} KATZ
} I agree, after you discard the evidence that is there in the New Testament
} then there is not much evidence left [even though, there is still a
} substantial case for the existence and a few particulars of Jesus' life
} from non-Christian sources, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus].
} But for most of the details of Jesus life as those listed above are indeed
} dependent on the New Testament writings, particularly the Gospels.
}
} TILL
} I've "seen" Gary Habermas's works. He was supposed to be my debating
} opponent at Seattle-Pacific University in May 1995, but he was unable to
} participate because of his wife's serious illness. In anticipation of
} debating him, I read several of his books. I wasn't impressed. His
} "historical Jesus" turned out to be the Jesus of the gospels (surprise,
} surprise), and his evidence for his historicity was second- and thirdhand
} sources who never saw the man, never heard him preach, never saw him perform
} a miracle. It was over two years ago that I read his book, but as I recall
} it, he used the usual "contemporary" extrabiblical witnesses: the letter of
} Mara Bar-Serapion, the letter from Pliny the Younger, the statement in the
} *Annals* of Tacitus, the reference of Julius Africanus to (X)allus's
} mentioning of an eclipse, etc. None of it was firsthand contemporary
evidence.
KATZ
Isn't it incredible? Mr. Till doesn't believe in miracles, but he performs
miracles!!
Over two years ago, i.e. early 95 or so, if my math is correct, he read
Habermas' book which was published in June 96. What more can I say?
And he tells me the thing about foot in mouth etc...
No, obviously no atheist will ever be impressed by Christians.
To admit this would be rather detrimental. But I am sure you have heard
the name Anthony Flew, being one of the big names of atheist philosophers,
and you are doubtlessly aware of the debate between Flew and Habermas on
the Resurrection in 1985. The interesting thing about this debate was
that they had two panels of judges. The first a panel of five professors
of philosphy to judge on the content of the debate and five professional
debate judges to judge on the argumentation technique of the debators.
The judgement of the philophers was 4:0 for Habermas and one draw, while
the judgement of the debate judges was 3:2 for Habermas.
The debate text is printed in the book
Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
The Resurrection Debate
Obviously, those professors of philosphy were more impressed than Mr. Till,
for example one philosphy judge said: I was surprised [shocked might be a
more accurate word] to see how weak Flew's own approach was. I expected -
if not a new and powerful argument - at least a distinctly new twist to
some old arguments. ... [page xiv]
Feel free to state that you were not impressed, but be aware that will
not automatically mean I am impressed. Particularly about you reading
books 1.5 years before publication.
But probably, Mr. Till will then claim that he is better than Flew
anyway.
} TILL
} If we're going to suggest references to read, I would suggest that Katz read
} Michael Martin's *The Case Against Christianity* and the works of G. A.
} Wells on the historicity of Jesus.
KATZ
http://poconos.net/~reformed/apologetics/martin_TAG.html
is developing a web site in response to Michael Martin for those who are
interested.
} TILL
} You do reconize, don't you, that today is not 2,000 years ago? It would be
} too easy to expose my biography as a hoax today, but ...
KATZ
No excuses. Heaven's gate and other groups are able to get gullible followers
as well. Just do it. And it is just concescension to claim that people back
then didn't know to tell myth from reality, but today we do. Do you have
any clue how many fall for new age and psychics etc? I sincerely doubt
we have any less gullibility today than back then.
Well, you backed out. At least you could have imitated Ron Hubbard in
creating a mind control organization under the guise of religion and
make a fortune that way. Never mind. Habermas is not debating anymore.
He thinks it is much more fruitful to write, so you might have lost out
on that permanently now. But who knows?
Next time better read the right book.
The swan.
;->