Christian 'Camel Method' toward Muslim conversions (this is not a sex thread)

[BurtWorm]

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/us/13beliefs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

...

Instead of talking about the Jesus of the New Testament, missionaries using the Camel Method point Muslims to the Koran, where in the third chapter, or sura, an infant named Isa — Arabic for Jesus — is born. Missionaries have found that by starting with the Koran’s Jesus story, they can make inroads with Muslims who reject the Bible out of hand. But according to Dr. Caner, whose attack on Dr. Rankin came in a weekly Southern Baptist podcast, the idea that the Koran can contain the seeds of Christian faith is “an absolute, fundamental deception.”

David Garrison, a missionary who edited a book on the Camel Method by Kevin Greeson, the method’s developer, defends the use of the Koran as a path to Jesus. “You aren’t criticizing Muhammad or any other prophets,” Dr. Garrison said, “just raising Jesus up.”

He explained that after reading the sura in which Maryam, or Mary, gives birth to Isa, a missionary might ask a Muslim, “Do you know of any other prophets born of a virgin?”

And, Dr. Garrison continued: “It says in that passage that Isa would be able to cleanse the leper, even raise the dead. At that point in the conversation with Muslims, we say, ‘Isn’t it interesting that Isa had this tremendous power that God gave to him? Even death was under his power.’

“Then you ask the question, ‘Is there any other prophet that had this kind of power?’ And in Islam, there isn’t.”

“Camel” is not (readers might be gladdened to learn) a reference to a beast of burden in Arab lands. Rather, it is Mr. Greeson’s acronym — Chosen Angels Miracles Eternal Life — to help missionaries remember aspects of Isa’s story....

To me this points up a serious problem--beyond the philosophical and entering the realm of the moral--with taking the Jesus story as literal history. It's one thing if believers take the story as literal biography, but when they use it to try to wrest believers away from other faiths, it can lead to social violence, which affects more than just Christians and Muslims potentially.

I think it matters what the consensus view (whatever that is) of Jesus is. I believe science offers the best model for creating a consensus view of anything--I mean the view that anyone of intelligence anywhere in the world can access if they're plugged into the 21st century. What exactly is the evidence that sacred writings of any kind ever reflect physical reality well? I think we would find that they rarely do. If we accept that the physics and human biology of the 1st century was probably the same as the physics and biology of the 21st century, what is the likelihood that there was a "prophet" born of a virgin who could raise the dead? Slim likelihood indeed.

If the consensus view were, at the very least, that there simply isn't enough evidence to believe in a historical Jesus, I believe it would, therefore, be less enticing to Christians to use this insultingly named Camel Method on Muslims, which just gets everybody into trouble. They might just as well try to convince someone that they're friends with a 6-foot tall talking rabbit named Harvey.

[cliffordu]

1. My prophet can kick the shit out of your prophet

[Gman]

2. You sound like a conservative denying global warming

"not enough evidence". You see, for you, there never will be enough evidence, just like there will never be enough evidence of global warming for conservatives. That's why I question the motives of conservatives over their denial of global warming. And what's your motive for this?

[BurtWorm]

4. What's your evidence?

You're making the positive claim. What have you got to convince me?

[Gman]

13. Why do you even bother to ask?

It matters not what I or anyone else would tell you, and you know that. Why do you waste the bandwidth?

[darkstar3]

14. Cop-out. n/t

[BurtWorm]

18. Because you asserted that my position is akin to climate change denial.

If it were, then you should be able to come back at me with several bullet points of facts and evidence. But the fact is you can't. The case for the historicity of Jesus, which is very weak, is nothing at all like the case for climate change, which is replete with supporting facts about CO2 levels, years of records keeping, physical evidence in ice cores and tree rings, etc., etc., etc.

[Silent3]

5. Not an apt comparison at all.

Scientists have plenty of good evidence for global warming, enough so that it becomes pretty unreasonable to deny it. And whether or not global warming is actually happening or not, the idea that it could is based on a pretty simple, plausible mechanism, illustrated in the extreme by taking a look at the real-life example of the planet Venus.

Evidence for an historical Jesus, especially a divine historical Jesus, is weak to non-existent. I actually used to think the evidence for an historical Jesus was good myself, but only because I'd heard that the evidence was good, but never directly examined it myself. Even among those who believe in Jesus, many will admit that it's "a matter of faith" for them, that evidence has little or nothing to do with their belief.

[Gman]

11. There clearly is enough documentary evidence that somebody named Jesus

actually did exist about 2000 years ago and was the topic of many conversations and discussions back then. This evidence is just as strong as evidence of any of the Pharaohs in Egypt, for example. If you want DNA evidence, it doesn't exist for Jesus. Although they have found the bodies of different Pharaohs in Egypt, some they have not and there is only documentary evidence of their existence. But, you can also with a straight face say, "That's not King Tut." regardless of the evidence. Just like global warming deniers deny regardless of the evidence. In the case of Jesus just as with the Pharoaohs, there is plenty of evidence. You either accept it or you don't.

Nevertheless, it all boils down to does someone accept the evidence in either case of Jesus or the Pharaohs. You can accept the many written accounts of this guy named Jesus, or of a Pharaoh for that matter, or not, regardless of the written record.

Now, as for the things that Jesus is alleged to have done, that's another completely different matter that's unrelated to whether or not he existed. That's where the faith comes in.

Once global warming deniers accept and acknowledge that there might be global warming they no longer have a case to be against the things that would stop and reverse global warming. Usually they deny for their own aggrandizement and enrichment. I don't know what the motivation is for the obsession with denying Jesus ever existed much less religion in general. That's no way to get rich quick. So, I just think it's somehow personally deep seated issues with the person that they want to deny people their beliefs. Using the many evils that religion has caused as a reason, just doesn't cut it since there are billions of people with religious beliefs and a infinitesimally small number of religious radicals. So that's not it.

[darkstar3]

16. Yeshua, the Hebrew name for Jesus, was quite popular 2000 years ago.

There most certainly was a person 2000 years ago named Yeshua, and as a matter of fact there were many of them. Were the Yeshuas mentioned in fairly sketchy records all the same man? Does this existence of a person with a popular name prove that THE Jesus referred to by Christians really existed?

[Gman]

21. and there's lots of Juans and Joses running around today too.

There is only one Jesus of Nazareth referred to not only in Scripture, but in other places including the so-called "blasphemous" gnostic gospels and elsewhere.

Thanks for playing,... try again.

[darkstar3]

27. Your point?

The whole idea of proving the historicity of Jesus is to find proof of his existence OUTSIDE Scripture and Gospel, so your only named sources are not part of this discussion. Your nebulous "elsewhere" needs to be explained before you can simply say "thanks for playing" as if you have somehow won the argument.

Prove to me that in these nebulous documents located "elsewhere" that there is "only one Jesus of Nazareth", and that he is the same man as the one referred to IN Scripture and Gospel.

And BTW, if you can do that, you might want to get every Christian apologist and Biblical scholar on the line, because you'll have done something they've been unable to do for centuries.

[Silent3]

17. I'm afraid actual mummified bodies and big artifacts like pyramids...

...are somewhat more convincing evidence than odd bits here and there in Roman records that aren't even all necessarily about the same person, much of which was written well after the end of the supposed lifetime of Jesus.

And there is still plenty of room for error in subjects like Egyptology where there is more evidence.

It's not like I'm stomping my feet screaming an absolute positive assertion that Jesus never existed. I'm merely saying the evidence for the historical person isn't as strong as a lot of people think it is. The Jesus we speak of today could be completely fictional, could be based on a real person but with plenty of legend and myth attached, or could be a composite of more than one real people, distorted and mythologized over time. The least likely possibility is that Jesus was an actual divine being born of a virgin who walked the earth performing miracles, later rising from death after crucifixion. Such a claim counts as an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, evidence which does not exist.

As for why to discuss the topic at all... well, you either care about objective truth or you don't. If you don't, then adults believing in Santa Claus is just fine too. You can adopt the "whatever works for you" standard of truth if you like. For me, however, I think it's an interesting question whether a real Jesus objectively existed or not. I don't consider the best way to reach a good answer to be asking yourself, "What answer makes you happiest to imagine?"

[Gman]

22. Well, then I don't believe Abraham Lincoln ever existed

that's not his body in that grave. I just don't believe it. Why should I? He was invented by the Northern states at a time of crisis to take the blame for what they were forcing on the South. Abraham Lincoln was a myth.

[Silent3]

25. Are you really comparing the degree of recorded history about Lincoln to that of Jesus?

You'd like to compare the work of numerous and separate historians and biographers contemporary with Lincoln during a much more recent and vastly improved time for record keeping to the threadbare historical record for Jesus? Lincoln is even recent enough in history that there are many photographs of him.

Sure, you can postulate any sort of vast conspiracy you like and come up with story about how the existence of Lincoln or nearly anyone else could have been faked. A vivid imagination for vast conspiracies, however, is not at all required in the slightest for postulating the idea of Jesus being mythical. Jesus easily and comfortably fits into the role of mythical person, far far better than a person like Lincoln does.

[Gman]

30. It doesn't matter what degree of recorded history there is about some guy (one of a great many)

named Lincoln. This Abraham one never existed. It's all one big fabrication put together by the 19th century military industrial complex to dominate the poor southern people and impose their way of life.

[Silent3]

33. If that works for you, go for it.

When you're ready to step out of playing this silly Lincoln-doubting character, as if you've got a point, maybe we can get somewhere.

[BurtWorm]

20. The written accounts about the Jesus we all know as Jesus are all from the Bible

Impossible to link the very few alleged references to Jesus outside the Bible that are usually cited in defense of his historicity to a real person. Several of those references (eg one about a Chrestus), seem to be about someone else--or could be about anyone. And others, as in the Testimonium Flavionum are most likely later Christian interpolations.

[Gman]

23. For that matter, I don't know that except for the Roman rulers at the time

there's a record of anyone that existed at the time beyond the assorted discovered ossuaries, in spite of the regular census's they would do. Does that mean no one existed in what is now Jerusalem until relatively recently?

The fact is there was no Youtube back then, no CNN, no camera crew that followed Jesus, Katie Couric wasn't even born yet (contrary to what many believe). They didn't even bother to start writing the things down about Jesus until at least 50 years after he died. And even then much wasn't written until the next century. It was all verbally handed down. That's how they did things. Writing things down was a very laborious process but they also had people that were the official keepers of the verbal records to keep them straight.

In any event, again, there is much written about a particular guy named Jesus who was somewhat famous and that lived around Jerusalem around 2000 years ago. He apparently attracted a lot of attention, both good and bad. And they talked about him and wrote about him a lot long after he was gone. Now someone may or may not believe he was divine, and he in fact may or may not have been divine. That's the faith aspect. But there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact exist.

[darkstar3]

28. What incredibly twisted logic!

I don't know that except for the Roman rulers at the time there's a record of anyone that existed at the time...Does that mean no one existed in what is now Jerusalem until relatively recently?

Playing by the same logic: You can't prove to me that a man called Brian, a Jew with a Centurion father called Bigusdicus, didn't exist at the same time as Jesus.

[Goblinmonger]

9. I really enjoy how anytime anyone talks about religion frankly

the comparisons to the far right are never far behind.

And are you seriously comparing the denial of global warming to the statement that there is no proof for a historical Jesus? Cause, damn, I don't even really know what to say that won't get my post deleted if you are.

[Gman]

12. Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying

Why does that piss you people off so badly?

[Goblinmonger]

19. Well let's see.

A. There is no evidence of a historical Jesus.
B. There is clear evidence of global warming.

To say that those who claim A are the same as those that deny B is just plain silly, illogical, and ignorant. If you think A is wrong, go nuts and prove it wrong, but it's not.

[Gman]

24. Ok, I'm going to repost my post, post #2 on this thread:

To the OP:

You sound like a conservative denying global warming

"not enough evidence". You see, for you, there never will be enough evidence, just like there will never be enough evidence of global warming for conservatives. That's why I question the motives of conservatives over their denial of global warming. And what's your motive for this?

Ok, so... where here do I say that they're the same? Similar in thinking, yes. The same, no. Again, the two groups are similar because there can never be enough evidence presented to either group that will be convincing enough to change their views.

[Silent3]

26. Here are two other groups of people.

For these people, there can never be enough evidence to change their minds:

1) People who think aliens abduct them and anally probe them at night.
2) People who think the Earth is round, and that it doesn't ride on the back of a giant turtle.

Might as lump both types of people together as birds of a feather, huh, for their common stubborn refusal to be swayed?

In case it hasn't dawned on you quite yet, there are both good and bad reasons for not being swayed by what some people call "evidence". The particulars matter much, much more than the degree of difficulty in changing a person's mind.

[Gman]

31. You're exactly right

the point being, I think there is sufficient documentation to, not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, but easily by a preponderance of the evidence, show that there was a guy named Jesus that attracted a lot of attention some 2000 years ago.

I would think this could also be considered in the context of a "null hypothesis" that "Jesus existed". Then the job would be to disprove this. Lacking any kind of a "smoking gun" hard evidence that exposes Jesus as a myth, there is (to me) no reason not to accept the many accounts of him as evidence that he existed. However, as a null hypothesis goes, not disproving it does not imply that it is proved and I never meant to say that in the case of Jesus. I only say that it appears to me that, based on the evidence, he did.

[darkstar3]

32. You're still using

the same twisted logic I pointed out in #28, and you are completely misusing the phrase "null hypothesis." Google it.

[Gman]

35. Again, I've never said Jesus' existence is proved beyond all doubt

but there's a lot more evidence that he did exist than there is Mr Brian and his famous porn king father. It becomes what burden of proof you want to use.

And, I took statistics. I know what a null hypothesis is and how to use it. In general and extremely simplified, we assume that a null hypothesis is true. Then you collect the data and, in statistics, if the data falls outside the third standard deviation (about 95% of all data studied), you can consider the null hypothesis disproved as it would be unlikely for the data to be outside of the group within the 95%. It can happen, but it's unlikely. (5% or less chance).

Disproving a null hypothesis is an exercise in logic. It's using data to attempt to disprove something assumed to be true. If it cannot be disproven, it's not necessarily assumed to be true, but it is not false. In other words, you don't change your way of thinking about the issue.

In this case, you can no more prove Jesus did not exist than I can prove he did. However, I can point to documentation that says he did exist, and there's plenty of it. You cannot point to evidence that says he did not exist. You also cannot prove a negative. You can only dispute my evidence. The null hypothesis is therefore not disproven just because you dispute my evidence.

[Silent3]

34. Whatever you think the quality of your evidence is...

...it's nowhere as good as the evidence for global warming, so your original analogy still sucks.

You make up excuses for why solid evidence from the 1 AD-ish time period is harder to come by, but I'm not grading on a curve here. Evidence doesn't become more convincing because it has a note from its mother why it isn't so good.

Your analogies with Pharaohs don't hold, nor would a similar analogy hold for Roman emperors either, who are documented in buildings, inscriptions, statutes, coins stamped in their images, etc.

"Many accounts" in and of itself isn't a great standard for evidence. There are "many accounts" of the feats of Hercules and the adventures of Odysseus. One can hardy count the what is said of Jesus in the Bible alone -- a book put together in committee with the specific goal of creating a religion people would want to follow -- as great evidence, and even the parts about Jesus in Bible are known to have been written well after the death of the supposed Jesus, with plenty of intervening time for mythologizing a real person or simply reworking older, similar messiah legends.

Corroboration outside of the Bible is almost non existent until the Bible itself had time to be the source of the supposed corroboration.

[Gman]

37. Actually, there is a lot of corroboration outside the Bible

Check out the Gospel of Thomas which is supposed to be a collection of quotes or sayings from Jesus written down by Thomas the Apostle. Or check out the Gospel of Mary. The Catholic Church considers them blasphemous and questions their validity, but that's more because they don't corroborate the same story of the four official gospels. Interestingly, the Church doesn't accept these (and others) as you don't accept official scripture, but for different reasons.

And, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, while I cannot prove Jesus existed, you cannot prove he did not exist because you cannot prove a negative. And, you cannot prove this negative any more than a conservative can prove global warming does not exist because a negative cannot be proven. Only a positive can be disproven. You may not accept my evidence, but absent something substantial that proves or at least casts serious doubt on whether Jesus existed, you have no case that Jesus did not exist.

[Silent3]

38. By that reasoning, a first century Bozo the Clown is a good bet.

You've got a totally twisted view of how to handle a null hypothesis. You don't just arbitrarily choose what you want to be true, call that the null hypothesis, and say "Well, if you can't absolutely prove me wrong, then I'm as good as right!"

Finding extra gospels about Jesus are like finding extra stories about Hercules. Unless the stories contain details that can be backed by corroborating, interlinking historical and archeological facts, it's just more people playing on the theme of a popular character.

Having lots of stories that are indistinguishable from fiction, plus the valiant cry of "You can't prove me wrong!" is not a very compelling position to argue from.

[darkstar3]

40. Thank you.

You've succinctly stated the point I wanted to make to him just above.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Please share with me just a snippet of that

"preponderance of evidence" for a historical Jesus. Would love to actually see some.

[Chulanowa]

3. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Islamic theology, too

Christianity hinges on the concept that Jesus IS god. "Raising up" 'Isa in the Koran will not have this effect on Muslims. Most would simply see 'Isa as evidence of the power of Allah. Maybe overshadow Mohammad, but that's about as good as you can expect.

It's kinda like pointing out the similarities between Jesus and Bacchus. A Christian might go "Hey, that's kind of neat" - but they're not going to convert to the Roman pantheon.

"Camel" - yeah, the acronym is totally coincidental.

[Silent3]

6. "Chosen Angels Miracles Eternal Life"

I personally think this acronym needs to be expanded to add "Theology Of Evangelism".

[Jokerman]

10. LOL

Actually took me a second to get that but it was worth it.

Maybe this could be a sex thread...

[darkstar3]

15. LOL! Well done, sir. n/t

[iris27]

7. I believe you underestimate the arrogance of the sort of Christians who would proselytize to

those of other faiths. When I was one, I was so inside the box of my faith that I didn't really comprehend the idea that someone could really NOT believe Jesus was the world's savior...surely they were only a few clever conversations and Bible verses away from seeing The Truth!

Just look at "Jews for Jesus", whose members are mostly not Jewish but evangelicals who've learned a few neat Hebrew phrases, except for a handful of people (who grew up Christian) born to Christian moms and non-practicing Jewish dads. This group is often quite disrespectful to Jews; they poison their own reputation much more than they actually spread their gospel.

A societal consensus that there isn't enough evidence for a historical Jesus would never happen since Christians have such strong numbers, but in the parallel universe where it did happen, it wouldn't give missionaries like these even one second's pause.

[BurtWorm]

8. I still believe it's essential to work toward reaching that consensus.

Essential to peace among people of different faiths and of no faith.

But your points are certainly well taken.

[sam sarrha]

29. people who'd try to convert a Muslim know absolutely nothing about Islam, and are totally delusional

they had better know better than to try that inside an Islamic Republic.. it is a death sentence under Sharia law.

[onager]

36. I saw some of these dopes when I lived in Egypt.

Right down the street from my apartment in Alexandria, there was the Bible Society of Egypt. Which, to my Fundamentalist Atheist delight, meant its acronym was the fitting "BS-Egypt." To me, anyway. It has been trying to convert Egyptians for 125 years now, without much noticable effect.

It was a pretty sad place, even though it was located in a hopping neighborhood - just a few steps away from the beach and the Mediterranean, on a street crammed with interesting tourist traps. One neighborhood in the district is even named "Miami." Yes, it was named for that place in Florida.

I often walked thru the area, sometimes to buy myself a roast chicken or some fresh fruit from the street vendors. Other times I just wanted to get out and gawk at my fellow humans. Especially in summer, when the population of Alexandria can increase by a million people on weekends. The locals have a neat Arabic phrase for that occurrence - the translation is "May all the holiday-makers rot in hell." Prices go up, parking is impossible...just like any American beach town.

So I frequently passed by BS-Egypt, and sometimes looked in out of curiosity. It mostly contained dusty, fly-blown children's Bible-story books in Arabic, and a few Buy-bulls translated into Arabic.

I never saw any potential Muslim customers dropping in. Of course, about 5% of the Egyptian population is Xian. Mostly Off-Brand Xians, I should add, belonging to the Coptic Xian sect. Not good old Buybull-thumping Praise-Jaysus American Fundie-type Xians.