on the historicity of the New Testament?

     The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by WL Craig
     Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels by G Vermes
     A Marginal Jew: rethinking the historical Jesus by JP Meier
     The Historical Figure of Jesus by EP Sanders
     The Historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide by G Theissen and A Merz
     The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright

Or these smaller, popular books:

     Is the New Testament History? by Paul Barnett
     Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? by FF Bruce
     The Christ Files by John Dickson
     Jesus, A Short Life by John Dickson

If you’ve read them, Richard, how come you don’t give any indication? Why don’t you deal with their arguments, scholarship, ideas and evidence? Why do you just make assertions?

What about the more recently published Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Baukham. (A review can be found here or look here for a final quote.)

Why do you quip (I hope it was a quip), ‘It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historically case that Jesus never lived at all?’, and then reference Professor GA Wells of the University of London, who is is a professor of German Grammar?

In fact, the very widely supported position is this: ‘There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life.’ EP Sanders, Duke University. This is the position of mainstream historical scholarship, whether they be Christian or not.

Richard, what kind of evidence? Ahh, forthcoming evidence, my favourite.

PS. Do you think, perhaps at the Global Atheist Convention Richard will deal with some of these scholars and their books?

Comments

A more relevant book that

Submitted by James (not verified) on Wed Nov 30th, 4.52pm

A more relevant book that Dawkins refuses to address is Janathan Sarfati's book "The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution". This effectively demolishes point by point the so-called evidence for evolution that Dawkins presents in "The Greatest Show on Earth" and which he bases his entire worldview on. The Gospel falls on deaf ears for those who do not have the right foundation of Biblical Creation (1 Cor 1:23). The Greeks of the New Testament times had evolutionary beliefs which is why Paul had to start his Acts 17 sermon at Creation before he could present the Gospel in a way his audience would understand. Most evangelism today mirrors Peter in Acts 2 however the kind of responses recorded in Acts 2 will only occur if the audience already has understanding of Creation and God's laws as did the Jews at Pentecost. A modern example of this is the Billy Graham Crusades in the 50s. Thousands responded to his message. When he returned in the 90s, there were hardly any responses. The message was the same, but the culture had changed from a Creation based culture to an evolutionary based one. If we are serious about reaching people today, we need to deal with the foundational worldview (replace evolution with Biblical creation) first before the message of the Cross will be understood.

- More relevant than Jesus?

Submitted by Glenn Hohnberg on Fri Dec 9th, 2.22pm

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply and I understand where you are coming from.

I was trying to put together two claims of Richard. One that he looks at evidence and two that Jesus 'probably doesn't exist'.

If Jesus walked and talked on earth and did the things recorded in the historical records of the Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. ie the New Testament. What will we do with him?

Wrestling with who he is and why he came and whether or not he is God and what his death meant are the most crucial issues. And it seems fairly clear that Richard has not done that.

So I would be hard pressed to say that a book on evolution is more relevant than one that deals with Jesus. If Richard examined the historical evidence for Jesus, and the claims of Jesus I would say he would be hard pressed to so flippantly dismiss Jesus and thus God.

This then starts to unravel the naturalistic philosophy of Richard and in fact all of us.

Putting it more starkly, if you want to rule God out of the picture then you have to rule Jesus out. Richard, to my mind, has not presented any evidence or argument that deals with Jesus. He has just brought to be a reference to a German Grammar scholar.

Glenn