65618 Responseshttp://www.nullifidian.net/2008/12/20/bbc-most-do-not-believe-in-nativity/BBC%3A+Most+%27do+not+believe+in+nativity%272008-12-20+18%3A14%3A10nullifidian to “BBC: Most ‘do not believe in nativity’”

1. heather on December 20th, 2008 9:12 am

   Snap

2. Rendezvous With Rama : nullifidian on December 20th, 2008 7:30 pm

   [...] never really taken a look at Vimeo before my last post, but I’m glad I took a little peek there. There’re some interesting little videos [...]

3. T_W on December 21st, 2008 4:02 am

   Tis the survey to be make you jolly! Sane English people, what a breath of fresh air.

   Shame about the token wingnuts we have to endure.

4. James on December 21st, 2008 10:53 am

   "there’s no evidence whatsoever to support it being considered as “fact” apart from in the christian scripture."

   This is just not true. Did you watch the video? Mention is made of extra-biblical evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus who claimed to be God, who was put to death by the Romans and who subsequently gained many followers.

   Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's former Middle East correspondent, once looked into this and concluded:

   "I thought you couldn't corroborate anything that was in the Gospels ….. To start with I didn't know there was a historical character called Jesus – I thought that you had to believe in Jesus the same way as you have to believe in God. I discovered that in fact there is a lot of historical corroboration for the existence of this man"

   Sources include the writings of Roman historian Tacitus and the letters of Pliny the Younger (Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor) to Emperor Trajan.

5. T_W on December 21st, 2008 11:09 am

   "This is just not true. Did you watch the video? Mention is made of extra-biblical evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus who claimed to be God, who was put to death by the Romans and who subsequently gained many followers."

   It is quite likely, and normally uncontested, that a person called Jesus existed around the time we now call 0AD.

   It is possible he claimed to be god. It is possible he was put to death by the Romans and it is certainly true that this "person" gained a lot of followers in subsequent centuries.

   None of this provides evidence for the nativity.

   Ironically, you cite several sources who neglect to mention the nativity. Interesting, isn't it.

6. James on December 21st, 2008 11:24 am

   It's very interesting because why would they? Why would any serious historian of the time care to document the birth of a single child born to poor parents in an 3rd rate town. At that level, it's hardly 'news'.

   The gospel writers, concerned to put together accurate biographies of the man Jesus, of course refer to the events of his birth. And it is the man Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, with whom we have to deal. Before his birth his parents were told "you are to call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins". During his life he said "I have come to seek and to save the lost" and "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me."

   He certainly is a man to be reckoned with. Read one or more of the gospel accounts of his life and see what you make of it; I find them to be compelling and I find the man portrayed to be genuine, attractive and indeed the way to know God.

   The Christmas period would be a great time to read a gospel account and to see what you make of Jesus!

7. Arneson Stidgeley on December 22nd, 2008 5:02 am

   "As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The christian scripture most certainly isn’t that."

   That's an extraordinary claim – can you back it up? Philosophically we just run around in circles.

   I understand the above fallacy is called 'Strong Rationalism' – ie, we are able to sit outside the world and make rational judgements on it. But from what vantage point?

8. Arneson Stidgeley on December 22nd, 2008 5:06 am

   "And where do we get this? Oh yes, this is recorded in documentation that was written at the very earliest decades after the death of the guy they're supposed to be writing about. "
   —————————————————————————————————————-

   I understand that this discounts the very strong oral tradition of passing down records of events in societies at that time and in that place. We must try to look outside our 21st century perspective and imagine what it was like then.

   And who's to say bits of it weren't written down very early? Granted, the earliest complete gospel accounts were at least 30 years after the events they record – but given the context this doesn't make it a show stopper.

9. Arneson Stidgeley on December 22nd, 2008 5:08 am

   Fair play to this site for putting up the video though.

10. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 5:32 am

    That's an extraordinary claim – can you back it up?

    No I can't, but neither can the christians, which is precisely my point. However, with them proclaiming knowledge, the burden of evidence is on them, and it's sorely lacking. I'm expressing doubt in their amazing claims — it's not them expressing doubt in mine.

    However, for the sake of argument, let's flip it on it's head. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is evidence that there's a kid around who can do magic and who goes to a magic school somewhere in what appears to be Scotland, drives around in an invisible blue flying Ford Anglia . What compulsion have you to doubt that this is true?

    [W]e are able to sit outside the world and make rational judgements on it. But from what vantage point?

    We are? From my perspective, I'm not "outside the world" (whatever that means), I'm very much a part of it.

11. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 5:40 am

    I understand that this discounts the very strong oral tradition of passing down records of events in societies at that time and in that place.

    And the existence of written scripture would seem to suggest that oral tradition wasn't quite good enough for the task. If it were, there wouldn't be a need for the written word. However, since it's here, and we don't have access to these oral traditions (which are of dubious quality at the best of times — why do you think hearsay isn't admissible in courts?) all we have to go on is a bunch of stories of no more verifiable authenticity of the detail than we have for the fables of Aesop or Homer's Iliad.

    [B]ut given the context this doesn't make it a show stopper.

    No, it doesn't, but it does justify doubt in their verity and accuracy, which is what I'm expressing.

12. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 5:41 am

    Thanks, although I don't see why I wouldn't. Thanks for commenting too.

13. T_W on December 22nd, 2008 8:36 am

    It's very interesting because why would they? Why would any serious historian of the time care to document the birth of a single child born to poor parents in an 3rd rate town. At that level, it's hardly 'news'.

    Kind of undermines your argument really.

    This is someone who supposedly walked on water. You'd think someone would have written about it at the time, rather than pass comment on the cult that grew up around him a few hundred years later.

    The Christmas period would be a great time to read a gospel account and to see what you make of Jesus!

    I have read a lot, thanks. We have religious education in our schools. Fortunately this is all part of education so its easy to learn where the mistakes and problems are.

14. T_W on December 22nd, 2008 8:40 am

    That's an extraordinary claim – can you back it up? Philosophically we just run around in circles.

    It isn't really an extraordinary claim. Who argues otherwise? Who argues that the truly amazing miracles need no proof of having happened?

15. T_W on December 22nd, 2008 8:43 am

    I understand that this discounts the very strong oral tradition of passing down records of events in societies at that time and in that place.

    The Romans had a very strong tradition for writing everything down and they were pretty much the daddies in the region at the time.

    Oral traditions are great – do they prove the Finnish creation tales are true? Do they also mean Zeus sat in Olympus and played dice with humanity (which is equally backed up by ancient texts as well as the oral traditions of the tale)?

16. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 8:50 am

    I should have made that point also. Thanks.

17. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 12:26 pm

    Yes, I did watch the video. All I heard was bald assertions, not evidence. I don't doubt that there was some bloke called Yeshua around in the first 30 odd years of the 1st century. So what?

    Does this provide evidence that one man, amongst who knows how many, with that name was trolling about preaching during the period in question was a god? No.

    Does this provide evidence that one man named Yeshua claimed to be a "messiah"? No, there were who knows how many people doing the same thing, and the jewish authorities and scribes at the time would have made a meal of it if there were.

    And you try to use a reporter, for the BBC or otherwise, as an authority on the historicity and authenticity of christian scripture? Please.

    Tacitus? He mentions (circa 116 CE) christians, not the christ. Is this evidence a christ existed? No, it's evidence that christians existed.

    Pliny the Younger? He mentions (circa 112 CE) christians that worship a christ (messiah – "annointed one")? Is this evidence that a messiah existed? No, it's evidence of christians and what they worshipped.

    Trajan? He was the recipient of letters from Pliny. Is this evidence of a christ? No, it's evidence of Pliny and Trajan.

    I sincerely hope you're not even going to bother with Josephus.

    And, just to close this comment, how is any of what either you or the video presented as evidence (aside from assertion) any kind of validation of the claim of a virgin mother? Lowly birth? Ghostly pregnancy? 25th December? A god?

18. nullifidian on December 22nd, 2008 12:46 pm

    I'm glad you describe the birth of an alleged god as being "hardly 'news'". That stuff was ten a penny at the time – messiahs popping out of the woodwork left right and centre.

    The gospel writers, concerned to put together accurate biographies of the man Jesus, of course refer to the events of his birth.

    And where, exactly, did they get this information? The Yeshua guy who they followed around and hung onto his every word? The woman who was this Yeshua guy's mother? An unmarried jewish woman in the bronze age? Some other guy who heard it from a friend of a friend? In the parlance of Wikipedia, "[citation needed]".

    Before his birth his parents were told "you are to call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins".

    And where do we get this? Oh yes, this is recorded in documentation that was written at the very earliest decades after the death of the guy they're supposed to be writing about.

    Wow.

    The rest of what you said is nothing more than a vague "thumbs up" for christian scripture.

    If you would recommend us reading christian scripture at this time of year (I've read it, even the extremely boring bits and the whackaloon tripfest that is 'Revelations') may I offer up my own recommendation: Pale Blue Dot . It's not trying to convert you from your religion, if you have one (I presume from what you've said that it's some kind of evangelical christianity, but you've not said so drectly, so I can't say that) and it's got bugger all to do with this time of year but it is damned interesting and entertaining. At least I'll accord that to you.