Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on July 18, 2017, 05:44:37 PM
-
deleted
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
Do you remember what your old granny used to say to you when she was trying to put the fear of God in to you?
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
That's cos you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, innit!
-
That's cos you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, innit!
*yawn* Jackanory is still going, is it?
-
That's cos you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, innit!
Ooo - I can feel a good old fashioned circular argument coming on. ;)
-
The 'Searching for God' thread is thataway :D
-
The 'Searching for God' thread is thataway :D
Stop searching - he is hiding behind the sofa with his X-Box!
-
When you need to recall what someone has said, it helps if you've understood it. They couldn't have written it down immediately because they didn't understand it; they make it quite clear that they didn't. Eg John 14-16.
-
The first gospel was written by someone who would have known how to record details accurately. (Levi the tax collector). For some time after the ascension, the disciples were together as a group, and would have drawn up accounts of the events (Luke 1:1).
-
Just exactly how old IS the oldest piece of Biblical scripture we have. ??
Is it nearly 2 thousand years old ?!?!!?
-
The first gospel was written by someone who would have known how to record details accurately.
How do you know - there is certainly no evidence for that as there is precious little even close to being contemporary. And, of course, we have no way of knowing whether what was written is accurate.
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
People who normally accept distance in time between event and the writing of history imho can start special pleading when it comes to Christian history.
-
For some time after the ascension, the disciples were together as a group, and would have drawn up accounts of the events (Luke 1:1).
I thought the conventional view was that they rapidly scattered to a range of places where they preached about Jesus. So by the time the first records we have were written they were mostly dead and hadn't been together for perhaps 30 or more years.
And even had they been together, why would you think that would result in an accurate account. I think that is extremely unlikely as they were sadly neutral were they. If you want an accurate account of a football match you don't ask a fanatical and passionate supporter of one team, totally caught up in the emotion of the match. For that person it was the clearest penalty in the world and the ref was blind for not giving it. No - you ask a dispassionate neutral, or if there isn't one better to get accounts from the supporters of both sides.
The bible is the equivalent of an account written by fanatical and passionate supporters of one team only, with no balancing view available whatsoever. It is partial and biased and therefore should be read with that is mind.
-
A story I was told many times as a child by family members about a deceased relative now turns out to have been a work of fiction. We have recently found authentic documentary evidence, which is very different to the story my family had believed to be true, even though the event had only taken place two years previously.
I have a similar story about one of my relatives (a sea-going farmer!) who died when the ship he was on sank and his role in saving a young woman. The fiction was even reported in a New York newspaper - the story was hugely embellished creating a much better news story, but it wasn't true.
-
A story I was told many times as a child by family members about a deceased relative now turns out to have been a work of fiction. We have recently found authentic documentary evidence, which is very different to the story my family had believed to be true, even though the event had only taken place two years previously.
I'm sure that can happen although your post is sketchy on the circumstances. It cannot be denied that the letters of the NT encourage verification...The 500 witnesses.
-
What the heck has that got to do with anything?
It has everthing to do with it. Because you don't believe in the Holy Spirit you do not trust the gospel accounts. Neither do you believe that the Holy Spirit protected them from all error.
-
The 500 witnesses.
Which is just about the clearest indication that what is written is a pack of lies.
If there really were 500 witness of a dead guy suddenly not being dead anymore, do you not think that at least a few of those 500 people would have noted it, recorded it, reported it. Yet we have not one iota of contemporaneous evidence from any of those 500 (many of whom would have been evidential gold dust as they would not have been partial) that they saw a dead man alive again.
Or maybe seeing dead people alive again was commonplace back in those days.
-
It has everthing to do with it. Because you don't believe in the Holy Spirit you do not trust the gospel accounts. Neither do you believe that the Holy Spirit protected them from all error.
Oh no - circular argument alert.
-
Which is just about the clearest indication that what is written is a pack of lies.
If there really were 500 witness of a dead guy suddenly not being dead anymore, do you not think that at least a few of those 500 people would have noted it, recorded it, reported it. Yet we have not one iota of contemporaneous evidence from any of those 500 (many of whom would have been evidential gold dust as they would not have been partial) that they saw a dead man alive again.
Or maybe seeing dead people alive again was commonplace back in those days.
Pack of lies, really How so?
Comparatively little is extant in ancient history...any ancient history.
-
Floo being absurd again. I should have known better.
Anyway, my point was that of course you don't believe the gospel accounts are accurate because you don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Don't get your knickers in a twist, dear!
-
"There is no evidence that the HS is anymore than a figment of the human imagination."
is hardly getting any form of underwear in a twist, is it now?
-
Oh no - circular argument alert.
There's nothing circular about it. You either believe in the Holy Spirit or not. If you do then it's possible to believe that he protected the scriptures from error; if you don't, then obviously you don't believe it's possible. It's as simple as that. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
-
There's nothing circular about it.
Er, yes there is ...
I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
I would have thought that about Floo's post.
-
"There is no evidence that the HS is anymore than a figment of the human imagination."
is hardly getting any form of underwear in a twist, is it now?
It was in reference to nonce priests.
-
not the sort of folk with whom decent people would wish to associate!
Now were coming to it, the true destination of the New Atheist project?
-
It was in reference to nonce priests.
Yes ... not so much protected by the holy spirit as protected by the church of your absolute, final, unchangeable truth last year.
-
Er, yes there is
Then in your infinite wisdom please tell us all why.
-
When you need to recall what someone has said, it helps if you've understood it. They couldn't have written it down immediately because they didn't understand it; they make it quite clear that they didn't. Eg John 14-16.
John's all made up, Spud. The Jesus in that's a very different character to the Jesus in the other Gospels. Haven't you noticed?
-
Yes ... not so much protected by the holy spirit as protected by the church of your absolute, final, unchangeable truth last year.
[/quote
You're a bore.
-
Repeated assertions of absurd nonsense isn't exactly setting the forum alight either.
-
There's nothing circular about it. You either believe in the Holy Spirit or not. If you do then it's possible to believe that he protected the scriptures from error; if you don't, then obviously you don't believe it's possible. It's as simple as that. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
If the HS exists, then it is possible. However, one would then expect there to be absolute consistency of detail, not obvious and irreconcilable contradictions*. As Rhiannon has noted, the Jesus of John is a very different character from the Jesus of the synoptics.
*Of course, the contradictions are reconcilable if you start with the premiss that the gospels are divinely inspired - then by varied and devious means you can always make a black out of a white, and foist your 'interpretation' on the gullible.
-
There's nothing circular about it.
Q - How do you know that scriptures are free from error?
A - Because the Holy Spirit keeps them from error
Q - But how do you know that the Holy Spirit exists and keeps scripture free from error?
A - Because that is what it says in scripture.
Q - But how do you know that the scriptures are correct, in other words free from error?
Return to answer one. And keep circular arguing until dizzy.
-
Pack of lies, really How so?
So to start with let's talk about the primary claim which is that a human was clinically dead for three days and then came back to life. There is no evidence that this has ever happened anywhere and it is physiologically impossible.
But let's for the sake of arguments accept that this did happen - in which case it would be, literally, just about the most astonishing thing ever to have happened.
So the second claim - that this impossibly astonishing thing was witnessed by 500 people (I gather all in one place) - were that to have actually happened it would have spread like wildfire. It beggars belief that were these 500 people to have seen this impossible thing that they would have kept quite - they'd have told everyone they knew and in a couple of tellings this would pretty well have covered pretty well the whole population. So it would undoubtedly have come to the attention of both the Jewish and Roman authorities.
Yet there is nothing - not a dicky bird from the supposed witnesses, from the greater population, and critically from the Jewish and Roman authorities, who were assiduous record keepers. Not a sausage.
Also were this to happen surely the population of Jerusalem would have undoubtedly accepted the early Christian belief and Christianity would have grown out of Jerusalem. But it didn't - it took hold elsewhere, not where those apparent 500 lived.
So for this all to be possible it would require those witnessing a completely astonishing event to simply ignore it, not tell all their family and friends. And also to ignore it theologically - saw a dead man come alive, says he's the son of god - but hey no biggy - I'll carry on with my existing belief. That simply defies credulity.
-
Nowt at all mentioned in ANY Roman reports ?!!?
Wonder why ?!!?!? ;) :o
-
Nowt at all mentioned in ANY Roman reports ?!!?
Wonder why ?!!?!? ;) :o
Because we have very few Roman reports of Isreal at the time, effectively none contemporary and there is no reason to suspect that it was seen as a big thing.
-
Thanks
Says it all really.
Seem to mean sod all to the Romans.
-
Let's remember that according to the accounts of the crucifixion he was nailed up with a couple of thieves, Rome crucified a lot of people. This was in a backwater of the empire, a troublesome one certainly but not somewhere you went to make your name or fortune.
-
I thought the conventional view was that they rapidly scattered to a range of places where they preached about Jesus. So by the time the first records we have were written they were mostly dead and hadn't been together for perhaps 30 or more years.
And even had they been together, why would you think that would result in an accurate account. I think that is extremely unlikely as they were sadly neutral were they. If you want an accurate account of a football match you don't ask a fanatical and passionate supporter of one team, totally caught up in the emotion of the match. For that person it was the clearest penalty in the world and the ref was blind for not giving it. No - you ask a dispassionate neutral, or if there isn't one better to get accounts from the supporters of both sides.
The bible is the equivalent of an account written by fanatical and passionate supporters of one team only, with no balancing view available whatsoever. It is partial and biased and therefore should be read with that is mind.
So why do they do their best to highlight the disciples failure to understand? No bias there. In John 14 where did the four questions asked by Peter, Thomas, Philip and Judas (not Iscariot) come from, if not the memories of at least a few of them?
Matthew was overseen by James and Mark by Peter. Luke by Paul. John was Jesus' best mate so he knew him in a different way from the rest.
-
Q - How do you know that scriptures are free from error?
A - Because the Holy Spirit keeps them from error
Q - But how do you know that the Holy Spirit exists and keeps scripture free from error?
A - Because that is what it says in scripture.
Q - But how do you know that the scriptures are correct, in other words free from error?
Return to answer one. And keep circular arguing until dizzy.
That's not quite what I said. I said if you believe in the Holy Spirit then you can also believe that it's possible for the Holy Spirit to protect the scriptures from all error. If you don't then it isn't possible. There's a subtle difference. Take your time....
-
That's not quite what I said. I said if you believe in the Holy Spirit then you can also believe that it's possible for the Holy Spirit to protect the scriptures from all error. If you don't then it isn't possible. There's a subtle difference. Take your time....
And how does anyone come to a belief in the holy spirit and a belief that the holy spirit protected the scriptures from error except, directly or indirectly, via the scriptures.
And round you go again.
-
Matthew was overseen by James and Mark by Peter. Luke by Paul. John was Jesus' best mate so he knew him in a different way from the rest.
Evidence please.
The timing of the gospels by itself makes non-sense of your claims. For example James is believed to have died on about AD44, some 30 years before the gospel of Matthew.
-
So why do they do their best to highlight the disciples failure to understand? No bias there. In John 14 where did the four questions asked by Peter, Thomas, Philip and Judas (not Iscariot) come from, if not the memories of at least a few of them?
Matthew was overseen by James and Mark by Peter. Luke by Paul. John was Jesus' best mate so he knew him in a different way from the rest.
And I wonder what sort of relationship that was?
-
So why do they do their best to highlight the disciples failure to understand? No bias there. In John 14 where did the four questions asked by Peter, Thomas, Philip and Judas (not Iscariot) come from, if not the memories of at least a few of them?
Matthew was overseen by James and Mark by Peter. Luke by Paul. John was Jesus' best mate so he knew him in a different way from the rest.
Was that he same John who was described as illiterate in Acts 4:13?
-
Evidence please.
James and Matthew are similar in the nature of their content, saying a lot about helping those in need, for example. Since Matthew had previously been a tax official, he would have been chosen to write the first account; he would have been guided by the church leader, James as to what he included.
Mark adds eyewitness details to Matthew's account, but omits much of the sermon material. Someone is clearly supervising him, telling him "cut this bit out, enough has been said" and "there were other boats with us". Who is this more likely to have been than Peter, with whom Mark spent time?
Luke traveled with Paul, hence his gospel is structured around Jesus' journey towards Jerusalem.
John wrote down the content of the fourth gospel (21:24), which was then used by a scribe (21:25). Somehow it came to be structured around seven miraculous signs.
The timing of the gospels by itself makes non-sense of your claims. For example James is believed to have died on about AD44, some 30 years before the gospel of Matthew.
Matthew must have been written while James was still alive, then.
-
James and Matthew are similar in the nature of their content, saying a lot about helping those in need, for example. Since Matthew had previously been a tax official, he would have been chosen to write the first account; he would have been guided by the church leader, James as to what he included.
Mark adds eyewitness details to Matthew's account, but omits much of the sermon material. Someone is clearly supervising him, telling him "cut this bit out, enough has been said" and "there were other boats with us". Who is this more likely to have been than Peter, with whom Mark spend time?
Luke traveled with Paul, hence his gospel is structured around Jesus' journey towards Jerusalem.
John wrote down the content of the fourth gospel (21:24), which was then used by a scribe (21:25). Somehow it came to be structured around seven miraculous signs.
Matthew must have been written while James was still alive, then.
James didn't write one of the books of the Bible!
-
He wrote an epistle.
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
A quick bible lesson you have never learned though claim to have been taught.
Zechariah 4:6 KJV
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 Peter 1:21 KJV
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
John 16:13 (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
King James Version
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
You see now how God makes foolish the knowledge of scholars.
You see you think only in the flesh and by the means of flesh.
But God shows as does those taught by Gods Holy Spirit that all men who belong to God who know Christ have the Spirit of God
and he imparts all truth to believers throughout the history of the bible and God being with Man.
You cannot know what is true in the bible, no more than you can understand how the believer in the Spirit understands what
is true in the bible. It is a spiritual thing for those reborn of the Spirit. But the bible DOES show YOU that if you took the time to actually read it, that it tells you how people can know the truth.
The Holy Spirit whom is present from beginning to the end of the bible.
King James Version
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Now if you choose, even as a worldly scholar to learn these things... you will never again ask that question because you will already have the answer to it. We as believers can know what Christ said because of the truth which God has taught us.
-
James and Matthew are similar in the nature of their content, saying a lot about helping those in need, for example. Since Matthew had previously been a tax official, he would have been chosen to write the first account; he would have been guided by the church leader, James as to what he included.
Mark adds eyewitness details to Matthew's account, but omits much of the sermon material. Someone is clearly supervising him, telling him "cut this bit out, enough has been said" and "there were other boats with us". Who is this more likely to have been than Peter, with whom Mark spent time?
Luke traveled with Paul, hence his gospel is structured around Jesus' journey towards Jerusalem.
John wrote down the content of the fourth gospel (21:24), which was then used by a scribe (21:25). Somehow it came to be structured around seven miraculous signs.
None of that fits with what serious bible scholars think - particularly as there is no certainty about the actual authors of the gospels - let alone who might have 'supervised' them.
Matthew must have been written while James was still alive, then.
Contradicts serious bible scholarly consensus who date Matthew around 70AD at the very earliest, with most scholars suggesting between 80-90AD.
-
Yes, yes! We all know the arguments. They mention the destruction of the Temple therefore they must have been written after 70 AD. Seems like a massive non sequitur to me or the argument of an atheist or someone on the edge of apostasy.
-
Yes, yes! We all know the arguments. They mention the destruction of the Temple therefore they must have been written after 70 AD. Seems like a massive non sequitur to me or the argument of an atheist or someone on the edge of apostasy.
Or a sensible, objective, consistent and neutral approach to dating historical documents used by serious academics engaged in serious and credible academic study.
-
None of that fits with what serious bible scholars think - particularly as there is no certainty about the actual authors of the gospels - let alone who might have 'supervised' them.
Contradicts serious bible scholarly consensus who date Matthew around 70AD at the very earliest, with most scholars suggesting between 80-90AD.
You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.
There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.
-
You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.
No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:
1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.
2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.
3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).
In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.
There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.
See above.
-
No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:
1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.
2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.
3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).
In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.
See above.
Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest. It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century. It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.
-
You mean: "I agree with it and I'm encouraging you to read it because I want you to agree with it and me."
-
No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:
1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.
The credibility depends on the scholarship and research of the author. Compare for instance a journalistic account of an event and that event written as history 2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.
I find it ironic that there are those who say there are no independent roman or jewish accounts as if that would demonstrate bias ignoring of course that those could be biased themselves!. There seems to be a doctrinal drive attending the gospels probably because there were other theories of who Jesus was doing the rounds I'm thinking here of the Ebionites who think of Jesus as a prophet in the OT fashion. The trouble is of course is that the epistles already talk of a distinctly orthodox Christian position as held decades before AD 80.3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).
See above.
Impartiality would be difficulty to attain in this issue....Take this forum for instance.
It may have been better from a roman and jewish point of view to let it lie.
What we don't see of course is Jesus as myth or composite or with a radically different role or ministry until centuries later
In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.
Non contemporaneousness is not a guarantee of lower credibility see my comments on newspaper report versus scholarly and researched history.
Writing for a purpose does not necessarily inhibit historical reporting.
The gospel is reported as being abroad, anyway, in the earlier epistles.
That a resource was likely used can be established by literary analysis and I believe has been.
-
Yes, yes! We all know the arguments. They mention the destruction of the Temple therefore they must have been written after 70 AD. Seems like a massive non sequitur to me or the argument of an atheist or someone on the edge of apostasy.
According to you ANY argument that contradicts you and/or your version of Christianity is heresy and/or apostacy - talk about a broken record - click - a broken record - click - a broken record - etc ad nauseam!
-
You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.
There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.
My, and others more erudite than I, point exactly - THERE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN - there is no proff thgat they did.
-
Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest. It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century. It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.
Are you really suggesting that a theological scholar is unbiased in matters pertaining to theology?
-
My, and others more erudite than I, point exactly - THERE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN - there is no proff thgat they did.
The epistles predate the Gospels and the orthodox Christian gospel is found in those. Literary analysi of the gospel points to a high probability of source material so there are the two separate strands of epistle and gospel and most probable third strand the sources.
-
Are you really suggesting that a theological scholar is unbiased in matters pertaining to theology?
I am certainly seriously claiming that FF Bruce meets all the requirements for theological scholarship as listed by Prof Davey in post #56. Which is why I suggested he read the booklet to get a somewhat different view from an internationally acclaimed scholar
-
I am certainly seriously claiming that FF Bruce meets all the requirements for theological scholarship as listed by Prof Davey in post #56.
Which might well be an answer to some other question posed by someone else somewhere else, but certainly not the one by Owlswing in #64.
Does Brucie baby meet the criteria of following a: "sensible, objective, consistent and neutral approach to dating historical documents used by serious academics engaged in serious and credible academic study"?
-
Which might well be an answer to some other question posed by someone else somewhere else, but certainly not the one by Owlswing in #64.
Does Brucie baby meet the criteria of following a: "sensible, objective, consistent and neutral approach to dating historical documents used by serious academics engaged in serious and credible academic study"?
His credentials seem to be in order.
Just had a look at the scholars behind The God who wasn't there, Flemming, Sam Harris SAM HARRIS?!, the New Atheist Sam Harris? The chap who someone in New Scientist referred to as a big noise in neuroscience? What's this .............................moonlighting as a historian?
-
His credentials seem to be in order.
Just had a look at the scholars behind The God who wasn't there, Flemming, Sam Harris SAM HARRIS?!, the New Atheist Sam Harris? The chap who someone in New Scientist referred to as a big noise in neuroscience? What's this .............................moonlighting as a historian?
Is Harris's work categorised as history, then? News to me.
-
Evidence please.
The timing of the gospels by itself makes non-sense of your claims. For example James is believed to have died on about AD44, some 30 years before the gospel of Matthew.
James, the brother of the apostle John was certainly martyred at an early stage. 42AD would be my preferred date but I have no problems with any date from 41 to 44AD. We have no record that he ever wrote anything and if he did it is long since lost.
The almost unanimous view of the early church is that the Letter of James was written by James, one of the natural children of Joseph and Mary and generally known as the Lord's brother. He was the recognized head of the church in Jerusalem. James was martyred in 62AD so if he was the author of the Letter then it would have been written before that. In fact some conservative scholars believe it could have been written quite a few years earlier. Arguments put forward in support of this view include:
In James 1:1 we read that the letter is written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”. Thus the audience for James’s letter is almost certainly Jewish Christians only and not Gentile Christians. Strongly suggesting it was written before the results of Paul's missionary efforts had led to large numbers of Gentile Christians.
In James 2:2 where James talks about your “assembly” the Greek word he uses is actually ‘synagōgē’. But it did not take long for the term Church (Gk ekklēsiastēs) to be used to describe the meetings of believers. Once again evidence for an early date for James.
While the 'argument from silence' should only be used in a secondary support role it can possibly be applied here. James played the key role at the Council of Jerusalem. If the letter had been written after the council (AD 48–49), it would be expected that James would have mentioned the issues from that momentous occasion. But he did not.
The above would all support an early date for James when the Church was still predominantly Jewish and the exiles were those from one of the earliest persecutions of believers in Judah. This would make it a possible contender, together with Galatians and 1 Thessalonians, as the earliest of the New Testament Documents.
Of course liberal scholars do not like such arguments as the need to insist that all the New Testament documents were written long after the events drives them to find another James of a much later date.
-
And how does anyone come to a belief in the holy spirit and a belief that the holy spirit protected the scriptures from error except, directly or indirectly, via the scriptures.
If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.
-
Is Harris's work categorised as history, then? News to me.
Are you not aware what the God who wasn't there is?
-
Are you not aware what the God who wasn't there is?
Other than a god that isn't there ... ? :D
-
If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.
Non sequitur.
-
Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest. It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century. It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.
Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:
' He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to some confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce
This would imply he thinks that details such as the claimed miracles associated with Jesus (inc. the resurrection), which I'm assuming are examples of such truth claims, should be accepted as being historically reliable since they are noted in the NT.
Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.
-
Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:
Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.
Rather than basing your conclusions on a third party opinion, which may or may not simply have been written by a biased liberal theologian, why don't you read the little booklet for yourself and form your own opinion directly.
-
Rather than basing your conclusions on a third party opinion, which may or may not simply have been written by a biased liberal theologian, why don't you read the little booklet for yourself and form your own opinion directly.
Do you have a link to it?
Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?
-
If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.
Can you describe this experience you attribute to the HS?
-
Can you describe this experience you attribute to the HS?
If he can find the time and space for that perhaps he can find the time and space to explain the process that took him from 'such-and-such an experience' to 'Holy Spirit".
I'd caution you not to hold your breath, though.
-
Do you have a link to it?
Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?
Afraid not and have no idea as to the extent. if any, that his writings are available online. I have my own hard copy of the book. If you are really interested in looking at it, perhaps Anchorman could point you in the right direction. I would not be surprised to hear that he is also familiar with FF Bruce's writings.
-
Other than a god that isn't there ... ? :D
It is the cinematic testament of Jesus Myth theorists like Carrier.
-
It is the cinematic testament of Jesus Myth theorists like Carrier.
OK. And?
-
Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:
' He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to some confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce
This would imply he thinks that details such as the claimed miracles associated with Jesus (inc. the resurrection), which I'm assuming are examples of such truth claims, should be accepted as being historically reliable since they are noted in the NT.
Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.
Last bit is rubbish and probably other bits as well.
You don't get what history is which is whatever happened and as such it cannot be beholden to any philosophy which states what should happen and you certainly have a poor grasp on the problem of induction...and while we're about it you aren't that up to speed on Karl Popper on science either.
-
... except that to find out "whatever happened" you need a methodology to deploy as a procedural tool to that end - which is why history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.
-
... except that to find out "whatever happened" you need a methodology to deploy as a procedural tool to that end - which is why history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.
Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.
-
Last bit is rubbish and probably other bits as well.
You don't get what history is which is whatever happened and as such it cannot be beholden to any philosophy which states what should happen and you certainly have a poor grasp on the problem of induction...and while we're about it you aren't that up to speed on Karl Popper on science either.
Oh dear, you are confused.
For theology to make historical claims it would need to employ a historical method, which assumes naturalism. Theology doesn't assume naturalism, and has no comparable alternative method, therefore theology ain't history even though it may refer to historical people of events its core theological claims, such as miracles, can't be viewed as being historical facts.
-
Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.
Does history, as opposed to theology, ever treat miracle claims as being historical facts?
-
Oh dear, you are confused.
For theology to make historical claims it would need to employ a historical method, which assumes naturalism. Theology doesn't assume naturalism, and has no comparable alternative method, therefore theology ain't history even though it may refer to historical people of events its core theological claims, such as miracles, can't be viewed as being historical facts.
There are several historical methods. Besides a bodily resurrection is a material event But now we are arguing philosophy not history.
In other words since living things are material life must be an arrangement of material.
As for impossibility, have a chat with yer man nearly sane.
-
Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.
"An approach" makes it sound like one amongst several, and I don't know of any others.
Marxist history (if there is such a thing?) would be only a particular interpretation of history gathered by other - i.e. naturalistic - means, for specifically ideological purposes.
-
Does history, as opposed to theology, ever treat miracle claims as being historical facts?
History is finding out what happened not what should have happened. History is not theology, nor is it science however since a bodily resurrection is an event of material it would be susceptible even to a materialistic approach to history.
The problem with your argument is that it is not historical but philosophical.
-
There are several historical methods. Besides a bodily resurrection is a material event But now we are arguing philosophy not history.
In other words since living things are material life must be an arrangement of material.
As for impossibility, have a chat with yer man nearly sane.
As usual your proneness to hyperbole is much in evidence.
You are presuming the 'bodily resurrection is a material event' so I'd be interested to know how you've excluded the possibility that reports of this 'bodily resurrection' are lies.
-
History is finding out what happened not what should have happened. History is not theology, nor is it science however since a bodily resurrection is an event of material it would be susceptible even to a materialistic approach to history.
The problem with your argument is that it is not historical but philosophical.
No it isn't - there are these reports of this 'bodily resurrection' in the NT and I'm asking on what basis you think these reports are accurate - if they are false then there is no 'event', so how have you assessed this risk?
-
As usual your proneness to hyperbole is much in evidence.
You are presuming the 'bodily resurrection is a material event' so I'd be interested to know how you've excluded the possibility that reports of this 'bodily resurrection' are lies.
Yes, recent research into conspiracies amongst other stuff Gordon. It's all been presented to you before hand.
How is your research into the resurrection conspiracy coming on?
-
No it isn't - there are these reports of this 'bodily resurrection' in the NT and I'm asking on what basis you think these reports are accurate - if they are false then there is no 'event', so how have you assessed this risk?
It isn't? On what historical evidence do you base your questioning that lt could be lies on then?
-
Yes, recent research into conspiracies amongst other stuff Gordon. It's all been presented to you before hand.
How is your research into the resurrection conspiracy coming on?
I see you've resorted to the evasive straw-man.
I'm simply asking on what basis you accept the NT miracle accounts as being accurate (assuming you do) and, if so, how you've assessed the risks of them involving mistakes or lies.
Any chance of an answer?
-
It isn't? On what historical evidence do you base your questioning that lt could be lies on then?
I'm asking about assessing risks, Vlad.
The risk that anecdotal accounts may contain mistakes or lies applies to all such reports: for example, the police reports of the Hillsborough disaster contained lies. I'm asking how you've considered these risks in relation to the NT accounts of miracles.
-
I'm asking about assessing risks, Vlad.
The risk that anecdotal accounts may contain mistakes or lies applies to all such reports: for example, the police reports of the Hillsborough disaster contained lies.
... and almost any eyewitness testimony from more than two or three people (perhaps even then) contains mistakes, albeit quite honest and genuine ones.
I thought this sort of thing was widely known.
-
Do you have a link to it?
Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?
There you go:
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/The%20New%20Testament%20Documents%20-%20Bruce.pdf
Haven't read in detail, just skimmed but cannot see anything revelatory - indeed seems pretty orthodox. Critically on the issue of miracles, he seems clear that these are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
In saying this he steps completely out of the world of history and into the world of theology.
-
I see you've resorted to the evasive straw-man.
I'm simply asking on what basis you accept the NT miracle accounts as being accurate (assuming you do) and, if so, how you've assessed the risks of them involving mistakes or lies.
Any chance of an answer?
Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.
There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.
Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.
-
There you go:
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/The%20New%20Testament%20Documents%20-%20Bruce.pdf
Haven't read in detail, just skimmed but cannot see anything revelatory - indeed seems pretty orthodox. Critically on the issue of miracles, he seems clear that these are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
In saying this he steps completely out of the world of history and into the world of theology.
I had a quick skim and will read more thoroughly when I get home (on holiday just now, with pesky grandchildren demanding to be entertained). It is very detailed for sure, but in that it seems incredibly self-referential, and reads like the apologetics it is. Much of the thinking seems sloppy though, with numerous bits that betray I think the bias of the author. For example;
'Each of them was written in the first instance for a definite constituency, with the object of presenting Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God and Savior.' - a recipe for propaganda?
'They may even be willing to accept the stories of raising the dead, in view of well authenticated cases of people who have been technically dead for a few minutes and have then been restored to life. ' - contrasting the restoration of a 3-day corpse is not the same as, say, recovery from cardiac arrest due to medical intervention (having been involved in a few during my working life). Bearing in mind too this was written in 1943 (the version used being revised in 1959) then recovery from cardiac arrest at the time of writing would be less likely than currently so I think the comparison he attempts with supernatural intervention is hopeless.
'Or the disciples all with one consent became the victims of hallucination, or experienced something quite extraordinary in the nature of extrasensory perception. (The idea that they deliberately invented the tale is very properly discountenanced as a moral and psychological impossibility.) But the one interpretation which best accounts for all the data, as well as for the abiding sequel, is that Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead was a real and objective event.' - an exercise in special pleading which also assumes that the disciples were immune from human artifice - hard not to laugh at this gem!
'The miracle', if such it be, is that Jesus knew in advance hat Peter would find the coin there,' so that once more we are brought to realize that we must first make up our minds about Christ before coming to conclusions about he miracles attributed to Him.' - sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias.
No doubt this chap was a respected theologian with extensive knowledge of the bible - but this effort reeks of reification: a veritable fallacy-fest.
-
Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.
Do you read nothing?
That people are telling the truth isn't the default position either
The issue is, given how easy it is for people to be sincerely mistaken or to tell outright lies, what steps do you take to exclude either - or both - of these? We're still waiting for an answer.
There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.
Here's another fallacy: straw man.
Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.
Nope. The burden of proof raises its by now not so much weary as knackered head. People are often mistaken. People often lie. If you deny this I have to wonder what planet you're on.
You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding either possibility.
If you regard the texts in question as accurate on face value, that's a positive assertion and the burden of proof is - again - yours.
-
Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.
There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.
Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.
Nope - I've simply pointed out that mistakes and lies are always risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, so that those who support specific accounts would need to consider these risks in relation to the account they support - so have you done so in relation to the NT miracle stories?
I've not claimed that they are lies or that Christians are lying: indeed I've been careful not to, and have done no more that ask you how you dealt with these risks, so why not cut out the straw-man.
Since you say 'Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.' then you can presumably now explain the basis by which you discounted this risk so that we can critique your method.
Stop evading, Vlad.
-
Nope - I've simply pointed out that mistakes and lies are always risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, so that those who support specific accounts would need to consider these risks in relation to the account they support - so have you done so in relation to the NT miracle stories?
I've not claimed that they are lies or that Christians are lying: indeed I've been careful not to, and have done no more that ask you how you dealt with these risks, so why not cut out the straw-man.
Since you say 'Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.' then you can presumably now explain the basis by which you discounted this risk so that we can critique your method.
Stop evading, Vlad.
You are the one who is evading Gordon.
You have made a suggestion of historical lying.
A mountain of evidence for the Gospels as history has been presented.
Where is the evidence for your historical conspiracy.
Present it now or forever hold your piece.
-
Do you read nothing?
That people are telling the truth isn't the default position either
The issue is, given how easy it is for people to be sincerely mistaken or to tell outright lies, what steps do you take to exclude either - or both - of these? We're still waiting for an answer.
Here's another fallacy: straw man.
Nope. The burden of proof raises its by now not so much weary as knackered head. People are often mistaken. People often lie. If you deny this I have to wonder what planet you're on.
You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding either possibility.
If you regard the texts in question as accurate on face value, that's a positive assertion and the burden of proof is - again - yours.
You are still a positive assertion unjustified. People in glasshouses etc.
-
You are the one who is evading Gordon.
You have made a suggestion of historical lying.
Historical lying can indeed be suggested because it is a real possibility - unless you have a methodology for excluding it as a possibility.
Do you have one?
Yes or no?
If yes, what is it?
One more for the road: you can only dismiss the possibility of mistake or lie if you have an accurate method of doing so.
Do you or don't you? It's a simple question.
A mountain of evidence for the Gospels as history has been presented.
Well I for one certainly missed that. Where is it to be found?
To quote the salient point once more: You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding the possibility of either sincere misapprehension or explicit dishonesty (or some mixture of the two).
-
Historical lying can indeed be suggested because it is a real possibility
You need to say why, avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument for disbelief etc. You do not in the suggestion of lying hold any default position but further you need to present historic evidence of lying
Since the material presented as truth by Paul is historical.
I am being entirely reasonable.
Regarding your huffing about methodology I just have to present the historical evidence of the Gospels.
Now present your historical evidence for lies
-
You need to say why
Really?
Really really?
Really really really?
You do not in the suggestion of lying hold any default position
Nobody has claimed this.
Since the material presented as truth by Paul is historical.
.
Prove it.
I am being entirely reasonable.
You have never been even remotely reasonable, let alone entirely.
Regarding your huffing about methodology I just have to present the historical evidence of the Gospels.
Demonstrate their historicity.
Now present your historical evidence for lies
Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.
You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.
Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.
-
Really?
Really really?
Really really really?
Nobody has claimed this..
Prove it.
You have never been even remotely reasonable, let alone entirely.Demonstrate their historicity.
Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.
You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.
Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.
There is no historic evidence of a historic conspiracy.
The ressurection fits. Given research into conspiracies.
Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.
-
Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.
I'm flabbergasted that you even have to ask, but since we appear finally to have hit your typical level with the shovel of a stupid question, it seems I have to humour you.
Because people lie.
-
I'm flabbergasted that you even have to ask, but since we appear finally to have hit your typical level with the shovel of a stupid question, it seems I have to humour you.
Because people lie.
And what is your evidence that they have done so in this case?
-
And what is your evidence that they have done so in this case?
It's in the same pile as the evidence that they have not.
-
It's in the same pile as the evidence that they have not.
Yes ...but what is it?
-
Yes ...but what is it?
Do you not even know the meaning of the word possibility now, along with many others?
Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.
You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.
Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.
-
Do you not even know the meaning of the word possibility now, along with many others?
Non sequitur
Now why dou think there is a real possibility of lies in this case? Given we have historical documents pointing to several hundred witnesses and no real motive for such a lie.
Given that we have accounts of the events and that they are consistent with the foundational creed as described in the letters. Can you at least model where in the process the so called lies would be?
-
You are the one who is evading Gordon.
You have made a suggestion of historical lying.
A mountain of evidence for the Gospels as history has been presented.
Where is the evidence for your historical conspiracy.
Present it now or forever hold your piece.
No I haven't: so stop lying
I've observed that people making mistakes and telling lies are risks associated with anecdotal accounts. Then I asked how you assessed these risks in respect of the NT accounts and your unwillingness to answer suggests to me that you haven't.
-
Non sequitur
Now why dou think there is a real possibility of lies in this case? Given we have historical documents pointing to several hundred witnesses and no real motive for such a lie.
Lying is always a risk, and you don't have several hundred witness reports - you have reports os several hundred witnesses. So, do you think there a risk of exaggeration regarding the number of witnesses? As we saw recently, when Trump was inaugurated, exaggeration of numbers of people attending/witnessing is a definite risk.
Given that we have accounts of the events and that they are consistent with the foundational creed as described in the letters.
They may well be, but how do you know that these letters don't contain mistakes and lies? After all, unless you've assessed these risks then this creed might be founded on falsehoods.
Can you at least model where in the process the so called lies would be?
That is what I'm asking you: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT accounts of Jesus that you accept as true on a personal basis?
-
There is no historic evidence of a historic conspiracy.
Super - and the method you used to conclude this is what exactly?
The ressurection fits.
Fits what?
Given research into conspiracies.
Even superer - what research methods were used to exclude the risk that those writing the NT conspired?
Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.
Don't be silly: mistakes and lies are known risks when dealing with accounts provided by people. Asking how these risks have been assessed in relation to specific accounts isn't remotely fallacious.
You could try answering rather than indulging in evasion.
-
Well, clearly Vlad is going to try to smarm, squirm, duck, dodge, bob, weave and evade his way out of answering the question for another few pages ...
-
How do you know - there is certainly no evidence for that as there is precious little even close to being contemporary. And, of course, we have no way of knowing whether what was written is accurate.
I find it so annoying when I hear supposed authorities on God and Jesus saying, 'Well, Jesus said....' and then quote some words from the NT
.as if they are known and accepted by all as the 100% verbatim words. If they added, 'as far as we know' every now and again it might help, but they never do.
-
Well, clearly Vlad is going to try to smarm, squirm, duck, dodge, bob, weave and evade his way out of answering the question for another few pages ...
No doubt - but the question wont go away just because he'd rather not answer it.
-
Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.
The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.
People lie yes but that is an assertion. It is not a default. What methods have you used to establish lying.
There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.
Conspiracies fall this one didn't.
Subsequent history fits the resurrection. No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection
Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.
The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.
Now to you. Do you believe any historical document? What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?
I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.
Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.
Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.
-
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.
So I presume that you accept as true the many other impossible things written in stories from antiquity - many of which claim witnesses and are also interspersed within context that is historically verifiable.
-
The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.
But mostly by bible scholars and theologians - not by historians.
-
There you go:
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/The%20New%20Testament%20Documents%20-%20Bruce.pdf
Haven't read in detail, just skimmed but cannot see anything revelatory - indeed seems pretty orthodox. Critically on the issue of miracles, he seems clear that these are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
In saying this he steps completely out of the world of history and into the world of theology.
Morning Prof,
Many thanks for finding the link. Much appreciated.
I gather from your post that while you skimmed through most of the book to get a feel for its approach, Chapter 5 on the subject of the gospel miracles was the focus of your initial look. Quite understandable considering your standpoint on matters of faith. But you might find Chapters 2 on the Date and Attestation of the Documents and Chapter 7 dealing specifically with the writings of Luke of interest.
-
So I presume that you accept as true the many other impossible things written in stories from antiquity - many of which claim witnesses and are also interspersed within context that is historically verifiable.
I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.
There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.
-
I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.
There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.
Now you are doing the special pleading - trying to make a distinction between type of ancient literary document, both of which contain context which has historical veracity but also impossible claims.
That we don't describe the gospels as 'myth' or 'legend' is merely due to the continuing presence of christianity as a major religion. Had the Norse religion retained its position as a major religion we wouldn't talk of Norse 'myths' or 'legends'.
So it is you that is spacial pleading - first on the basis of creating artificial different categories for ancient documents, but then on using the argument from personal incredulity for some claims in some documents, but not for other similar claims in other documents.
There is no special pleading in my case - I use a consistent approach to the gospels, as I do (for example) for Icharus.
-
Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.
I agree: with appropriate scepticism given the content. So, we have accounts of uncertain provenance that claim supernatural miracles so any comparison needs to involve similar content. We have attestations of flying horses in another religious account so do you accept that on the same basis you accept the resurrection?
The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.
In relation to this, your assessment of mistake or lies being involved is?
People lie yes but that is an assertion.
No - it is a fact.
It is not a default.
No, but it is a risk.
What methods have you used to establish lying.
I'm asking you that, remember!
There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.
It would: so how have you assessed the risk that it is?
Conspiracies fall this one didn't.
Which is a claim, so show us your workings.
Subsequent history fits the resurrection.
Which doesn't mean the resurrection was true: just that it was portrayed as being true.
No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection
That it is lies is an alternative possibility: have you assessed this risk?
Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.
How do you know this?
The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.
That doesn't mean they are accurate in terms of supernatural claims: there are risks attached to anecdotal accounts .
Now to you. Do you believe any historical document?
Nope: I am sceptical of anecdotal accounts.
What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?
Not my problem: the supporters of these accounts (like you) have offered no risk assessment so I remain highly sceptical about the veracity of the NT in relation to its supernatural claims: I await reassurance.
I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.
I don't have an approach: neither, it seems, do you since it seems you accept these accounts at face value.
Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.
I'm not pleading anything: I'm just asking a reasonable question. Any special pleading here is all yours.
Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.
I don't: I'm asking NT supporters (like you) to explain how they've excluded the risks of human artifice, and in the absence of a reply I can only conclude you haven't (and would rather not).
-
Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.
The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.
People lie yes but that is an assertion. It is not a default. What methods have you used to establish lying.
There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.
Conspiracies fall this one didn't.
Subsequent history fits the resurrection. No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection
Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.
The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.
Now to you. Do you believe any historical document? What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?
I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.
Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.
Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.
Just because something is believed to be true, doesn't necessarily give it credibility. If someone is actually dead, they don't come to life again. However, supposing Jesus did resurrect why did he conveniently disappear up to heaven instead of staying down here?
-
Tell me, Vlad, by any chance are you one of those who thinks the Bible is inerrant?
-
I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.
There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.
Actually the term myth is applied to a range of stories some of which are considered to be:
'myths are distorted accounts of historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborate upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gain the status of gods'.
That seems to be a perfect description of the gospels.
-
I agree: with appropriate scepticism given the content. So, we have accounts of uncertain provenance that claim supernatural miracles so any comparison needs to involve similar content. We have attestations of flying horses in another religious account so do you accept that on the same basis you accept the resurrection?
In relation to this, your assessment of mistake or lies being involved is?
No - it is a fact.
No, but it is a risk.
I'm asking you that, remember!
It would: so how have you assessed the risk that it is?
Which is a claim, so show us your workings.
Which doesn't mean the resurrection was true: just that it was portrayed as being true.
That it is lies is an alternative possibility: have you assessed this risk?
How do you know this?
That doesn't mean they are accurate in terms of supernatural claims: there are risks attached to anecdotal accounts .
Nope: I am sceptical of anecdotal accounts.
Not my problem: the supporters of these accounts (like you) have offered no risk assessment so I remain highly sceptical about the veracity of the NT in relation to its supernatural claims: I await reassurance.
I don't have an approach: neither, it seems, do you since it seems you accept these accounts at face value.
I'm not pleading anything: I'm just asking a reasonable question. Any special pleading here is all yours.
I don't: I'm asking NT supporters (like you) to explain how they've excluded the risks of human artifice, and in the absence of a reply I can only conclude you haven't (and would rather not).
And that has been outlined to you several times on this thread.
Please provide reasons why you even suspect lying has gone on in this case.
-
And that has been outlined to you several times on this thread.
Please provide reasons why you even suspect lying has gone on in this case.
Because the claims aren't credible!
-
And that has been outlined to you several times on this thread.
Nope - all I've seen is evasion.
Please provide reasons why you even suspect lying has gone on in this case.
Nope - I've asked you this question, since you support the NT accounts the burden of proof is yours and not mine.
I'm sceptical of the NT because its proponents haven't addressed the risks of mistake or lies - perhaps you can reassure me.
-
Bob, bob, duck dive weave ... :D
-
I think all this talk of mistake or lies is a tad unfair. Nobody's mentioning myth.
-
Nope - all I've seen is evasion.
Nope - I've asked you this question, since you support the NT accounts the burden of proof is yours and not mine.
I'm sceptical of the NT because its proponents haven't addressed the risks of mistake or lies - perhaps you can reassure me.
Nope, You've had outlined what procedures are brought upon ancient historical documents which interrelate. Am I able to hook anybody up to a polygraph in this case? No.
Is the suggestion of lying the default position here No this in my view a piece of innuendo.
Since I have outlined why I think this is not a lie, that numerous people saw Jesus post Mortem and that there is no evidence of a conspiracy and that a conspiracy would likely have failed given local interest and according to modern research on conspiracy survival and that a model conspiracy does not fit the surrounding history and that the latest of works such as The God who wasn't there hasn't garnered much support. There is a very high probability of truth here.
One can eliminate the probability of lies by demonstrating the probability of truth.
Now there was another piece of innuendo but as it wasn't yours I shall not dwell on it.
Since you are meeting judgment on me I shall reciprocate over your approach here
Genetic fallacy
Special pleading
Argument from personal incredulity.
Enjoy the rest of your hols ya hear.
-
I think all this talk of mistake or lies is a tad unfair.
Well, they are possibilities which can't be ruled out unless you have some means of doing so: Vlad is being evasive about whether he has such means and if so, what they are.
Of course, we know why.
Nobody's mentioning myth.
#130 ;)
-
Because the claims aren't credible!
Argument from personal incredulity?
-
Well, they are possibilities which can't be ruled out unless you have some means of doing so: Vlad is being evasive about whether he has such means and if so, what they are.
Of course, we know why.
#130 ;)
So G did. In which case lies or mistake should have the third option added then - myth. Because myth is neither a lie nor a mistake.
-
Argument from personal incredulity?
Your entire shtick seems to be the argument from credulity, Vlad - I want to think it's true, therefore it's true (even though I've offered no methodology whatsoever to rule out the distinct possibilities of lies or mistakes).
-
So G did. In which case lies or mistake should have the third option added then - myth. Because myth is neither a lie nor a mistake.
Sure - perhaps Vlad can tell us if he accepts the NT accounts as myth, therefore?
-
Morning Prof,
Many thanks for finding the link. Much appreciated.
I gather from your post that while you skimmed through most of the book to get a feel for its approach, Chapter 5 on the subject of the gospel miracles was the focus of your initial look. Quite understandable considering your standpoint on matters of faith. But you might find Chapters 2 on the Date and Attestation of the Documents and Chapter 7 dealing specifically with the writings of Luke of interest.
I have delved into it a little more - but still not finding anything groundbreaking although some of the details are interesting.
On chapter 2 he takes as his starting point the consensus position: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100 - he then tries to argue for earlier dates as others (all of whom are christian apologists) have done. The reason why christians would want to date the gospels earlier is obvious but Bruce provides no compelling evidence and nor have others I've read.
The chapter on Luke is interesting, but doesn't really add anything to what I know - sure there are many references to historical figures who we know from corroboratory evidence existed. Some historical details are wrong. But none of this takes us any further into the historical accuracy of the main claims of christianity - namely the resurrection, miracles, virgin birth, son of god. No amount of correct, but uncontentious, historical evidence elsewhere adds one iota of evidence for the implausible claims. It is a bit like claiming that Harry Potter must be true because Kings Cross station actually exists.
And so onto the key issue - does Bruce actually claim evidence for the miracles as historical fact - he does not - he is clear that they are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote again:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
I was more interested in chapters 8-10 in which he looks at independent evidence - both archeological and written from Jewish and Roman sources. And he admits on both counts there is precious little. He also makes some bizarre claims to try to bolster his position. Perhaps the most notable being a possible reference to Jesus as Ben-Pantera ('Son of Pantera') which is usually suggested to be a reference to a Roman soldier named Pantheras. Bruce tries to claim that Pantera actually is parthenos, meaning virgin - there is no evidence for this whatsoever, beyond a desire on the part of a christian for it to be true.
-
Argument from personal incredulity?
So you are happy to accept as true that Icharus strapped on wings but came to a sticky end by flying too close to the sun.
-
Nope - I've asked you this question, since you support the NT accounts the burden of proof is yours and not mine.
A suggestion of lying is not the default position here which is what you have just suggested here.
Since you have done this grow some cohoes and present your reasoning
The existence and content of the accounts is plain. Where then is your evidence of conspiracy avoiding special pleading, argument from personal incredulity, ignoring the problem of induction etc.
-
Sure - perhaps Vlad can tell us if he accepts the NT accounts as myth, therefore?
I think the epistolary evidence eclude that.
-
A suggestion of lying is not the default position here which is what you have just suggested here.
Suggestion - you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Since you have done this grow some cohoes and present your reasoning
He has - repeatedly.
And it's not the place for the most evasive poster on the forum to tell somebody else to grow some "cohoes" [sic].
The existence and content of the accounts is plain.
Indeed.
Unfortunately what isn't plain is your methodology for taking said accounts to be true having eliminated the distinct possibility of error or deceit.
-
So you are happy to accept as true that Icharus strapped on wings but came to a sticky end by flying too close to the sun.
Did the Greeks even believe that was literally true.........or have you begun to see fundamentalists anywhere.
-
Did the Greeks even believe that was literally true.........or have you begun to see fundamentalists anywhere.
So by taking the NT accounts as literally true, you're outing yourself as a fundamentalist.
Nice work there Vlad ;)
-
A suggestion of lying is not the default position here which is what you have just suggested here.
Since you have done this grow some cohoes and present your reasoning
The existence and content of the accounts is plain. Where then is your evidence of conspiracy avoiding special pleading, argument from personal incredulity, ignoring the problem of induction etc.
A suggestion of lying isn't the default position; however it remains your burden of proof to prove it is true.
-
I think the epistolary evidence eclude that.
How?
-
Your entire shtick seems to be the argument from credulity, Vlad - I want to think it's true, therefore it's true (even though I've offered no methodology whatsoever to rule out the distinct possibilities of lies or mistakes).
I've not even begun to bring my faith into it yet. Whereas you guys are arguing from your philosophies and beliefs and the evidence for that is you aren't yet offering a justification for lying in this case or evidence of a conspiracy.
-
How?
Evidence of a community of witnesses and people able to interlocute and interrogate them.
-
I've not even begun to bring my faith into it yet.
Of course not Vlad.
That's why you're not thumping the tub for the NT accounts as opposed to Mohammed's magical airborne equine.
Oh, wait ...
Whereas you guys are arguing from your philosophies and beliefs and the evidence for that is you aren't yet offering a justification for lying in this case
You've had that many times - perhaps what looks like evasiveness is just you not paying attention to the thread very well?
-
I've not even begun to bring my faith into it yet. Whereas you guys are arguing from your philosophies and beliefs and the evidence for that is you aren't yet offering a justification for lying in this case or evidence of a conspiracy.
No, it's just that dead men - really dead men - don't come back to life. Let alone a dead man coming back to life for the illogical reason that you claim he did. It's not a 'philosophy' that says this story isn't true. It's that it's a myth like any other unless it can be proven otherwise.
Over to you.
-
Of course not Vlad.
That's why you're not thumping the tub for the NT accounts as opposed to Mohammed's magical airborne equine.
Oh, wait ...
You've had that many times - perhaps what looks like evasiveness is just you not paying attention to the thread very well?
All we e had is the sweeping ......people lie.
Ok what is the evidence that this is the case.
Mohammed's horse is not a critical article of faith for Moslems is it? Therefore bad analogy.
In terms of my faith and the resurrection. My experience is consistent with a resurrection yes.
-
No, it's just that dead men - really dead men - don't come back to life. Let alone a dead man coming back to life for the illogical reason that you claim he did. It's not a 'philosophy' that says this story isn't true. It's that it's a myth like any other unless it can be proven otherwise.
Over to you.
I don't understand this illogical reason bit. Can you elaborate?
Calling it a myth is not a default position you need to say why IT IS a myth.
-
Argument from personal incredulity?
If something isn't credible it has to be challenged. One has a right to be sceptical unless, or until, it can be proved beyond all doubt it is factual.
-
All we e had is the sweeping ......people lie.
That people tell lies sometimes - is this something you deny?
Mohammed's horse is not a critical article of faith for Moslems is it? Therefore bad analogy.
Ah - so you're saying you believe a whole stack of implausible things (ignoring the possibility of lie or mistake in the meantime) because you think you have to.
Very interesting.
In terms of my faith and the resurrection. My experience is consistent with a resurrection yes.
Your experience of what? Having been pronounced clinically dead and then finding yourself alive again or what?
-
I don't understand this illogical reason bit. Can you elaborate?
Calling it a myth is not a default position you need to say why IT IS a myth.
Ok, I'll be more accurate. Myth/untruth/lie/mistake like any other myth/lie etc.
Prove this dead man came back to life.
-
I don't understand this illogical reason bit. Can you elaborate?
Calling it a myth is not a default position you need to say why IT IS a myth.
You're very big on telling us what in your opinion the default position isn't, Vladdychops - so what in your opinion is?
-
In terms of my faith and the resurrection. My experience is consistent with a resurrection yes.
Which is fine. Your faith, your truth, it all feels very real. I've no doubt at all that you *feel* that the resurrection happened and that you *feel* that it happened to redeem your sinfulness. You experience it all as real.
But your feelings and experiences aren't proof.
-
Which is fine. Your faith, your truth, it all feels very real. I've no doubt at all that you *feel* that the resurrection happened and that you *feel* that it happened to redeem your sinfulness. You experience it all as real.
But your feelings and experiences aren't proof.
Feelings and experiences are definitely not proof of anything more than one's brain activity where faith is concerned, imo.
-
I have delved into it a little more - but still not finding anything groundbreaking although some of the details are interesting.
On chapter 2 he takes as his starting point the consensus position: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100 - he then tries to argue for earlier dates as others (all of whom are christian apologists) have done. The reason why christians would want to date the gospels earlier is obvious but Bruce provides no compelling evidence and nor have others I've read.
The chapter on Luke is interesting, but doesn't really add anything to what I know - sure there are many references to historical figures who we know from corroboratory evidence existed. Some historical details are wrong. But none of this takes us any further into the historical accuracy of the main claims of christianity - namely the resurrection, miracles, virgin birth, son of god. No amount of correct, but uncontentious, historical evidence elsewhere adds one iota of evidence for the implausible claims. It is a bit like claiming that Harry Potter must be true because Kings Cross station actually exists.
And so onto the key issue - does Bruce actually claim evidence for the miracles as historical fact - he does not - he is clear that they are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote again:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
I was more interested in chapters 8-10 in which he looks at independent evidence - both archeological and written from Jewish and Roman sources. And he admits on both counts there is precious little. He also makes some bizarre claims to try to bolster his position. Perhaps the most notable being a possible reference to Jesus as Ben-Pantera ('Son of Pantera') which is usually suggested to be a reference to a Roman soldier named Pantheras. Bruce tries to claim that Pantera actually is parthenos, meaning virgin - there is no evidence for this whatsoever, beyond a desire on the part of a christian for it to be true.
To summarise, my reading of this document from Bruce (which I fully admit hasn't been every word on every page) hasn't changed my view at all, which may be summarised as follows:
I think there is limited, but sufficient evidence to suggest that a person called Jesus existed in 1stC Palestine. That he was likely a preacher and teacher and gained a small number of committed followers. That his activities became a concern to the authorities, both Jewish and Roman and that he was executed. That his followers scattered and gained support for his views over the following decades, critically not in Palestine, but elsewhere.
The reason why I accept this despite there being limited evidence (and certainly very limited independent corroboration, beyond that off his followers) is because there is nothing implausible about any of those claims, so the threshold of evidence is relatively low.
There is absolutely nothing that leads me to belief that any of the miraculous claims are historically true (i.e. they actually happened) - there is simply no evidence for any of them and the claims are implausible, if not impossible and therefore require exceptional levels of evidence.
Okram's razor also applies as there are naturalistic and plausible explanations for all the miraculous claims and given that those claims are from followers the suggestion of exaggeration and distortion of the actual truth to provide a narrative to fit effectively a political agenda seems plausible too.
-
I think that Prof. D.'s post (163) pretty much sums up the views of many historians. As he says, there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jewish preacher, who was executed, and had followers. It's not luxuriant evidence, but then there often isn't in the ancient world. As to miracles, historians tend to avoid, as they do not deal with supernatural stuff.
Quite often, you will see a conflation between the two - that is, a historical Jesus, and a miracle-wielding Jesus - which just gets in the way of historical analysis.
-
I think that Prof. D.'s post (163) pretty much sums up the views of many historians. As he says, there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jewish preacher, who was executed, and had followers. It's not luxuriant evidence, but then there often isn't in the ancient world. As to miracles, historians tend to avoid, as they do not deal with supernatural stuff.
Quite often, you will see a conflation between the two - that is, a historical Jesus, and a miracle-wielding Jesus - which just gets in the way of historical analysis.
Good post.
-
Wiggs,
I think that Prof. D.'s post (163) pretty much sums up the views of many historians. As he says, there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jewish preacher, who was executed, and had followers. It's not luxuriant evidence, but then there often isn't in the ancient world. As to miracles, historians tend to avoid, as they do not deal with supernatural stuff.
Quite often, you will see a conflation between the two - that is, a historical Jesus, and a miracle-wielding Jesus - which just gets in the way of historical analysis.
Quite – it's frustrating that "Jesus the man" and "Jesus the man-god" are so often used interchangeably by those who would elide the two. The former doesn't seem particularly controversial to me - an itinerant preacher/mystic/street conjuror who reportedly said some interesting and worthwhile things isn't improbable enough to be overly doubtful about. By contrast, the man-god claim requires huge additional assumptions to be accepted a priori.
As for "the Gospels have been thoroughly investigated" used as support for miracle stories, that seems to me to miss the point entirely. That the stories come from a time when credence was given to any number of supposed miracle stories so there'd be no lying necessary for these narratives to catch the wind anyway doesn't help much, but the killer argument is that the "dead for a bit then alive again" version was something no-one then could have known to be true. There just wasn't the technology, the forensic procedures, the anything necessary to establish the claim to anything like even the basic standards of evidence we'd insist on now. It's quite possible that whatever witnesses there were to an event were utterly sincere about what they thought they saw, but that tells you nothing about whether they were right to be so.
Tell us "I think it's true because that's my faith" if you like, but any claim of historicity for miracle stories seems to me to be doomed necessarily before it's even got its trousers off.
-
Evidence of a community of witnesses
What community of witnesses?
Do you mean the purported 500? In which case we have no corroboration of their existence let alone what they think they witnessed.
and people able to interlocute and interrogate them.
How - there is no evidence that anyone who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection or any of the other purported miracles was interrogated about what they claim to have seen.
What we do know is that the thousands claimed to be witnesses of the miracles and resurrection were not sufficiently moved by what they say to follow Jesus - we know this because Christianity did not get a foothold in the geographical area where the claimed events are believed to have taken place (and where the claimed witnesses presumably lived).
-
Which is fine. Your faith, your truth, it all feels very real. I've no doubt at all that you *feel* that the resurrection happened and that you *feel* that it happened to redeem your sinfulness. You experience it all as real.
But your feelings and experiences aren't proof.
I only said my experience of Jesus is consistent with a resurrection in that it was not one of inflated hero worship or memorial for a good but very dead man but a real encounter with a risen Lord
-
Floo being absurd again. I should have known better.
Anyway, my point was that of course you don't believe the gospel accounts are accurate because you don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Don't get your knickers in a twist, dear!
Do you have a degree in being patronising when unable to provide an intelligent answer?
-
I only said my experience of Jesus is consistent with a resurrection in that it was not one of inflated hero worship or memorial for a good but very dead man but a real encounter with a risen Lord
So you believe - that's hardly news, but completely irrelevant to the issue of whether what you believe happened actually happened.
Even F F Bruce is honest enough to accept that belief in the resurrection and other purported miracles is a matter of faith and of faith alone, and sits entirely outside the issue of historical validity of the claims - i.e. whether they actually happened, rather than whether some people belief they happened.
-
What community of witnesses?
Do you mean the purported 500? In which case we have no corroboration of their existence let alone what they think they witnessed.
How - there is no evidence that anyone who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection or any of the other purported miracles was interrogated about what they claim to have seen.
What we do know is that the thousands claimed to be witnesses of the miracles and resurrection were not sufficiently moved by what they say to follow Jesus - we know this because Christianity did not get a foothold in the geographical area where the claimed events are believed to have taken place (and where the claimed witnesses presumably lived).
Those described as witnesses in the epistles.
Re corroboration, surprisingly little in ancient history I'm afraid.
Are you saying they were lying or that they didn't exist......or that they didn't exist and were lying as well?
-
Vlad,
I only said my belief about my experience of Jesus is consistent with a resurrection in that it was not one of inflated hero worship or memorial for a good but very dead man but a real encounter with a risen Lord
Corrected it for you. Your "experience" and the narrative you reach for to explain it are not necessarily the same thing.
-
Wiggs,
Quite – it's frustrating that "Jesus the man" and "Jesus the man-god" are so often used interchangeably by those who would elide the two. The former doesn't seem particularly controversial to me - an itinerant preacher/mystic/street conjuror who reportedly said some interesting and worthwhile things isn't improbable enough to be overly doubtful about. By contrast, the man-god claim requires huge additional assumptions to be accepted a priori.
As for "the Gospels have been thoroughly investigated" used as support for miracle stories, that seems to me to miss the point entirely. That the stories come from a time when credence was given to any number of supposed miracle stories so there'd be no lying necessary for these narratives to catch the wind anyway doesn't help much, but the killer argument is that the "dead for a bit then alive again" version was something no-one then could have known to be true. There just wasn't the technology, the forensic procedures, the anything necessary to establish the claim to anything like even the basic standards of evidence we'd insist on now. It's quite possible that whatever witnesses there were to an event were utterly sincere about what they thought they saw, but that tells you nothing about whether they were right to be so.
Tell us "I think it's true because that's my faith" if you like, but any claim of historicity for miracle stories seems to me to be doomed necessarily before it's even got its trousers off.
What do you mean by street conjuror? Where is your evidence that Jesus was one bearing in mind the attitude of the apostles towards Simon Magus and his Ilk.
-
Vlad, why does it matter to you to 'prove' it? Isn't your faith enough for you?
-
Those described as witnesses in the epistles.
Names please
Re corroboration, surprisingly little in ancient history I'm afraid.
Simply stating that stuff is old and therefore we cannot get corroboration doesn't mean that evidence is strengthened - it isn't. Sure we understand the challenge of corroboration from centuries ago, which is one of the reasons why the evidence is exceptionally weak.
Are you saying they were lying or that they didn't exist......or that they didn't exist and were lying as well?
Who knows - we have no meaningful evidence at all - and certainly nothing to confirm what those witnesses (if they actually existed) claim to have seen.
If I told you that I'd just shot 18 holes in one in a round of golf and that 500 witnesses witnessed it, would you simply accept that it must be true then. Nope because it is the same person making both eh extraordinary claim and also making the claim of their being witnesses. You'd be astonishingly until you had found out who those witnesses were, verified that they were actually there and finally checked what they claimed to have seen.
Simply making a claim that something extraordinary happened and then also making a claim that 500 people saw it, is completely irrelevant.
You are aware of Kim Jong Il's famous round of golf aren't you - and the witnesses to it.
-
Vlad,
What do you mean by street conjuror? Where is your evidence that Jesus was one bearing in mind the attitude of the apostles towards Simon Magus and his Ilk.
You do this a lot. An argument is posted that (presumably) you read, and you then pick one tiny part from it to query while ignoring entirely the thrust of the point. Presumably you do it in the hope that the discussion will then veer away from the substantive issue that doesn't suit you and toward a trivial one that does.
What does this say about you do you think, and indeed about your confidence in your position?
What I said was: "The former doesn't seem particularly controversial to me - an itinerant preacher/mystic/street conjuror who reportedly said some interesting and worthwhile things isn't improbable enough to be overly doubtful about". Whether he was a combination of these naturalistic behaviours or of different ones doesn't matter at all for the point to stand, namely that claiming any such things wouldn't be particularly controversial.
So, did you have anything to say to the argument - namely that people at that time could not have known whether the claimed miracle actually happened?
-
Rhi,
Vlad, why does it matter to you to 'prove' it? Isn't your faith enough for you?
Vladidation.
-
Quite – it's frustrating that "Jesus the man" and "Jesus the man-god" are so often used interchangeably by those who would elide the two.
I agree - and there is a frustrating approach from some Christian apologists suggesting that if you believe the "Jesus the man" bit you must necessarily accept "Jesus the man-god", and the flip side being that if you reject "Jesus the man-god" you must necessarily reject "Jesus the man".
It is a perfectly legitimate view to accept, on the balance of probabilities that "Jesus the man" existed, was a preacher and was executed, while totally rejecting the fanciful "Jesus the man-god" claims.
-
I agree - and there is a frustrating approach from some Christian apologists suggesting that if you believe the "Jesus the man" bit you must necessarily accept "Jesus the man-god", and the flip side being that if you reject "Jesus the man-god" you must necessarily reject "Jesus the man".
It is a perfectly legitimate view to accept, on the balance of probabilities that "Jesus the man" existed, was a preacher and was executed, while totally rejecting the fanciful "Jesus the man-god" claims.
Note that flipside you cover is also used by mythicists and indeed seems to be Owlswing's approach.
-
I have delved into it a little more - but still not finding anything groundbreaking although some of the details are interesting..........
And so onto the key issue - does Bruce actually claim evidence for the miracles as historical fact - he does not - he is clear that they are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote again:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
I was more interested in chapters 8-10 in which he looks at independent evidence............
Well as I said earlier I was under no illusions that you would experience any epiphany of thinking from looking at his writings. But thank you that you were prepared to put the time and effort into doing so and to do so with a more objective and open mindset than would have been the case for many others. I do appreciate that.
Incidentally on the issue of the claimed miracles, I was first pointed in the direction of FF Bruce's writings by a man who had been involved in a horrific incident in the Western Desert during WW2. He received severe third degree burns and was considered a hopeless case by the army doctors. Yet he made a remarkable recovery (and I have deliberately avoided using the phrase miraculous recovery). But perhaps a subject for some more specific future thread on this topic when (as it surely will) it once again comes under discussion. I do not intend being the cause of derailing this thread completely.
-
There is no historic evidence of a historic conspiracy.
The ressurection fits. Given research into conspiracies.
Well, given that Paul, whom you have spoken of as a reliable witness and representative of the central doctrines of Christianity, said that "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and given that you have spoken of the supposed truth of a "bodily resurrection" - then I'd say that the supposed resurrection does anything but fit.
Also, it is quite obvious to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the gospels and the letters of Paul, that Paul's take on Jesus is extremely personal, and has very little to do with what Jesus is supposed to have taught except in a very general sense. This is hardly a new idea, but given the way you keep storming on, it would appear that it has not occurred to you.
-
I only said my experience of Jesus is consistent with a resurrection in that it was not one of inflated hero worship or memorial for a good but very dead man but a real encounter with a risen Lord
But this experience in your head does not get you to "ancient man who was dead but then came back to life." The necessary links in the chain aren't there. Your experience in your head was just that, with a prior commitment to a particular narrative filling in the blanks.
-
I think the epistolary evidence eclude that.
Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').
-
Vlad,
You do this a lot. An argument is posted that (presumably) you read, and you then pick one tiny part from it to query while ignoring entirely the thrust of the point. Presumably you do it in the hope that the discussion will then veer away from the substantive issue that doesn't suit you and toward a trivial one that does.
What does this say about you do you think, and indeed about your confidence in your position?
What I said was: "The former doesn't seem particularly controversial to me - an itinerant preacher/mystic/street conjuror who reportedly said some interesting and worthwhile things isn't improbable enough to be overly doubtful about". Whether he was a combination of these naturalistic behaviours or of different ones doesn't matter at all for the point to stand, namely that claiming any such things wouldn't be particularly controversial.
So, did you have anything to say to the argument - namely that people at that time could not have known whether the claimed miracle actually happened?
So we have you someone with a love of interrogation, flicking out assertions like "street conjuror " and is above or can't justifying them. Let's try you with another.
-
Vlad,
Corrected it for you. Your "experience" and the narrative you reach for to explain it are not necessarily the same thing.
And would you say that the disciples also believed their experience of the resurrected?
-
Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').
In other words not terribly convincing source in support.
-
I agree - and there is a frustrating approach from some Christian apologists suggesting that if you believe the "Jesus the man" bit you must necessarily accept "Jesus the man-god", and the flip side being that if you reject "Jesus the man-god" you must necessarily reject "Jesus the man".
It is a perfectly legitimate view to accept, on the balance of probabilities that "Jesus the man" existed, was a preacher and was executed, while totally rejecting the fanciful "Jesus the man-god" claims.
It could be that it arises from incorrect translations of Hebrew idioms. There are a number of expressions which aren't intended to be taken literally e.g. father of, mother of, brother of, daughter of and son of. Father of God meant pious, mother of the arm meant forearm, brother of God meant friend, daughter of trees meant boughs. Jesus had a couple of followers called sons of thunder, which didn't mean that their mother was impregnated by a thunder bolt, but that they were impetuous. Son of man probably meant human (qualities) and son of God, divine (qualities).
-
Well as I said earlier I was under no illusions that you would experience any epiphany of thinking from looking at his writings. But thank you that you were prepared to put the time and effort into doing so and to do so with a more objective and open mindset than would have been the case for many others. I do appreciate that.
Incidentally on the issue of the claimed miracles, I was first pointed in the direction of FF Bruce's writings by a man who had been involved in a horrific incident in the Western Desert during WW2. He received severe third degree burns and was considered a hopeless case by the army doctors. Yet he made a remarkable recovery (and I have deliberately avoided using the phrase miraculous recovery). But perhaps a subject for some more specific future thread on this topic when (as it surely will) it once again comes under discussion. I do not intend being the cause of derailing this thread completely.
I'm always happy to learn more.
But don't forget I am a professional scientist and an academic - examining evidence and the arguments that arise from that evidence is what I do for a living. I'm pretty good at seeing the wood for the trees.
To my view Bruce makes a reasonable fist at being neutral - and the article is best when he is doing that. I think it is to his credit that he doesn't make an attempt to argue for miracles as historical fact, rather he accepts then as unevidenced articles of faith. He does however drift into special pleading and lowering the evidential bar on occasions and this is always to support his clear pre-existing belief in Christianity. It does him no favours when he does this and it actually weakens rather than strengthens his arguments.
-
Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').
Paul is cited as part of the 'multiple sources' argument for historical Jesus, along with the gospels, plus gospel of John, which is reckoned to be separate, also Thomas, maybe. Plus stuff like Josephus, and of course, Q, which is getting rather rarefied. It is very meagre, but so is the evidence for Hannibal.
I usually check out Tim O'Neill for good summaries of the historical approach.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html
-
It is very meagre, but so is the evidence for Hannibal.
But whether or not people believe in Hannibal has no bearing on modern society.
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
I first walked into the church where I still worship on the first Sunday of September 1969, some 48 years ago. I seem to recollect that it was Sunday 7th. The subject of the sermon was a look at earthquakes found in the Scriptures and what we could learn and apply from them. I can still remember quite a bit of the detail. The minister moved to another church at the end of 1975 and I also have very clear recollections of aspects of many other of his sermons during this period. These included messages on the young man in the tomb in Mark's Gospel, the healing of Jairus' daughter, the calming of the storm on Galilee and the Letter to the Church at Ephesus in Rev 2. In September 1975 the minister whom we were considering as a potential replacement was invited to spend a few days at the church and on the Sunday he preached on the text from Genesis 50:20, 'you meant it for evil but God meant it for good'. I can remember much of that sermon too.
In fact in the 1990's I preached a sermon on the Letter to the Church at Ephesus' which was little more that a direct plagiarising of what I could remember of the sermon I heard early in the 1970's. I was surprised at how much more came to mind as I prepared.
So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.
How much more detail would I still have if I had been asked to share on a regular basis my recollections of what these two men preached had I been requested to do so on a regular basis from the time immediately following their moves to other churches?
So I have no problem with the accuracy of the NT writings given a time of writing some 40-50 years after the event.
Needless to say that I am of the view that the great majority of the NT documents were written well within that time frame with only the 4th gospel being a bit later.
-
But whether or not people believe in Hannibal has no bearing on modern society.
But we know pretty much what they would try to do and what power, influence and control they would seek over people's lives because of believing in Hannibal, if Hannibal had credited to him a similar constellation of beliefs as Jesus.
-
Vlad,
So we have you someone with a love of interrogation, flicking out assertions like "street conjuror " and is above or can't justifying them. Let's try you with another.
Your first time was a mistake; now you're lying.
-
Avoidance Boy,
And would you say that the disciples also believed their experience of the resurrected?
Quite possibly. It's not something they could have known to be true, but the story may well have been persuasive for them nonetheless.
-
I'm always happy to learn more.
But don't forget I am a professional scientist and an academic - examining evidence and the arguments that arise from that evidence is what I do for a living. I'm pretty good at seeing the wood for the trees.
I am well aware of that and fully recognize and respect the skills you possess and demonstrate on this forum. Perhaps the more so because, although I did not pursue a career in the academic world, I do have a PhD in Chemistry and later a B degree in economics when my career path in industry took me into the position of a Business Analyst.
-
So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.
If you heard the teachings in another language, say, Aramaic, would you be confident in writing a similarly accurate and true reflection many years later in English?
-
DaveM,
I first walked into the church where I still worship on the first Sunday of September 1969, some 48 years ago. I seem to recollect that it was Sunday 7th. The subject of the sermon was a look at earthquakes found in the Scriptures and what we could learn and apply from them. I can still remember quite a bit of the detail. The minister moved to another church at the end of 1975 and I also have very clear recollections of aspects of many other of his sermons during this period. These included messages on the young man in the tomb in Mark's Gospel, the healing of Jairus' daughter, the calming of the storm on Galilee and the Letter to the Church at Ephesus in Rev 2. In September 1975 the minister whom we were considering as a potential replacement was invited to spend a few days at the church and on the Sunday he preached on the text from Genesis 50:20, 'you meant it for evil but God meant it for good'. I can remember much of that sermon too.
In fact in the 1990's I preached a sermon on the Letter to the Church at Ephesus' which was little more that a direct plagiarising of what I could remember of the sermon I heard early in the 1970's. I was surprised at how much more came to mind as I prepared.
So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.
How much more detail would I still have if I had been asked to share on a regular basis my recollections of what these two men preached had I been requested to do so on a regular basis from the time immediately following their moves to other churches?
So I have no problem with the accuracy of the NT writings given a time of writing some 40-50 years after the event.
Needless to say that I am of the view that the great majority of the NT documents were written well within that time frame with only the 4th gospel being a bit later.
Just out of interest, what though if your perfect recollection of the sermon included remembering that he'd claimed to have seen on the way to the church a unicorn pooping glitter? What relevance would the quality of your memory have to the veracity of the story you were remembering?
Memory is an important issue here - especially when they're passed from person to person – but the more substantive one is the unknowability of the original claim. Even if in all the re-telling the story had been repeated with absolute accuracy and with no embellishments from those with a vested interest in bigging it up, the story would still be "30 years ago Fred said he saw a bloke alive then dead then alive again", which is something Fred could not have known to be true given the tools and knowledge available to him.
-
Avoidance Boy,
Quite possibly. It's not something they could have known to be true, but the story may well have been persuasive for them nonetheless.
Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.
I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?
There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.
-
Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.
I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?
There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.
By the time the gospels were written the disciples would have been old men, or more likely dead!
-
If you heard the teachings in another language, say, Aramaic, would you be confident in writing a similarly accurate and true reflection many years later in English?
Well if I consider my position in my own country (South Africa) I think the answer is an emphatic yes. English is my home language and (I think - I hope) I can speak and write English fluently. But I can also very comfortably conduct a conversation in Afrikaans and can write reasonably well in that language. So by analogy if I had lived in the 1st century with Aramaic as my home language, I would have had little problem conversing and even writing in Greek, although perhaps encountering some comments on poor grammar here and there.
-
Avoidance Boy,
Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.
Or that someone else told one or some of them that he saw Jesus post mortem and the disciples believed that person, but ok…
I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?
I mean what I told you I mean but you just ignored. To have known with any certainty that someone was clinically dead and then alive again would have required methods and tools that just didn’t exist back then. However sincere an eye-witness may have been, and however accurate the re-tellings of the story he told you’d still have only a claim that he couldn’t have known to be true. The very best you could argue was that someone believed he’d seem the same person alive then dead then alive again.
There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.
Of course it isn’t. How could there be empirical evidence for something when virtually none of the tools of empirical verificaton were available at the time to do the job? What medical instrument for example could they have used to confirm that there was no brain stem activity?
-
Avoidance Boy,
Or that someone else told one or some of them that he saw Jesus post mortem and the disciples believed that person, but ok…
I mean what I told you I mean but you just ignored. To have known with any certainty that someone was clinically dead and then alive again would have required methods and tools that just didn’t exist back then. However sincere an eye-witness may have been, and however accurate the re-tellings of the story he told you’d still have only a claim that he couldn’t have known to be true. The very best you could argue was that someone believed he’d seem the same person alive then dead then alive again.
Of course it isn’t. How could there be empirical evidence for something when virtually none of the tools of empirical verificaton were available at the time to do the job? What medical instrument for example could they have used to confirm that there was no brain stem activity?
I notice you have two alternatives to the disciples believing they had a post mortem experience of Christ. Do you have any evidence of that.Anything written down?
As far as knowing if Jesus was dead it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
Since death was perhaps quite a common experience I would have thought they would have quite a bit of expertise over death.
-
I notice you have two alternatives to the disciples believing they had a post mortem experience of Christ. Do you have any evidence of that.Anything written down?
As far as knowing if Jesus was dead it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
Since death was perhaps quite a common experience I would have thought they would have quite a bit of expertise over death.
Yet again you are using the same old faulty, un-corroborated, 'evidence'. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was clinically dead - why - well first because there simply isn't any (all we have is reports decades later that he was dead, which isn't really actual evidence of his death at all), and secondly because there could have been as there wasn't sufficient medical knowledge at the time to be able to ascertain the key elements of clinical death - specifically brain activity.
Now I'm not making this claim, merely stating a plausible possibility (think Okram's razor) - namely that Jesus was in a deep stage of coma but not actually dead, and that he came out of this coma 3 days later. This is massively more plausible than a genuinely dead man coming alive again after 3 days.
-
... it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
Really - perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think any of the reported injuries are likely to be lethal. Significantly unpleasant - yes; lethal - no.
-
Yet again you are using the same old faulty, un-corroborated, 'evidence'. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was clinically dead - why - well first because there simply isn't any, and secondly because there could have been as there wasn't sufficient medical knowledge at the time to be able to ascertain the key elements of clinical death - specifically brain activity.
Now I'm not making this claim, merely stating a plausible possibility (think Okram's razor) - namely that Jesus was in a deep stage of coma but not actually dead, and that he came out of this coma 3 days later. This is massively more plausible than a genuinely dead man coming alive again after 3 days.
There are several epistles and four gospels. That is evidence as would anything telling another story.
I'm interested in the word faulty. Faulty in what context? Careful now, the genetic fallacy seems to be following you about.
I think Jesus injuries were quite severe. Are you saying his injuries were exaggerated?
Again isn't that the sort of thing that would have been used by the Roman and Jewish authorities?
-
Really - perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think any of the reported injuries are likely to be lethal. Significantly unpleasant - yes; lethal - no.
significantly unpleasant? Aren't you being a bit generous. Don't you mean they were a bit of an inconvenience?
-
Vlad,
I notice you have two alternatives to the disciples believing they had a post mortem experience of Christ. Do you have any evidence of that.Anything written down?
See whether you can work for yourself out what’s wrong with that question.
I’ll give you a clue: what would have been written down would have been what someone thought had happened. Why would someone have written down instead the various alternatives that he didn’t think had happened?
As far as knowing if Jesus was dead it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
“It is written down that…”. Think about that for a minute. Now try to work out a path from “it is written down that” to “it is necessarily true therefore”.
Since death was perhaps quite a common experience I would have thought they would have quite a bit of expertise over death.
Which tells you nothing about perhaps half a dozen or more naturalistic explanations for what could have happened. How for example have you calculated how often in ancient times people were believed to be dead but were actually in a coma from which they subsequently recovered?
If I were to say that babies are brought by brainwashing storks you’d have no way to disprove the claim, but you would presumably reject it because it fails to accord with an explanation that better and more frequently aligns with the way the world observably appears to be.
Essentially all some of us are doing here is rejecting your equivalent to stork theory – and how faithfully the claim “stork” has been transmitted from person to person over decades is entirely irrelevant for that purpose, as indeed is the sincerity of the person who first made the claim.
-
Vlad,
There are several epistles and four gospels. That is evidence as would anything telling another story.
“Telling a story” is fine. You though keep trying to elide “here’s an accurate recording of something someone said” with “that person was necessarily correct in his explanation of what he thought he saw”. That’s the Grand Canyon-sized gap in your thinking.
I'm interested in the word faulty. Faulty in what context? Careful now, the genetic fallacy seems to be following you about.
No it doesn’t. Stories re-told many times over extended periods are almost always “faulty” at the end of it – the game of Chinese whispers tells you that even with much simpler constituents.
I think Jesus injuries were quite severe. Are you saying his injuries were exaggerated?
You’re shifting the burden of proof. A resurrection is your claim, so it’s your job to demonstrate that the injuries were necessarily fatal (and that it was the same person who came alive again after dying from them). All a skeptical enquirer has to do is to establish that severe looking injuries are not always fatal – a simple thing to do.
Again isn't that the sort of thing that would have been used by the Roman and Jewish authorities?
What sort of thing?
-
significantly unpleasant? Aren't you being a bit generous. Don't you mean they were a bit of an inconvenience?
So let's check them out then shall we - which of the following are necessarily lethal (as you claim).
1. Driving a sharp object through the feet - NO - although loss of blood could prove lethal, but the basic injury most certainly isn't.
2. Driving a sharp object through the hands - NO - although loss of blood could prove lethal, but the basic injury most certainly isn't.
3. Driving a sharp object into your side - COULD BE, but only if vital organs were hit - although loss of blood could prove lethal, but the basic injury isn't necessarily lethal.
4 Putting a scratchy thorny thing on you head - NO - unlikely even to result in enough blood loss to be lethal.
The most likely cause of death in crucifixion is asphyxiation. There is also evidence for people being crucifies living for days, perhaps even succumbing to dehydration. But the point, particularly on asphyxiation is that it can result in deep coma, which for people in those days, with no meaningful medical equipment and limited medical knowledge could easily be misconstrued as death.
-
There are several epistles and four gospels. That is evidence as would anything telling another story.
I'm interested in the word faulty. Faulty in what context? Careful now, the genetic fallacy seems to be following you about.
Faulty as it fails the tests for strength of evidence that I set out way back in reply 58. And lets not forget that three of the four gospels are considered to use the same source material, so they cannot be considered as three separate pieces of evidence.
But there is also the problem that people in 1stC Palestine had neither the medical knowledge nor equipment to be able to accurately verify clinical death.
Finally, of course, saying that someone else is dead is no guarantee that they actually are:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2004/jun/15/2
I think Jesus injuries were quite severe. Are you saying his injuries were exaggerated?
Again isn't that the sort of thing that would have been used by the Roman and Jewish authorities?
None of his reported injuries are necessarily lethal, except by blood loss. Spear in the side maybe if it hit a vital organ, but the report is that Jesus was already dead at this point.
Anyhow - I am not arguing that Jesus was necessarily not dead - what I am arguing is that you have no definitive evidence that he was.
-
Vlad,
“Telling a story” is fine. You though keep trying to elide “here’s an accurate recording of something someone said” with “that person was necessarily correct in his explanation of what he thought he saw”. That’s the Grand Canyon-sized gap in your thinking.
No it doesn’t. Stories re-told many times over extended periods are almost always “faulty” at the end of it – the game of Chinese whispers tells you that even with much simpler constituents.
You’re shifting the burden of proof. A resurrection is your claim, so it’s your job to demonstrate that the injuries were necessarily fatal (and that it was the same person who came alive again after dying from them). All a skeptical enquirer has to do is to establish that severe looking injuries are not always fatal – a simple thing to do.
There is no default position in history. Something happened or something else happened.
Besides even if you had the default position you are unable to say what it is.
-
There is no default position in history.
... aside from the methodologically naturalistic one, outside of which there's no such thing as history.
Apart from that ...
-
There is no default position in history. Something happened or something else happened.
Besides even if you had the default position you are unable to say what it is.
Vlad,
The default position is 'things thatvreally can happen'. 'Things that can't really happen' include people coming back from the dead, which is a matter of faith and not history.
And that's not an issue, surely?
Incidentally, do you also accept the story of St Winifred coming back to life?
-
Vlad,
The default position is 'things thatvreally can happen'. 'Things that can't really happen' include people coming back from the dead, which is a matter of faith and not history.
And that's not an issue, surely?
Incidentally, do you also accept the story of St Winifred coming back to life?
He has also studiously ignored my request to confirm whether he thinks Icharus went for an ill-advised flight which ended badly.
-
Vlad,
The default position is 'things thatvreally can happen'. 'Things that can't really happen' include people coming back from the dead, which is a matter of faith and not history.
And that's not an issue, surely
Incidentally, do you also accept the story of St Winifred coming back to life?
Oh dear I feel argument from personal incredulity, repudiation of unknown unknowns, ignorance of the problem of induction, special pleading, unjustified positive assertion, ignorance of Karl Popper and a kind of non committed philosophical materialism all coming on which is like having diarrheoa, being sick, having cystitis and a migraine all at the same time. Embarrassingly for the early Christians there was no ''not history'' about it.
I'm not sure what you mean by faith not history anyway.
It still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility to address the issue of ''if not this, then what''...if what then where is your historical evidence
At the moment you are all articulating soundbites with no evidence of understanding.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by faith not history anyway.
Your co-religionist Prof F F Bruce clearly got it. But I suspect he had significantly greater intellectual capacity than you Vlad.
-
Your co-religionist Prof F F Bruce clearly got it. But I suspect he has significantly greater intellectual capacity than you Vlad.
I think you must have missed my post some time ago which postulates what a materialist or group of materialists would make if they chanced upon a resurrection. One option is that they would express the event in terms of materialism.
Given that life is dependent on the organisation of matter then there is a possibility of a spontaneous improbable reorganisation of matter.
In this case resurrection has no inevitable divine connection.
Another reaction would be for the materialist to deny the experience, to be true to her philosophy rather than her scientific curiosity. They have also forgotten what is referred to here as the problem of induction. And also Popper who lays the ground for unexpected events and considers them worthy and important enough for mention.
Alternatively the materialist may convert.
Although the last materialist has detected the divine here that aspect remains faith yet for all the materialists who acknowledge the resurrection as a rare, possibly unique material event the resurrection would be a historic event.
This is why I think those who relegate the event to faith alone are missing the point.
Hope this helps.
-
Note that flipside you cover is also used by mythicists and indeed seems to be Owlswing's approach.
Not totally. I am prepared, given sufficient evidence, to go along with Jesus the man, but no further.
From what I have read on the subject there appears to be very little to show that, if the preacher Jesus existed, he made much of an impact on the Romans even in Judea. They seem to have written very little about his entry with 'a multitude' into Jerusalem for one.
-
I think you must have missed my post some time ago which postulates what a materialist or group of materialists would make if they chanced upon a resurrection. One option is that they would express the event in terms of materialism.
What is a 'materielist'?
In the present day a reasonable person would be sceptical, given the highly unusual nature of the claim, and would be looking for an independent investigation using suitable methods. This is clearly impossible regarding the NT claim, and of course the anecdotal accounts in the NT are of uncertain provenance and, as such, there is the risk of bias and propaganda if written by supporters of Jesus. Then there is the culture of that place and those times to consider, where people may have been more credulous in respect of religious narratives and miracle claims.
There is much to be sceptical about, and you guys seem determined to avoid considering the risks of mistakes and lies.
Given that life is dependent on the organisation of matter then there is a possibility of a spontaneous improbable reorganisation of matter.
Would this be a natural or divine spontaneous re-organisation of matter? In any event this reads like an argument from personal incredulity.
In this case resurrection has no inevitable divine connection.
In that case either it can happen naturally to a three-day dead body, where there is enough knowledge now to reject this out-of-hand, or it didn't happen at all: either Jesus stayed dead or wasn't killed at that point and the resurrection element of the story is a lie.
Since you presume there was a 'resurrection' then the burden of proof is yours.
Another reaction would be for the materialist to deny the experience, to be true to her philosophy rather than her scientific curiosity.
What do you mean by 'experience'?
They have also forgotten what is referred to here as the problem of induction. And also Popper who lays the ground for unexpected events and considers them worthy and important enough for mention.
You're getting ahead of yourself, Vlad, by lurching towards induction and Popper. That people make mistakes, have biases and tell lies is known human behaviour for which there is copious evidence so that when faced with anecdotal reports containing remarkable claims an early step must surely be to consider these risks: you seem determined to avoid this possibility.
Alternatively the materialist may convert.
How do you mean? You'll need to explain this point, since it sounds like you are saying the resurrection only makes sense if you first accept the divine claims made for Jesus - is that what you mean? If so then it sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias.
Although the last materialist has detected the divine here that aspect remains faith and a historic event yet for the other materialists who acknowledge the resurrection as a rare, possibly unique material event the resurrection would be a historic event.
Then you'll need to find a historian, and not a theologian or theist, who treats the claimed resurrection of Jesus as being a historical event. You seem confused in that on one hand you note that faith is needed as a prerequisite for accepting that there was divine intervention but then you still seem to hang on to the notion that there is a naturalisitic explanation - sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it!
Even then you prefer to ignore one naturalistic option: human artifice.
This is why I think those who relegate the event to faith alone are missing the point.
What point would that be?
Hope this helps.
It has in way: it confirms just how utterly confused you are in that you clearly accept the resurrection as an article of personal religious faith, which is fine, but like some other Christians that clearly isn't enough for you and you end up thrashing about trying to find other ways to rationalise what is fundamentally irrational.
Your reluctance to consider the risks of human artifice is telling too, in that it implies special pleading that those involved in compiling the NT were immune from human failings.
-
Gordon
I can't decide whether your misreading of my description of a group of materialists chancing upon a resurrection not specifically THE resurrection is due to misunderstanding, answering the post you wanted me to write or a fear of being persuaded that the world or even science might not be what you thought it was.
Two words for you: Popper and Induction. For the latter ask your man Nearly Sane or even Hillside who were quite ready and able to quote it to me when I suggested that something didn't exist.
If you are postulating that people never come back from death as a falsifiable proposition then it stands ready to be falsified...only one example would do it.
I'm afraid it seems you still haven't got out of argument from personal incredulity.
My reading of some of your responses is that you start commenting without having got to the end of reading a post and thus miss the gist.
So to put you straight on my little parable .........Three materialists chance upon a resurrection....
-
Oh dear I feel argument from personal incredulity, repudiation of unknown unknowns, ignorance of the problem of induction, special pleading, unjustified positive assertion, ignorance of Karl Popper and a kind of non committed philosophical materialism all coming on which is like having diarrheoa, being sick, having cystitis and a migraine all at the same time. Embarrassingly for the early Christians there was no ''not history'' about it.
I'm not sure what you mean by faith not history anyway.
It still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility to address the issue of ''if not this, then what''...if what then where is your historical evidence
At the moment you are all articulating soundbites with no evidence of understanding.
You really don't know what I mean by faith not history? Ok. Thought that was KS3 RS but hey.
So anyway, about St Winifred....
-
You really don't know what I mean by faith not history? Ok. Thought that was KS3 RS but hey.
So anyway, about St Winifred....
You seem rattled.
Tell me about St Winifred.
-
You seem rattled.
Tell me about St Winifred.
Come, Vlad, even you can't mistake a shrug for being rattled.
Anyway. St Winifred. Historical person it would seem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred
-
Come, Vlad, even you can't mistake a shrug for being rattled.
shrug ?
People never invoke Key stage 3 RS lightly.
-
shrug ?
People never invoke Key stage 3 RS lightly.
Which people?
-
I'm afraid it seems you still haven't got out of argument from personal incredulity.
Any news on your views on Icharus' ill fated flight.
Are you rejecting it out of hand from personal incredulity.
Or are you being consistent with your presumption for resurrection - whereby you presume it happened just because a few people said so, in which case you should also presume that the account of Icharus' flight is also true because a few people said so.
-
shrug ?
People never invoke Key stage 3 RS lightly.
Whatever.
Now, about St Winifred...
-
Whatever.
Now, about St Winifred...
And Icharus.
Vlad - you seem to have an impossibly low threshold of incredulity for the resurrection (or rather the resurrection of Jesus) yet don't appear to apply the same low threshold to other implausible/impossible things that people have claimed happened, as true.
Why is that Vlad.
-
St Winifred is a person for whom there is historical evidence. I'm interested in whether Vlad thinks that the accounts of her being martyred and restored to life are true or false and why.
-
St Winifred is a person for whom there is historical evidence. I'm interested in whether Vlad thinks that the accounts of her being martyred and restored to life are true or false and why.
Indeed - and both Icharus and Daedalus are likely to have be historical figures too - there is archeological evidence to support their existence as historic figures. In both cases (or all three) the issue is the difference between the historic figure and the myths and legends that arose around them.
-
And Icharus.
Vlad - you seem to have an impossibly low threshold of incredulity for the resurrection (or rather the resurrection of Jesus) yet don't appear to apply the same low threshold to other implausible/impossible things that people have claimed happened, as true.
Why is that Vlad.
Firstly I have encountered Jesus.
Secondly I have spelled out the historical evidence against what I see as your bypassing of history
Did the Greeks believe their mythology was literal? With a little effort they tell me you can get to the top of Mount Olympus. Therefore on balance Icarus is a morality tale. Either that or the gods were not with him that day.
-
Firstly I have encountered Jesus.
How do you know?
Secondly I have spelled out the historical evidence against what I see as your bypassing of history
The only bypassing here is yours - specifically, the bypassing of telling us what method you're using to discount the distinct possibilities of deceit or error in documents you take to be true on their face.
-
Did the Greeks believe their mythology was literal? With a little effort they tell me you can get to the top of Mount Olympus. Therefore on balance Icarus is a morality tale. Either that or the gods were not with him that day.
But I thought we were talking about historical truth, rather than faith. It matters not whether people believe something to be true historically or do not believe it to be true historically as to whether it is actually true.
Beyond people saying it happened there is no more or less more evidence for the implausible/impossible flight of Icharus and Daedalus (in both cases there is historical evidence that they actually existed as people) than the implausible/impossible resurrection of Jesus (for whom there is historical evidence that he existed as a person).
Why then do you believe the latter, but reject the former - that is clear double standard.
And on to St Winifred now - true or not true.
-
How do you know?
If it isn't him then he has a double.
Why I don't think there is any error "the method" has been outlined to you.
You and others are just relying on the virtueless confusion of what you personally believe and what you know imho.
-
But I thought we were talking about historical truth, rather than faith. It matters not whether people believe something to be true historically or do not believe it to be true historically as to whether it is actually true.
Beyond people saying it happened there is no more or less more evidence for the implausible/impossible flight of Icharus and Daedalus (in both cases there is historical evidence that they actually existed as people) than the implausible/impossible resurrection of Jesus (for whom there is historical evidence that he existed as a person).
Why then do you believe the latter, but reject the former - that is clear double standard.
And on to St Winifred now - true or not true.
We have to look at the sense in which these things were written.
It is a long shot to pin an American style scriptural literalism onto Greek writers and people who even in those days could take an afternoons trip to Mount Olympus.
I'm afraid your approach to faith myth and history seems to be progressively lacking rigour.
-
I'm afraid your approach to faith myth and history seems to be progressively lacking rigour.
On the contrary - I am applying identical approaches and equal rigour to two examples of extraordinary claims about historical figures where the only 'evidence' is that some people claimed they happened and in both cases those claims fit the concept of myth, i.e. to ascribe god-like characteristics to an individual.
On to St Winifred.
-
It is a long shot to pin an American style scriptural literalism onto Greek writers and people who even in those days could take an afternoons trip to Mount Olympus.
Yet you appear to wish to do so to writers and people who claim it is possible to walk on water, turn water in to wine, raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a small basket-full of food.
-
Three materialists chance upon a resurrection....
Ok first lets put aside the rather strange notion that people would describe themselves as 'materialists'.
On to the meat.
First you're phraseology of itself is biased and conveys a presumption. They wouldn't 'chance upon a resurrection', they would chance upon a person where there is a claim that this individual had been dead and was now alive again.
In which case I (if it were me) would want to investigate that claim. Firstly I would want to ascertain beyond doubt that the person alive now is the same person who it is claimed had died. And that evidence would need to be independent and objective - e.g. DNA/ dental records etc.
Secondly I would require clinical evidence that the person had actually died - not just in a deep coma, near death, or in a state where resuscitation was possible. And for the claim to be sustained to be convinced beyond doubt that the person had been in that state of clinical death for a significant period of time - not just seconds, but - hey three days or longer. Again the evidence would need to be independent and objective.
Finally I'd need to confirm that the person now alive is real - not some clever illusion, hologram etc and genuinely living (that I wasn't suffering some strange hallucination) - so several, independent and objective witnesses that can be independently questioned about their interaction with this once dead, now alive person. I'd expect the claim of living to be sustained over a period of time - not a one off chance encounter that could be subject to misunderstanding/misinterpretation/mass hallucination/group think, but verified repeatedly and independently over a period of time.
Were it to be the case that all these criteria were met my interests would turn to the cause of this phenomenon. And I would want to look for anything unusual about the genetic/epigenomic/phenotypic make up of this person that might help us explain the phenomenon. Or perhaps that the person had been subject to successful cryogenic preservation etc. It might be that current science wouldn't provide an explanation at this time, in which case I would conclude that we have a currently unexplained phenomenon.
What I wouldn't do is firstly simply accept that if someone says the person was dead and is now alive that that means it is true.
Also what I wouldn't do is do a 'god of the gaps' and conclude that because we don't understand the phenomenon that it must be 'cos of god'.
-
Yet you appear to wish to do so to writers and people who claim it is possible to walk on water, turn water in to wine, raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a small basket-full of food.
As I said in what sense is it written?
That there were what the locals called miracles certainly accompanied Jesus. Jesus himself acknowledges this.
I favour Icarus story being myth for the reasons I've outlineD Therefore I believe that to be myth.
St Winifred I am looking into but those miracles could be down to a rich and cultural Celtic imagination and tradition of mythology. The sense in which the Winifred story was written I would move is not well understood or researched.
I would like to hear from Rhiannon who to be fair to did point out that myth has a different status to history or religion.
-
As I said in what sense is it written?
That there were what the locals called miracles certainly accompanied Jesus. Jesus himself acknowledges this.
Thank you for that statement of the obvious, but we're no further forward in getting from "It's claimed in a very old document written in credulous, pre-scientific times that X occurred" to "Here's demonstrable proof that X actually occurred as claimed."
Until you grasp this essential difference you'll continue to evade the questions put to you and anybody taking part in the discussion will be pretty much wasting their time.
-
I would like to hear from Rhiannon who to be fair to did point out that myth has a different status to history or religion.
Myth and history are different - that is my point. You seem unable to accept this, but only when applied toward your own religion.
The link between myth and religion is more complex - we tend to use the term myth for claims of religion, when that religion isn't really active any more. But the claims are no more or less myth-like than those of current religions, but I think (for fear of offending believers) we tend to steer away from describing the fantastical claims of current religions as 'myth'.
So we are happy to talk of the Greek myths and the Norse myths, yet we don't talk of Jewish myths or Christian myths yet there are plenty of claims in the latter which are as fantastical as in the former.
-
Thank you for that statement of the obvious, but we're no further forward in getting from "It's claimed in a very old document written in credulous, pre-scientific times that X occurred" to "Here's demonstrable proof that X actually occurred as claimed."
Until you grasp this essential difference you'll continue to evade the questions put to you and anybody taking part in the discussion will be pretty much wasting their time.
We are still ahead on the documentary side of things as opposed to your argument from what you can personally believe
We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.
Of course you seem to ha've just said you don't accept evidence
Which is ancient or pre-scientific. Therefore if an actual roman report in which the body was found and people sent down appeared you would discard it.
-
We are still ahead on the documentary side of things as opposed to your argument from what you can personally believe
We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.
We need a means of ruling it out of the equation, and you're not coming up with the goods.
-
We need historic evidence of historic conspiracy.
Why - all we are asking is whether there is evidence sufficient to support an extraordinary claim as being historically true.
If we reject that claim due to lack of evidence there is no onus on us to 'prove' why the untrue claim gained credence. It may be interesting to do so, but that is an entirely different topic.
And there are many reasons why incorrect notions gain credence within a society - conspiracy is of course one, but probably very uncommon. Much more likely would be that there was misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the event and/or that the reality became progressively distorted from the reality over time through multiple retelling (send reinforcements we are going to advance).
There is no conspiracy in those - no genuine attempt to deceive.
-
Why - all we are asking is whether there is evidence sufficient to support an extraordinary claim as being historically true.
If we reject that claim due to lack of evidence there is no onus on us to 'prove' why the untrue claim gained credence. It may be interesting to do so, but that is an entirely different topic.
And there are many reasons why incorrect notions gain credence within a society - conspiracy is of course one, but probably very uncommon. Much more likely would be that there was misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the event and/or that the reality became progressively distorted from the reality over time through multiple retelling (send reinforcements we are going to advance).
There is no conspiracy in those - no genuine attempt to deceive.
Some points in response to this point.
Is "extraordinary evidence" a form of special pleading?
Is "extraordinary evidence" about what some feel they can believe in and that involves argument from incredulity.
Isn't all history unique, the more complex a situation the more extraordinary it is?
How extraordinary is this event compared with other events in the universe? In other words is your definition of extraordinary........too anthropocentric and parochial?
-
Is "extraordinary evidence" a form of special pleading?
Is "extraordinary evidence" about what some feel they can believe in and that involves argument from incredulity.
Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.
The point is that the threshold for evidence we require is linked to the extraordinariness of the claim being made.
Where the claim is run of the mill, we might accept that the claim is likely to be true based on fairly limited evidence.
However where the claim is extraordinary we should require the highest threshold of evidence to support the claim.
This is well a established concept - hence the common phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So if I said I can run 5km in 30 minutes, you might simply accept that on the evidence of watching me run and taking a view as to whether that is consistent with a 10km/hr running speed. You might also be fairly relaxed about this claim as I'm not claiming anything very special and it is neither here nor there whether I can run 5km in 29 minutes or 32 minutes.
If on the other hand I made the extraordinary claim that I could run 100m in 8 seconds, you would, quite reasonably expect me to provide the highest threshold of evidence - i.e. proving it with precise timing and a range of witnesses. You certainly wouldn't accept a report written decades after the claimed 100m in 8 second run written by a partial author.
-
Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.
He does that.
-
He does that.
You mean makes things up ;)
-
You mean makes things up ;)
You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.
It's certainly the case - I've had experience of it in the past few days - that he attributes comments/positions to posters that the posters have not said.
The motivation for this remains an open question.
-
Where did I use the term 'extraordinary evidence'? Certainly not in the post you were replying to.
The point is that the threshold for evidence we require is linked to the extraordinariness of the claim being made.
Where the claim is run of the mill, we might accept that the claim is likely to be true based on fairly limited evidence.
However where the claim is extraordinary we should require the highest threshold of evidence to support the claim.
This is well a established concept - hence the common phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So if I said I can run 5km in 30 minutes, you might simply accept that on the evidence of watching me run and taking a view as to whether that is consistent with a 10km/hr running speed. You might also be fairly relaxed about this claim as I'm not claiming anything very special and it is neither here nor there whether I can run 5km in 29 minutes or 32 minutes.
If on the other hand I made the extraordinary claim that I could run 100m in 8 seconds, you would, quite reasonably expect me to provide the highest threshold of evidence - i.e. proving it with precise timing and a range of witnesses. You certainly wouldn't accept a report written decades after the claimed 100m in 8 second run written by a partial author.
Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.
You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.
If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.
-
Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.
The point is about the significance of accepting the claim.
The significance of accepting a claim of 100m in 80 seconds is minimal therefore we can allow a greater 'tolerance' within our deliberation. 100m in 8 seconds would involve smashing the world record to pieces - were it to be true it would be of the most astonishing significance and therefore there can be no tolerance within our deliberation - we need the claim to be demonstrated beyond any doubt, with the highest level of evidence required.
You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.
I never said that running 100m in 8 seconds is impossible - but currently seems very unlikely so were a claim of that nature to be made we'd require the most stringent evidence or we would, quite rightly, discount the claim. We certainly wouldn't accept someone with a vested interest in the claim simply stating that it happened 40 years ago.
If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.
Theoretically - and I mentioned the notion of cryogenics earlier - which takes a slightly different approach, namely to preserve the state at death in effectively suspended animation.
But that doesn't change the point which is that were a claim to be made of that nature we would require the very highest levels of evidence to accept that claim - and in the absence of that evidence we would, quite rightly, reject the claim.
-
Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.
You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.
If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.
The laws of physics allow for all the molecules of air contained in a room to cram themselves into just one corner of it, but we don't see it do we?
-
Yes, you are talking about how relaxed I feel that is subjective.
I think you will find that the same means are used to determine 100m in 8 seconds or 100m in 80 seconds therefore whither extraordinary claims etc.
You raise though one of my favourite points namely that once declared impossible which later comes to pass.
If life is therefore a product of the arrangement of matter a rearrangement of material could notionally reverse death.
Why don't you change your handle again?
Your contributions to this thread suggest that an approprite handle would be "A Brick Wall" so others know who they are talking to.
-
The laws of physics allow for all the molecules of air contained in a room to cram themselves into just one corner of it, but we don't see it do we?
No it is highly improbable.
Although I would imagine the amount of disorder to be overcome to be orders of magnitude greater than that going from a dead arrangement from a live arrangement of cells. Air after all is a gas.
-
No it is highly improbable.
A shaft of light ...
Although I would imagine the amount of disorder to be overcome to be orders of magnitude greater than that going from a dead arrangement from a live arrangement of cells. Air after all is a gas.
As are your posts, Vladdychops.
-
Why don't you change your handle again?
The present one is a bit worthy sounding.I did it to publicise a thread like the questions one you have on the Pagan board. Of course the thread was trashed by the usual suspects. I should have known. It was like driving a 58 Cadillac through the baboon enclosure at Longleat.
-
The present one is a bit worthy sounding.I did it to publicise a thread like the questions one you have on the Pagan board. Of course the thread was trashed by the usual suspects. I should have known. It was like driving a 58 Cadillac through the baboon enclosure at Longleat.
Yes ... like my pantheism thread on the aforementioned Pagan Topic ... interesting and pleasant scenery spoilt by monkey shit.
-
No it is highly improbable.
Although I would imagine the amount of disorder to be overcome to be orders of magnitude greater than that going from a dead arrangement from a live arrangement of cells. Air after all is a gas.
No I think the opposite to be true as air is a rather simply mixture of gases, while the functioning human body is an extraordinary complex arrangement of molecules arranged into functional cells, tissues and organs. And the key word here being functional, and maintaining that function required constant input of energy that is useable by those biological systems, largely in the form of ATP.
-
Yes ... like my pantheism thread on the aforementioned Pagan Topic ... interesting and pleasant scenery spoilt by monkey shit.
I think there is scope for threads where you drop questions wait for an answer which may or may not be forthcoming and move on.without argument.
I think people just like an argument, an ad hominem, a showboat or a troll
Only a brave few agreed to the extra discipline of the debate board.I was one of them.
-
Ah yes. The cardiac massage and CPR-requiring Formal Debate Section. Sterling work, Vladdychops.
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
The stories would have been passed down by word of mouth, and may well have been written down here and there, before being put together in the gospels. The gospels weren't written all that long after Jesus' death, so many people who knew him and remembered his words and actions would still have been alive. My father died 19 years ago, but I can still remember well many things he said and did.
-
I think there is scope for threads where you drop questions wait for an answer which may or may not be forthcoming and move on.without argument.
I think people just like an argument, an ad hominem, a showboat or a troll
Only a brave few agreed to the extra discipline of the debate board.I was one of them.
Now I wonder what sort of extra discipline it is to which you are referring, the whip and chains sort provided by some ladies of the night? ;D ;D ;D
-
Now I wonder what sort of extra discipline it is to which you are referring, the whip and chains sort provided by some ladies of the night? ;D ;D ;D
Leave me out of this, please.
-
The stories would have been passed down by word of mouth, and may well have been written down here and there, before being put together in the gospels. The gospels weren't written all that long after Jesus' death, so many people who knew him and remembered his words and actions would still have been alive. My father died 19 years ago, but I can still remember well many things he said and did.
Yes but can you remember them word for word? When things are retold often their meaning can be skewed.
-
The stories would have been passed down by word of mouth, and may well have been written down here and there, before being put together in the gospels. The gospels weren't written all that long after Jesus' death, so many people who knew him and remembered his words and actions would still have been alive. My father died 19 years ago, but I can still remember well many things he said and did.
Actually people's memories are often extremely unreliable at remembering details of events - even minutes afterwards.
The gospels weren't written until a minimum of 30 years after the events. We do not know for sure who wrote them, but it seems likely they weren't written geographically close to where the events took place, resulting in significant difficulty in gaining information directly from those who might have witness the actual events.
-
Actually people's memories are often extremely unreliable at remembering details of events - even minutes afterwards.
The gospels weren't written until a minimum of 30 years after the events. We do not know for sure who wrote them, but it seems likely they weren't written geographically close to where the events took place, resulting in significant difficulty in gaining information directly from those who might have witness the actual events.
As I have pointed out before, the game of Chinese whispers makes that point well.
-
The point is about the significance of accepting the claim.
The significance of accepting a claim of 100m in 80 seconds is minimal therefore we can allow a greater 'tolerance' within our deliberation. 100m in 8 seconds would involve smashing the world record to pieces - were it to be true it would be of the most astonishing significance and therefore there can be no tolerance within our deliberation - we need the claim to be demonstrated beyond any doubt, with the highest level of evidence required.
I never said that running 100m in 8 seconds is impossible - but currently seems very unlikely so were a claim of that nature to be made we'd require the most stringent evidence or we would, quite rightly, discount the claim. We certainly wouldn't accept someone with a vested interest in the claim simply stating that it happened 40 years ago.
Theoretically - and I mentioned the notion of cryogenics earlier - which takes a slightly different approach, namely to preserve the state at death in effectively suspended animation.
But that doesn't change the point which is that were a claim to be made of that nature we would require the very highest levels of evidence to accept that claim - and in the absence of that evidence we would, quite rightly, reject the claim.
That may be the point but what is the justification which avoids special pleading and argument from personal incredulity?
If the scientific method say was the method for establishing something for instance how could you get a higher standard than the scientific method?
What's method could be more rigourous than say drug testing? For example.
-
The disciples spent three years with the Lord learning his teachings. Many of the things he said were no doubt repeated as they travelled and taught in different places. And all scripture is inspired by God. How many Christians can recite his sayings from memory. It is possible you know.
-
As I have pointed out before, the game of Chinese whispers makes that point well.
so all the Christians that were or became Christians had to stand in some kind of line without the possibility of stepping out of that line to get corroboration from anyone else in the line at any point?
-
The stories would have been passed down by word of mouth, and may well have been written down here and there, before being put together in the gospels. The gospels weren't written all that long after Jesus' death, so many people who knew him and remembered his words and actions would still have been alive. My father died 19 years ago, but I can still remember well many things he said and did.
There is a difference though: those writing about Jesus were actively promoting him as having been divine, so had a vested interest, which raises risks of exaggeration or lies. The NT could contain propaganda for Jesus but its supporters seem reluctant to countenance this possibility.
-
The disciples spent three years with the Lord learning his teachings. Many of the things he said were no doubt repeated as they travelled and taught in different places. And all scripture is inspired by God. How many Christians can recite his sayings from memory. It is possible you know.
So what?
I can remember lyrics to songs and poems from years back - but I might mis-remember some of these if I tried to write them down. People are fallible you know.
-
There is a difference though: those writing about Jesus were actively promoting him as having been divine, so had a vested interest, which raises risks of exaggeration or lies. The NT could contain propaganda for Jesus but its supporters seem reluctant to countenance this possibility.
Two things here firstly how necessary was a resurrection for the definition of the divine, after all Judaism at that time would have had trouble with an incarnation let alone a resurrection. Secondly the NTtalks of Jesus as being resurrected by God, here They are obviously thinking of the human Jesus.
Given the trouble with incarnation the resurrection seems like an unnecessary embarrassment rather than a textbook piece of propaganda.
-
The disciples spent three years with the Lord learning his teachings. Many of the things he said were no doubt repeated as they travelled and taught in different places. And all scripture is inspired by God. How many Christians can recite his sayings from memory. It is possible you know.
It doesn't say anything good about god if all the Bible is inspired by it, considering how much unpleasant garbage is in it, but with a few bits, which are worth taking on board.
-
Two things here firstly how necessary was a resurrection for the definition of the divine, after all Judaism at that time would have had trouble with an incarnation let alone a resurrection.
Er - to portray Jesus as being divine? How do define the 'divine' then.
Secondly the NTtalks of Jesus as being resurrected by God, here They are obviously thinking of the human Jesus.
And?
Given the trouble with incarnation the resurrection seems like an unnecessary embarrassment rather than a textbook piece of propaganda.
Not if that was how they decided wanted to portray Jesus.
-
It doesn't say anything good about god if all the Bible is inspired by it, considerable how much unpleasant garbage is in it, with a few bits, which are worth taking on board.
A32 edition magazine on World War 2 would have more unpleasantness in it. ..and that was the twentieth century.
-
A32 edition magazine on World War 2 would have more unpleasantness in it. ..and that was the twentieth century.
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Er - to portray Jesus as being divine? How do define the 'divine' then.
And?
Not if that was how they decided wanted to portray Jesus.
It's not about how I define the divine it's about how first century Jews would have defined the divine.
Incarnation was a no no.
-
It's not about how I define the divine it's about how first century Jews would have defined the divine.
Incarnation was a no no.
So Jesus, as portrayed in the first century by those behind the NT, would seem very different from the conventions of the time: could be a good/unique selling point don't you think?
This seems like a risk that would need to be addressed by those supporting the NT content today.
-
Divine is defined as being godlike, that is not much of a recommendation if god is anything like it is portrayed in the Bible.
-
So what?
I can remember lyrics to songs and poems from years back - but I might mis-remember some of these if I tried to write them down. People are fallible you know.
If you spent three years learning those lyrics from their writer and then spent the rest of your life performing the songs as if your life depended on them would you forget them?
-
If you spent three years learning those lyrics from their writer and then spent the rest of your life performing the songs as if your life depended on them would you forget them?
I spent many years (more than 3) playing in a pub rock/jazz band several nights a week so I remember, say, Steely Dan's 'Do It Again' quite well (inc. the chord changes) but I could be mistaken, being human - as far as I know the disciples of Jesus were human too so were fallible - yes?
-
So Jesus, as portrayed in the first century by those behind the NT, would seem very different from the conventions of the time: could be a good/unique selling point don't you think?
In a background of strict monolithic monotheism, God having a son who was incarnated as a person, how would it have been a good selling point?
-
In a background of strict monolithic monotheism, God having a son who was incarnated as a person, how would it have been a good selling point?
By being so very different from the convention, so much so he got killed for his trouble - but guess what he failed to stay dead!
I reckon this would make a good 'based on a true story' movie - where a dash of added fantasy might appeal to those impressed by that sort of thing.
-
Been away for a while.
Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?
Thanks.
-
Been away for a while.
Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?
Thanks.
OK.
Sitting comfortably?
Cuppa and HobNob?
Right, I'll begin:
No.
-
Shakes,
OK.
Sitting comfortably?
Cuppa and HobNob?
Right, I'll begin:
No.
Dagnabbit!
Oh well, the tea and Hobnob was nice anyway so thanks for that.
I see too that he went badly off the rails on his materialism schtick again, presumably as yet another diversionary tactic. Oh well indeed eh?
-
Been away for a while.
Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?
Thanks.
Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.
Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.
Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.
-
Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now ...
And would have been much more commonly misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago given the much more limited medical knowledge.
Apply Occam's razor.
-
Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.
More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.
Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.
Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).
Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.
I see you're still evading.
-
Vlad,
Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.
Experience of, but not knowledge about. Unless that is you think they had access to technology to assess vital signs like brain stem activity?
Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.
Whether death is occasionally misdiagnosed today has no relevance to the significantly higher probability of it being misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago.
Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.
No, you have – ie, that a resurrection happened. The burden of proof for that statement is all yours. All I have to do is to show that, for example, apparently fatal wounds are not always lethal – a trivially simple thing to do.
You never have understood how the burden of proof thing works though have you.
Anyways, how do you propose to show that such reportage as there is hasn’t come from people who were honestly mistaken given the limited data available to them?
-
More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.
Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).
I see you're still evading.
Good point. My sister viewed my mother three days after her death; the post-mortem lividity was well advanced. She suggested that it was best if the relatives who were going over for the funeral, didn't view her body as it would have been an unpleasant shock. 2000 years ago I suspect preparation of corpses for burial, especially a crucified one, wouldn't have been as advanced as it is today.
-
Vlad,
Experience of, but not knowledge about. Unless that is you think they had access to technology to assess vital signs like brain stem activity?
Whether death is occasionally misdiagnosed today has no relevance to the significantly higher probability of it being misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago.
No, you have – ie, that a resurrection happened. The burden of proof for that statement is all yours.
Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT. We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)
All I have to do is to show that, for example, apparently fatal wounds are not always lethal – a trivially simple thing to do.
You never have understood how the burden of proof thing works though have you.
Anyways, how do you propose to show that such reportage as there is hasn’t come from people who were honestly mistaken given the limited data available to them?
Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.
Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)
-
Spud,
Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT. We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)
So?
Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.
Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)
Yes, but what makes you sure that they weren’t just sincerely mistaken about that, especially as we know now that death can be mistaken for deep coma for example?
-
Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT.
Not possible: they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.
We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)
Perhaps this is how they wanted to portray themselves - who can say since they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.
Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.
How do you know Mark wasn't wrong or was lying?
Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)
How do you know Mark or John weren't wrong or were lying?
-
More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.
Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).
I see you're still evading.
Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.
Everything that can be said in support is out there Gordon. The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy stage.
You are the evaders and since this is history you have no entitlement to default.
By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on it.
-
Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.
Everything that can be said in support is out there Gordon. The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy stage.
Nonsense: I haven't made an assertion nor asked you to make one. I've just asked how you've assessed known risks associated with anecdotal accounts. Any chance of an answer?
You are the evaders and since this is history you have no entitlement to default.
Wrong: the claim may be history, but the event being claimed isn't - find me an academic historian (not a theologian) who says Jesus being resurrected is a historical fact.
By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on it.
Straw-man: I observed that they had less knowledge than medical science today: do you dispute that?
-
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)
Which is rather puzzling and not consistent with postmortem injury.
-
Fallacy of the Non-fallacy Boy,
Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.
What “positive assertion”? The only positive assertion here is yours – ie, that a resurrection occurred. All that’s happening in response is that some of us are asking for evidence to support that assertion given that various alternative explanations are possible.
Your evasion is in your relentless refusal to provide any, coupled with your diversionary tactics of irrelevance, false accusation, fallacious thinking etc.
The resurrection is your claim – the burden of proof is therefore yours.
Everything that can be said in support is out there Gordon.
Out where? If “everything that can be said in support” (of a resurrection presumably) has been said by you already, then it’s desperately thin stuff on which to rest your certainty.
The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy stage.
Neither of which you understand. The objectors merely ask only how you would propose to eliminate the real world but less thrilling explanations that could have been.
You are the evaders and since this is history you have no entitlement to default.
Of course it isn’t history. Claims of a resurrection fall hugely short of the standards required for historicity. The default of a naturalistic explanation applies for the same reason it always applies – it’s the one most congruent with the way the universe observably works. Brainwashing stork theory for example isn’t necessarily wrong, but the “default” is that that’s not how babies arrive because the naturalistic alternative much better fits everything else we know about the universe.
By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on it.
Why do you think your lying again is helpful or acceptable? No-one said that they “had no knowledge of death” at all. What was actually said was that they had much less knowledge of diagnosing death because the methods and tools they had were very crude compared with those available today.
If you really want to claim certainty for your speculation then you have all your work ahead of you still to explain how you’d eliminate even the possibility of, for example, deep coma that would have been undiagnosable at the time.
Good luck with it though.
-
If it isn't him then he has a double.
Well, Sassy has also encountered Jesus, and known him since childhood - yet her Jesus and beliefs are considerably different from yours. Funny that.
Some time back on this forum and the Beeb there was a bloke called Freeminer who also insisted that he had met and known Jesus, and that moreover he was one of the "Elect". Since he was a rabid fundamentalist, I'm sure his Jesus was very different from yours. Funny that.
The same could be said of the beliefs of multitudes of people claiming to have "met Jesus", yet cannot agree on what his teaching meant or the significance of "salvation".
The problem goes back to the sources, and though the matter has been raised many times, there is no evidence that you have even begun to grasp the nettle in question.
The Jesus of the Synoptics is different from that of John. The Jesus of Paul differs from all of these. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has a different theology from that of Paul or the gospels. The Epistle of James (who according to Paul was Jesus' brother, so certainly ought to have known him) preaches salvation by works, not faith, which is the essence of Paul's teaching. The Pastoral Epistles were written at a much later date than any of the foregoing, so their veracity into the nature of Christ's teaching is very suspect, especially in their attitude to women in some instances.
Then there is the fire-breathing monster of the Book of Revelation - is this perhaps the Jesus you claim to have met, and whom you suspect 'has no double'?
So I certainly am very suspicious of your claims to have met "the real Jesus", and your patent ignorance of the historical method or what constitutes historical evidence do not suggest that you can reliably back up your claims. Let alone your woeful lack of phenomenological understanding. I don't doubt your religious conversion healed some psychological alienation in your younger sceptical self, but there are probably better explanations for that than the one you cling to.
-
Not possible: they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.
Perhaps this is how they wanted to portray themselves - who can say since they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.
How do you know Mark wasn't wrong or was lying?
How do you know Mark or John weren't wrong or were lying?
Try this:
"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.
...
Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?
It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm
-
Grateful as we no doubt are for the statement of the obvious, I do hope that you're not conflating conviction of the truth of X with X actually being true.
Because that would be an incredibly silly mistake to make.
-
Try this:
"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.
...
Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?
It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm
Like Islamic suicide bombers, for instance?
-
Try this:
"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.
...
Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?
It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm
People believing something is true, however passionately, does not mean it actually is true.
You do understand that, don't you.
-
Try this:
"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.
...
Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?
It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm
Spud
Do you ever read other than Christian apologetics, of which your link is another example of? The headings of section involve the fallacy of reification, before becoming a fallacy-fest.
'3.1 Introduction.
3.2 The nature of God's Word.
3.3 The authority of God's Word.
3.4 The eternality of God's Word.'
The above introduction indicates that we can easily dismiss this site as being reliable history.
It is relatively easy to believe that an omnipotent Creator God can possess authority over whatever or whomever he desires. It is another matter to conclude that some printed material found in a church, bookstore, or the internet conveys that same Creator's authority. That, however, is exactly how Scripture presents itself to be received.
The books and letters of the Bible have been handed down to us in substantially the identical form as spoken by God to and through his prophets. So the relevant questions at this point are
Are those writings really characteristic of their originator,
Do they include commands that God expects to be followed, and
Do they still apply to us today?
Basically, if they look like God, sound like God, are endorsed by God, and have not been revoked by God, then we positively are to live under their authority. We will see that this is exactly the case as we sequentially examine: the nature of God's words, the authority of God's words, and the eternality of God's words.
As for some Christians suffering for their faith, we've knocked this on the head before - that they did may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their beliefs.
-
People believing something is true, however passionately, does not mean it actually is true.
You do understand that, don't you.
Sadly a lot of people don't get that.
-
Grateful as we no doubt are for the statement of the obvious, I do hope that you're not conflating conviction of the truth of X with X actually being true.
Because that would be an incredibly silly mistake to make.
The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the allegations of lies in this thread?
As for them being mistaken, do you think Solomon was right to assume that the first woman knew which was her baby?
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.
-
The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the continued allegations of lies then?
As for them being mistaken, do you think Solomon was right to assume that the first woman knew which was her baby?
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.
Either Jesus didn't die when he was crucified, which is unlikely, or he didn't come back to life again.
-
The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the continued allegations of lies then?
As for them being mistaken, do you think Solomon was right to assume that the first woman knew which was her baby?
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.
I smell the possibility of lies.
-
Either Jesus didn't die when he was crucified, which is unlikely, or he didn't come back to life again.
what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?
-
what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?
Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?
-
The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the allegations of lies in this thread?
An allegation is quite another thing than being unable to eliminate the possibility.
And nobody has eliminated it.
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.
I smell the argument from (in)credulity emanating from ancient people in a pre-scientific culture who didn't have the slightest means of distinguishing a death-mimicking state (of which there are many and various) from actual death.
-
Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?
No, more the Arthur C Clarke idea that any sufficiently advanced alien species would appear to be using magic. Floo's post was one of those that Vlad would immediately say is a positive assertion and needs to be proved. Jesus could in theory have been deaded as many times as Kenny and still returned, fresh as yellow snow, every Sunday for the last 2000 years. It's not that we rule out such things it is that we have no reason to believe them.
-
Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?
The Leavitt stuff is just bizarre. I can't see any point or benefit to saying it.
-
I smell the possibility of lies.
How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!
-
what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?
Hmmmmmmmmm, unlikely and then some.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm, unlikely and then some.
Indeed but then many hugely unlikely things happen every second. The point is that if you state something did not happen then you take the burden of proof. I cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead by whatever means I just have no reason to think that it did happen and that burden of proof remains with those making the claim.
-
How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!
Just as a quick point, can you run me through your expertise on insanity and why your 'expectation' of what someone you have deemed insane is of worth?
-
Indeed but then many hugely unlikely things happen every second. The point is that if you state something did not happen then you take the burden of proof. I cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead by whatever means I just have no reason to think that it did happen and that burden of proof remains with those making the claim.
I suppose anything is possible, however unlikely. But unless there is positive proof the resurrection of Jesus of actually took place, the default position is disbelief, imo.
-
How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!
Spud
You are supporting anecdotal reports made by those with a vested interest that claim a miracle: given the culture of the time people were more credulous regarding religious superstitions and miracle claims. Therefore, there is a risk of propaganda: 'spin', if you will, and no doubt those persecuted may have genuinely believed in the divinity of Jesus.
I don't think they were insane: I suspect they were at best misguided and at worst misled. In any event 'insanity' implies mental illness, which I doubt you are qualified to diagnose (especially in relation to people who have been dead for around 2,000 years).
I think the risks of mistakes or lies regarding in the anecdotes about Jesus are such that the key element (he died and was resurrected) isn't a serious proposition.
-
Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.
-
Do you mean 'credulity', Spud?
-
Incredulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.
I agree, intelligent people will call into question the credibility of much of the Bible.
-
Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.
So, Spud, do clever people never make mistakes or tell lies?
-
Do you mean 'credulity', Spud?
Yes, thanks...that can be my word for the day.
-
Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.
A thinly-veiled form of the argument from authority - Kurt Gödel had more brains than a very large number of people put together yet starved himself to death because he (wrongly) believed that people were trying to poison him.*
And using religious leaders as an attempt to rebut the charge of credulity is about as delicious an example of clueless irony as I've seen in a long time.
* Not an example of the argument from authority, for the unwary, since Gödel's "authority" - his brilliance in mathematical logic - isn't being used to shore up an assertion.
-
Yes, thanks...that can be my word for the day.
Brilliant irony there, Spud (even if unintentional).
-
So, Spud, do clever people never make mistakes or tell lies?
Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
-
Spud,
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
Misdiagnosing clinical death would have had nothing to do with "human nature" and everything to do with the comparatively crude techniques and tools available at the time.
What reasoning or evidence do you have unequivocally to discount that possibility?
-
Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed.
What evidence where?
As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
If I didn't know any better I'd think that that was using the Bible to prove the Bible, i.e. the original circular argument.
You do realise that that's a no-no and a boo-boo, right?
Don't you?
-
Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane.
Nope: their credulity could be due to their own misunderstanding, possibly due to the knowledge limitations of the times they lived in.
You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
So there is, since you are an example: but assertions aren't evidence and both they and the sources influencing them could be wrong, incomplete or fictitious (in all or part) so that their belief is unjustified. John seems to have conveniently skipped these risks.
-
Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
You said it.
-
There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.
Can you point to any testimony that is unambiguously from the disciples of Jesus?
-
Can you point to any testimony that is unambiguously from the disciples of Jesus?
Or from any other direct witness to the events.
-
Spud,
Or from any other direct witness to the events.
Or from witnesses who would have been close enough to be sure of what they saw, for example by examining the body.
Or from a medical specialist somehow able to ascertain that for example he wasn’t actually witnessing a deep coma.
Or from a witness who actually said, “Jesus was clinically dead” rather than, say, “Jesus looked to me from my vantage point as if he was dead”.
Or from a historian able to eliminate even the possibility of the story changing in the re-telling, especially given its remarkable similarity to resurrection stories from many religious beliefs that preceded it (the syncretism problem).
Or from someone with, say, both DNA technology and the access to use it so as significantly to reduce the risk of mistaken identity.
Or from…
…well you get the idea. So many possible naturalistic explanations, and yet such certainty that the answer was an actual resurrection.
If not for personal faith on the matter, how come?
-
Spud,
Misdiagnosing clinical death would have had nothing to do with "human nature" and everything to do with the comparatively crude techniques and tools available at the time.
What reasoning or evidence do you have unequivocally to discount that possibility?
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false. However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
-
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false. However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
(1) Using the Bible to prove the Bible - nope, sorry, won't wash, chummy;
(2) Which demonstrates only strength of belief, not truth of the thing believed in.
Since these points have been covered before I can only assume that you're either not reading or not understanding the responses made to you and, like Alan Burns, are merely stuck on repeat mode.
If you find your way out of it and have something non-fallacious to offer, let us know.
-
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false. However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
How do you know the NT accounts are honest?
As I have said before Islamic suicide bombers are happy to die for their faith, which I take it you don't believe in?
-
Hi Spud,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false.
Why? What specialist knowledge do you have about, say, recovery from coma that would lead you to that conclusion? How for example would you know that he couldn’t have come round one day after the event, then spent a couple of days getting his strength back?
All that’s necessary here is to show that Jesus wasn’t necessarily dead because reports of a witness account said that he was – a simple thing to do. How probable any one of the various naturalistic alternatives to a resurrection might be is debatable, but you have to concede that one or more of them is at least possible.
And when you do that, then any claim of reason-based certainty fails. That’s the point: say “I think it more likely than not that Jesus was resurrected” if you want to but you have not basis for certainty.
However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
First that doesn’t exclude at least the possibility of lying at all. Lots of people have died under torture for their beliefs.
Second though, lying is just one of the options. “Jesus looked dead to me” is all that would have been necessary for the germ of the story to take root, and the life it took on after that need not have involved that being a lie for it to be mistaken nonetheless. In other words, that the statement may have been honestly made tells you nothing at all about whether it was correct.
-
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false. However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
Spud
By what evidence do you claim "the honesty displayed in the NT"?
How do you know the NT accounts are "honest"?
My guess is that you claim honesty because your whole belief system is based upon a claim that the NT is honest and the whole edifice comes crashing down in a pile of s**t if it is not so honest!
At the present moment the posibilities relating to the 'honesty' of the NT accounts range from 100% true to 100% fiction; with fiction, at the moment, being the most likely.
-
Owls.
By what evidence do you claim "the honesty displayed in the NT"?
How do you know the NT accounts are "honest"?
My guess is that you claim honesty because your whole belief system is based upon a claim that the NT is honest and the whole edifice comes crashing down in a pile of s**t if it is not so honest!
At the present moment the posibilities relating to the 'honesty' of the NT accounts range from 100% true to 100% fiction; with fiction, at the moment, being the most likely.
I think the honesty issue is a secondary or even a tertiary one in any case (as is tilting at straw man of conspiracy). Even if a contemporary witness had said, “he looked dead to me” and even if those words were repeated accurately decades later and through many re-tellings, that would still tell you nothing about whether the original observation was correctly made. That’s the point: not whether a witness said what he thought he saw, but that he had no definitive way of knowing whether what he thought he saw was what actually happened.
And on such a foundation of sand has 2,000 years of faith-based certainty been built.
-
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false.
It could be false, Spud: have you considered that possibility?
However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
Nope: people are fallible and can be misled, Spud, even if they are sincere in their beliefs, and that some suffered for them doesn't substantiate the details of what they believed.
-
Spud,
Or from witnesses who would have been close enough to be sure of what they saw, for example by examining the body.
Or from a medical specialist somehow able to ascertain that for example he wasn’t actually witnessing a deep coma.
Or from a witness who actually said, “Jesus was clinically dead” rather than, say, “Jesus looked to me from my vantage point as if he was dead”.
Or from a historian able to eliminate even the possibility of the story changing in the re-telling, especially given its remarkable similarity to resurrection stories from many religious beliefs that preceded it (the syncretism problem).
Or from someone with, say, both DNA technology and the access to use it so as significantly to reduce the risk of mistaken identity.
Or from…
…well you get the idea. So many possible naturalistic explanations, and yet such certainty that the answer was an actual resurrection.
If not for personal faith on the matter, how come?
Let's not overcomplicate things. Spud specifically mentioned disciples' testimonies, so let's start with that.
-
Hi Bluehillside,
If you say that Jesus wasn't dead, then the claim that on Easter Sunday he was fully recovered (He couldn't have walked to Emmaus with two of them having been flogged and crucified three days earlier) must be false.
Agree with that. Jesus was, of course dead, the story is false.
However, lies have been dismissed due to (1) the honesty displayed in the New Testament accounts
What honesty is that? How do you quantify the honesty of stories written by unknown authors years after the events?
and (2) their refusal under torture to deny their claims.
Whose refusal under torture to deny their claims? What evidence do you have that anybody did that?
Also, still waiting for this disciple testimony.
-
Agree with that. Jesus was, of course dead, the story is false.
What honesty is that? How do you quantify the honesty of stories written by unknown authors years after the events?
Whose refusal under torture to deny their claims? What evidence do you have that anybody did that?
Also, still waiting for this disciple testimony.
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
See post 300. You could probably open the pages of the gospels at random and find an example of their honesty. Example, John 4:32 where they are rebutted by Jesus. This rebuttal is a continual feature of the accounts, and stresses the disciples' lack of understanding or faith.
Can you point to any testimony that is unambiguously from the disciples of Jesus?
You seem happy with the reliability of material that doesn't claim anything supernatural, such as that Jesus died. John ran faster than Peter to the tomb. Or Mark 4:36, where they cross the lake and Jesus calms a storm. There is an eyewitness detail added - there were other boats with them.
-
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
Possible, although it isn't certain he was crucified in the first place, but the problem bit isn't that he died but the claim that he didn't stay dead.
See post 300. You could probably open the pages of the gospels at random and find an example of their honesty. Example, John 4:32 where they are rebutted by Jesus. This rebuttal is a continual feature of the accounts, and stresses the disciples' lack of understanding or faith.You seem happy with the reliability of material that doesn't claim anything supernatural, such as that Jesus died. John ran faster than Peter to the tomb. Or Mark 4:36, where they cross the lake and Jesus calms a storm. There is an eyewitness detail added - there were other boats with them.
How do know these reports aren't wrong or fabricated? You seem highly predisposed to take them at face value.
-
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
See post 300. You could probably open the pages of the gospels at random and find an example of their honesty. Example, John 4:32 where they are rebutted by Jesus. This rebuttal is a continual feature of the accounts, and stresses the disciples' lack of understanding or faith.You seem happy with the reliability of material that doesn't claim anything supernatural, such as that Jesus died. John ran faster than Peter to the tomb. Or Mark 4:36, where they cross the lake and Jesus calms a storm. There is an eyewitness detail added - there were other boats with them.
Eye witnesses reporting something which is claimed to be supernatural have to be treated sceptically. I know I have used this illustration many times, but it appears to be a good example, soldiers claimed to see the Angel of Mons during WW1 after a journalist had written it up as a story.
-
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
That's Christianity for you.
-
jeremy,
Let's not overcomplicate things. Spud specifically mentioned disciples' testimonies, so let's start with that.
But that's the point - there are multiple possible explanations for someone being reported to be alive then dead for a bit then alive again, and lying is probably fairly low on the list of those. Whichever way you look at it, even an honest as the day is long witness could have been mistaken - and that's all that's necessary to detonate Spud et al's assertion of certainty.
-
Spud,
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
First, why is it silly? Misdiagnosis of death was fairly common before we had the technology to confirm it, even more so when (presumably) all the witness in the crowd would have seen would have been a limp body taken down from a cross. Looking dead and actually being dead are not in other words necessarily the same thing.
Second, silly or not it's still possible. And if an alternative is possible, you have no basis for certainty about the explanation you prefer.
-
Spud,
First, why is it silly? Misdiagnosis of death was fairly common before we had the technology to confirm it, even more so when (presumably) all the witness in the crowd would have seen would have been a limp body taken down from a cross. Looking dead and actually being dead are not in other words necessarily the same thing.
What the witnesses in the crowd may or may not have seen and may or may not have concluded from what they saw is of no consequence. Pilate needed confirmation that Jesus was dead before giving permission for the body to be handed over for burial. This confirmation he obtained from the Centurion tasked with overseeing the crucifixion, who would have been in very close proximity. He almost certainly would have seen much violent death and many crucifixions. He also had no emotional involvement in the proceedings. While this does not eliminate the possibility that he made a mistake it certainly reduces the likelihood substantially.
-
Spud,
First, why is it silly? Misdiagnosis of death was fairly common before we had the technology to confirm it, even more so when (presumably) all the witness in the crowd would have seen would have been a limp body taken down from a cross. Looking dead and actually being dead are not in other words necessarily the same thing.
Second, silly or not it's still possible. And if an alternative is possible, you have no basis for certainty about the explanation you prefer.
The reason I said it is silly is because it was a professional soldier who carried it out, and with the express purpose of making sure he was dead, at that.
Besides all of Jeremy's posts are divinely inspired.
-
jeremy,
But that's the point - there are multiple possible explanations for someone being reported to be alive then dead for a bit then alive again, and lying is probably fairly low on the list of those. Whichever way you look at it, even an honest as the day is long witness could have been mistaken - and that's all that's necessary to detonate Spud et al's assertion of certainty.
The mistake theory: well they knew it was Jesus who was killed - they'd spent three years with him. Clearly he was dead, and the tomb was empty on the Sunday - they had watched his burial so they would know where the tomb was when they returned. Did they see an apparition? No, it was a real body that could ingest food.
They knew it was him on the Sunday because he showed them his injuries.
So the only remaining possibility is Gordon's suggestion that the apparent honesty displayed in the gospels is fabricated, ie all the admissions of failure to understand, hard heartedness etc.
But that would be equivalent to lies, since they claim it to be a true account. And we have dismissed lies.
It's looking more like a true and accurate story by the day.
-
Who has dismissed lies?
-
Who has dismissed lies?
Spud has, clearly.
-
If that was the case surely "We have dismissed lies" should've been "I have dismissed lies" ;)
-
If that was the case surely "We have dismissed lies" should've been "I have dismissed lies" ;)
I suspect he's not the only one. 'We' appears to include Vlad too.
-
I suspect he's not the only one. 'We' appears to include Vlad too.
... who, it appears, is lying low for a while. Perhaps he's on vlacation.
-
DaveM,
What the witnesses in the crowd may or may not have seen and may or may not have concluded from what they saw is of no consequence. Pilate needed confirmation that Jesus was dead before giving permission for the body to be handed over for burial. This confirmation he obtained from the Centurion tasked with overseeing the crucifixion, who would have been in very close proximity. He almost certainly would have seen much violent death and many crucifixions. He also had no emotional involvement in the proceedings. While this does not eliminate the possibility that he made a mistake it certainly reduces the likelihood substantially.
But that’s not the point. You may think that it reduces the likelihood of a mistake substantially, and you may also think the same of the various other real world possibilities. The point though is that they cannot be eliminated entirely – ie, they are possibilities nonetheless. The soldier for example would not have had the technology to check brain stem activity, no matter how much death (or apparent death) he'd seen. Thus the conviction that a real resurrection occurred is necessarily a probabilistic one and so certainty on the matter is impossible.
Now as to the separate matter of how you’d weigh the probability of a supernatural cause against the probabilities of the various natural ones, that’s anyone’s guess. You might as well argue that brainwashing stork theory is more probable than natural childbirth theory given the unfeasible complexity of the latter – there’s simply no way to calculate the probability of supernatural claims of any kind.
-
Spud,
The reason I said it is silly is because it was a professional soldier who carried it out, and with the express purpose of making sure he was dead, at that.
Besides all of Jeremy's posts are divinely inspired.
Nope. See my reply to DaveM.
The mistake theory: well they knew it was Jesus who was killed - they'd spent three years with him. Clearly he was dead, and the tomb was empty on the Sunday - they had watched his burial so they would know where the tomb was when they returned. Did they see an apparition? No, it was a real body that could ingest food.
They knew it was him on the Sunday because he showed them his injuries.
So the only remaining possibility is Gordon's suggestion that the apparent honesty displayed in the gospels is fabricated, ie all the admissions of failure to understand, hard heartedness etc.
But that would be equivalent to lies, since they claim it to be a true account. And we have dismissed lies.
It's looking more like a true and accurate story by the day.
That’s not the only remaining possibility at all – you can dismiss various possible answers as unlikely if you want to, but unlikely and impossible are not the same thing.
What that means is that, only on the balance of probabilities, you have decided that a real resurrection more likely happened than not. That is, you have no basis for certainty at all.
As for how you’d calculate the probability of a supernatural cause against various natural ones, that’s a matter for you to explain.
-
We must also remember it's in the 'christians' best interest to keep alive any myth or story of an Arisen Christ, eh ???
It's like in Islam where you can lie for a so-called 'better' purpose ?!!?!? ;) :o
-
DaveM,
But that’s not the point.
BHS, Your post 358.
Well not as far off the point as your suggestion, which implied that the primary source of evidence that Jesus was already dead was the testimony of witnesses observing from a distance, rather than the far superior testimony of a close up inspection by a Roman Centurion who had witnessed many crucifixions and much violent death.
But perhaps even more to the point is that many of the posts in this thread suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross but was only in a temporary coma from which He soon recovered and was able to then appear to His followers in a sufficient state of normality to convince them that He had risen from the dead.
I am sure that most posters are reasonably familiar with the process of scourging and crucifixion but for completeness sake just a reminder.
Scourging was a normal prelude to every Roman execution. The usual instrument was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals. For scourging, the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged by either one or two soldiers who alternated positions. The severity of the scourging depended on their disposition. The intent was to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. As the scourging proceeded the force, of the iron balls would cause deep contusions, while the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.
We are not told how severely Jesus was scourged but it certainly left Him too weak to be able to carry the cross beam of the cross.
Crucifixion then followed when large nails (non-sterile and probably somewhat rusty) were hammered through the victims hands (wrists?) and feet (ankles?) splintering bone as they were driven home. Finally in Jesus case a Roman spear, with a substantial stabbing tip, was plunged into His side. This was a fairly common procedure (thought to be intended to penetrate the heart) to insure the victim was indeed dead before the body was handed over for burial.
Even if taken down from the cross before death very few victims are likely to have survived for very long subsequent to such an experience. Death from shock, cardiac arrest or, on a somewhat longer time scale, septicaemia would all have been quite likely.
To suggest that within 48 hours of the crucifixion Jesus had not only come out of a come but had made such an almost immediate recovery as to appear to be perfectly normal and in good health, to such an extent that His followers were convinced that He had risen from the dead is, in my view, taking the art of the gullible to new heights.
In my view trying to use this approach as a plausible naturalistic explanation for the events of Calvary leaks like a sieve. Try some of the other approaches, such as the view that Jesus was never crucified at all, as a substitute was found in His place at the last minute.
-
It seems to me rather strange that there are not independent contemporaneous accounts written about Jesus, if he was in reality anything like what was claimed about him by the gospel writers.
-
I keep saying this - if Jesus caused so much trouble for the Jews AND the Romans why is there absolutely NOTHING anywhere else apart from a dodgy set of different authors' writings.???
-
Josephus is trotted out as an independent author, but apparently he wasn't born until after Jesus had died.
-
DaveM,
Well not as far off the point as your suggestion, which implied that the primary source of evidence that Jesus was already dead was the testimony of witnesses observing from a distance, rather than the far superior testimony of a close up inspection by a Roman Centurion who had witnessed many crucifixions and much violent death.
That wasn’t my primary point though. Rather my primary point was that you have no means of eliminating at least the possibilities of various naturalistic explanations so, at best, all you could say is: “On the balance of probabilities, I think a resurrection is the most likely of the available explanations”. Any certainty you might want to express about that is solely a matter of personal faith - which is fine for you, but epistemically worthless.
But perhaps even more to the point is that many of the posts in this thread suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross but was only in a temporary coma from which He soon recovered and was able to then appear to His followers in a sufficient state of normality to convince them that He had risen from the dead.
I am sure that most posters are reasonably familiar with the process of scourging and crucifixion but for completeness sake just a reminder.
Scourging was a normal prelude to every Roman execution. The usual instrument was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals. For scourging, the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged by either one or two soldiers who alternated positions. The severity of the scourging depended on their disposition. The intent was to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. As the scourging proceeded the force, of the iron balls would cause deep contusions, while the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.
We are not told how severely Jesus was scourged but it certainly left Him too weak to be able to carry the cross beam of the cross.
Crucifixion then followed when large nails (non-sterile and probably somewhat rusty) were hammered through the victims hands (wrists?) and feet (ankles?) splintering bone as they were driven home. Finally in Jesus case a Roman spear, with a substantial stabbing tip, was plunged into His side. This was a fairly common procedure (thought to be intended to penetrate the heart) to insure the victim was indeed dead before the body was handed over for burial.
Even if taken down from the cross before death very few victims are likely to have survived for very long subsequent to such an experience. Death from shock, cardiac arrest or, on a somewhat longer time scale, septicaemia would all have been quite likely.
Yes they would have been. But “quite likely” and “certain” are not the same thing. That’s the point. I don’t claim surviving crucifixion as some kind of pet theory – rather I just include it as one of quite a long lost of possible naturalistic explanations that cannot be eliminated.
To put it another way, you may as well have described in equally gruesome detail what happens when someone is put in a cabinet, sawn in two and then re-connected.
To suggest that within 48 hours of the crucifixion Jesus had not only come out of a come but had made such an almost immediate recovery as to appear to be perfectly normal and in good health, to such an extent that His followers were convinced that He had risen from the dead is, in my view, taking the art of the gullible to new heights.
In your view no doubt it would be, but you’ve taken a great deal on faith to get to that point – that it happened at all, that the (non-contemporaneous) records of it were accurately made, re-told and translated, that no later embellishments were added, that there was no switcheroo of the personnel involved, that etc etc. Any of these assumptions could though easily be mistaken, which is why the claim fails the basic tests of historicity and so is confined to RE rather than taught in history lessons.
Or to put it another way, what do you think you know that historians don’t?
In my view trying to use this approach as a plausible naturalistic explanation for the events of Calvary leaks like a sieve. Try some of the other approaches, such as the view that Jesus was never crucified at all, as a substitute was found in His place at the last minute.
In your view they might leak like a sieve, but absent a method to evaluate the probability of a supernatural cause against the probabilities of various naturalistic ones that view remains a personal faith position only.
-
I smell a contradiction.
Spot the difference between:
[...]many of the posts in this thread suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross but was only in a temporary coma from which He soon recovered and was able to then appear to His followers in a sufficient state of normality to convince them that He had risen from the dead.
and
To suggest that within 48 hours of the crucifixion Jesus had not only come out of a come [sic] but had made such an almost immediate recovery as to appear to be perfectly normal and in good health, to such an extent that His followers were convinced that He had risen from the dead
'Sufficiently normal' and 'perfectly normal' are hardly the same, yet you've glided and elided neatly from the former to the latter.
Did Jesus appear 'sufficiently normal' or 'perfectly normal'?
I don't know why I'm asking - it's not as though you were there.
-
The mistake theory: well they knew it was Jesus who was killed - they'd spent three years with him. Clearly he was dead, and the tomb was empty on the Sunday - they had watched his burial so they would know where the tomb was when they returned. Did they see an apparition? No, it was a real body that could ingest food.
They knew it was him on the Sunday because he showed them his injuries.
So the only remaining possibility is Gordon's suggestion that the apparent honesty displayed in the gospels is fabricated, ie all the admissions of failure to understand, hard heartedness etc.
But that would be equivalent to lies, since they claim it to be a true account. And we have dismissed lies.
It's looking more like a true and accurate story by the day.
I've nit read allthis thread so this may have been covered but maybe the author believed what they were writting was accurate but the sources they based the accounts on may have been inaccurate due to false memories, embellishment etc
You mention that the detail of the spear in the side was common practise so perhaps the flow of water in this case was a detail added at some point as people remembered and talked about the events and embellished them uninntentionally or unknowingly. This is something which often happens when telling people about events one has witnessed or been involved in - eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate.
-
I smell a contradiction.
Spot the difference between:
and
'Sufficiently normal' and 'perfectly normal' are hardly the same, yet you've glided and elided neatly from the former to the latter.
Did Jesus appear 'sufficiently normal' or 'perfectly normal'?
I don't know why I'm asking - it's not as though you were there.
I think your olfactory senses have gone into overdrive.
If Jesus had somehow survived scourging and crucifixion then two days later He would still have been an absolute physical wreck and both those phrases would have been light years away from describing reality.
This is a discussion forum not a legal courtroom.
-
I think your olfactory senses have gone into overdrive.
If Jesus had somehow survived scourging and crucifixion then two days later He would still have been an absolute physical wreck and both those phrases would have been light years away from describing reality.
How do you know?
This is a discussion forum not a legal courtroom.
Since courtrooms deal in evidence, and you and your kind do not, I hardly need reminding of that painful disparity.
-
DaveM,
If Jesus had somehow survived scourging and crucifixion then two days later He would still have been an absolute physical wreck and both those phrases would have been light years away from describing reality.
If there ever was a Jesus, if that same Jesus was crucified, if that same Jesus was seen three days later, if the accounts written down long afterwards were accurate, if the re-tellings weren’t embellished, if the translations were precisely faithful to the meanings of the prior languages, if what people thought they saw was actually what they did see, if there was some way to eliminate honest mistake given the evidential limitations of the time, if if if…
…then, but only then, would there be something worth considering. As there’s no way to ascertain that every one of those ifs along the way was in fact the case though all that leaves you is personal faith.
Which is fine so far as it goes, but only for you.
-
As we know, faith is not a reliable path to truth!
-
I've nit read allthis thread so this may have been covered but maybe the author believed what they were writting was accurate but the sources they based the accounts on may have been inaccurate due to false memories, embellishment etc
You mention that the detail of the spear in the side was common practise so perhaps the flow of water in this case was a detail added at some point as people remembered and talked about the events and embellished them uninntentionally or unknowingly. This is something which often happens when telling people about events one has witnessed or been involved in - eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate.
Maeght,
I was just wondering if you'd read the verse directly after that one - it's John 19:35?
-
The one who saw this has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows he is telling the truth so that you, too, may believe, John 19v35
Just because its says it is true, doesn't mean it is!
-
Maeght,
I was just wondering if you'd read the verse directly after that one - it's John 19:35?
I've read it, yes, but don't see that it takes anything away from my point.
-
The one who saw this has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows he is telling the truth so that you, too, may believe, John 19v35
Just because its says it is true, doesn't mean it is!
"It's true because somebody absolutely insists that it is" - is this really the level that some people are reduced to?
-
"It's true because somebody absolutely insists that it is" - is this really the level that some people are reduced to?
Yep!
-
Good. The idea that he didn't die is silly.
See post 300. You could probably open the pages of the gospels at random and find an example of their honesty. Example, John 4:32 where they are rebutted by Jesus. This rebuttal is a continual feature of the accounts, and stresses the disciples' lack of understanding or faith.
But if the stories are fictional, honesty portrayed therein is fictional too.
You seem happy with the reliability of material that doesn't claim anything supernatural, such as that Jesus died.
Sorry to give that impression. I do not believe that any of the gospel material is reliable. I agree that Jesus died because everybody born at that time is dead now. I agree that it is plausible that he was executed for being a trouble maker because that is what happened to trouble makers in those days. The evidential bar is not very high.
John ran faster than Peter to the tomb. Or Mark 4:36, where they cross the lake and Jesus calms a storm. There is an eyewitness detail adde
Who is the eye witness? Where is his or her actual testimony (as opposed to the retelling from a few decades later)?
-
What the witnesses in the crowd may or may not have seen and may or may not have concluded from what they saw is of no consequence. Pilate needed confirmation that Jesus was dead before giving permission for the body to be handed over for burial. This confirmation he obtained from the Centurion tasked with overseeing the crucifixion, who would have been in very close proximity. He almost certainly would have seen much violent death and many crucifixions. He also had no emotional involvement in the proceedings. While this does not eliminate the possibility that he made a mistake it certainly reduces the likelihood substantially.
Please cite your source for this claim, or are you just making it up?
-
"It's true because somebody absolutely insists that it is" - is this really the level that some people are reduced to?
I tend to think it's more suspicious if a story has a device like this in it. It's often used as a framing device for fictional novels. See, for example 633 Squadron and The Eagle Has Landed. Also, the Da Vinci Code has a statement at the front that all the artefact descriptions are genuine. That doesn't make any part of the novel true.
-
But if the tories are fictional, honesty portrayed therein is fictional too.
I do hope that this is a mistype!
-
I do hope that this is a mistype!
If the Tories were fictional, we might be in a better place right now.
-
I've read it, yes, but don't see that it takes anything away from my point.
Ok.
Your point in 367 is a hypothesis, and a valid one.
-
"It's true because somebody absolutely insists that it is" - is this really the level that some people are reduced to?
I referred him to this verse because it supports the idea that the witness wasn't mistaken or embellishing the details, even though it isn't enough to prove it.
Looking at the statement again, the author isn't saying that you have to believe it, but that you may believe it.
-
I referred him to this verse because it supports the idea that the witness wasn't mistaken or embellishing the details. It doesn't prove that though.
Looking at the statement again, the author isn't saying that you have to believe it, but that you may believe it.
I may believe there are fairies hiding in my garden!
-
Ok.
Your point in 367 is a hypothesis, and a valid one.
Ta
-
I referred him to this verse because it supports the idea that the witness wasn't mistaken or embellishing the details
Er no, it really doesn't support any such thing.
You want it to.
You really want it to.
You really, really want it to.
You would like it to.
But for those of us in the reality-based community, it doesn't.
-
Er no, it really doesn't support any such thing.
You want it to.
You really want it to.
You really, really want it to.
You would like it to.
But for those of us in the reality-based community, it doesn't.
Is your keyboard jammed by any chance?
-
Is your keyboard jammed by any chance?
I suspect it is more the case that your thinking is jammed, Spud
-
I may believe there are fairies hiding in my garden!
Not unless someone has seen them ;)
-
Not unless someone has seen them ;)
Some people believe they have actually seen fairies.
-
"It's true because somebody absolutely insists that it is" - is this really the level that some people are reduced to?
It is true because people have come to know God by Jesus being who he says he is and everyone following what he has taught.
As you have not done these things, you are not in a position to understand the LEVELS OF FAITH.
-
I may believe there are fairies hiding in my garden!
That is totally untrue. Even Christians do not believe fairies exist anywhere.
So why make such false statements it does not add any weight to any argument for or against faith in God.
-
What on earth have you been drinking ?!?!!?!?!?
-
That is totally untrue. Even Christians do not believe fairies exist anywhere.
So why make such false statements it does not add any weight to any argument for or against faith in God.
Some people do actually believe they exist.
-
It is true because people have come to know God by Jesus being who he says he is and everyone following what he has taught.
As you have not done these things, you are not in a position to understand the LEVELS OF FAITH.
That is all it is, Sassy, as I have been saying for ages - ALL religions (including my own) are matters of FAITH NOT FACT - including yours!
You are just too blind, too brainwashed, too arrogant, or just too plain stupid to see it.
-
Agreed !!!
There's only ONE time I wish to see God & that's not for a LONNNGGGGG time yet, eh ?!!?!?
-
It is true because people have come to know God by Jesus being who he says he is and everyone following what he has taught.
As you have not done these things, you are not in a position to understand the LEVELS OF FAITH.
Thank goodness Sassy put that last bit in capitals. Otherwise thinking readers might have though that what preceded it was gibberish.
Close call that.
-
Thank goodness Sassy put that last bit in capitals. Otherwise thinking readers might have though that what preceded it was gibberish.
Close call that.
They are playing the big festivals, you know.
THE LEVELS OF FAITH opening
Followed by THE PUMPS OF INIQUITY (as announced by Nicholas Marks)
And headlining
From the stables of Frankie, the one , the only, the greatest
THE HEXAGONS OF LIGHTNING
-
NS,
They are playing the big festivals, you know.
THE LEVELS OF FAITH opening
Followed by THE PUMPS OF INIQUITY (as announced by Nicholas Marks)
And headlining
From the stables of Frankie, the one , the only, the greatest
THE HEXAGONS OF LIGHTNING
No doubt Jeremy Corbyn will make an appearance too then...
-
NS,
No doubt Jeremy Corbyn will make an appearance too then...
Not sure he gets to thus one. Rather like the proposed Tory Glastonbury, where they do ooh Theresa May, think this one has Ooh Jesus Christ to the Seven Nation Army tune.
-
That is totally untrue. Even Christians do not believe fairies exist anywhere.
You speak for yourselr sass. ;)
-
You speak for yourselr sass. ;)
As far as most non-Christians on this forum - me being one - are concerned that is all Sassy ever does and, until she can admit that her entire religion has no basis in fact, that is the way it will stay!
-
Owls,
As far as most non-Christians on this forum - me being one - are concerned that is all Sassy ever does and, until she can admit that her entire religion has no basis in fact, that is the way it will stay!
Yes, but have you not noticed that she uses CAPITAL LETTERS? So that must make her really bad attempts at arguments into really good ones then mustn't it?
MUSTN'T IT?
-
Owls,
Yes, but have you not noticed that she uses CAPITAL LETTERS? So that must make her really bad attempts at arguments into really good ones then mustn't it?
MUSTN'T IT?
MAYBE! POSSIBLY!
Unless it is a cut-and-paste from the Bible!
-
That is all it is, Sassy, as I have been saying for ages - ALL religions (including my own) are matters of FAITH NOT FACT - including yours!
You are just too blind, too brainwashed, too arrogant, or just too plain stupid to see it.
Let us test that... Do you want to know if God exists?
King James Bible
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Let us be honest... You don't care if God exists and have never sought him.
If you had then you would have found him, if you had searched with all your heart.
Don't assume that all belief is like your own, just your own choice.
Some of us seek God and we sought with all our heart and found him.
You can call me what you want but the truth is that you CHOOSE to be Blind and you CHOOSE to Brainwash yourself and are too
arrogant and ignorant to make an informed decision based on TRUTH.
You see/ believe what you write in blind ignorance chosen by yourself to disbelieve.
Some of us seek Truth and therefore want to know if God existed. Don't reflect your own ignorance onto others.
We also choose to know the TRUTH not search for truth to fit in what we want to believe.
Let me tell you this... If you ever chose to find the truth about the existence of God from a heart which was sincere and looking for God you would find him. The fact is you cannot disprove that because you would first have to seek him, his way.
I know this to be a fact you will never be able to disprove it, because in trying to do so you would find yourself proving me right.
-
Thank goodness Sassy put that last bit in capitals. Otherwise thinking readers might have though that what preceded it was gibberish.
Close call that.
And you Bluehillside,
Do you believe you really have answers of your own not taken from the writings and beliefs of other men?
Maybe, you should refrain from comment till you can actually speak from personal experience.
-
As far as most non-Christians on this forum - me being one - are concerned that is all Sassy ever does and, until she can admit that her entire religion has no basis in fact, that is the way it will stay!
It gets your back up that you cannot produce an argument to refute the fact God exists or that you have never taken steps to know the truth. The fact the religion exists and God kept his Promises to Abraham stands more as evidence immovable than any comment or statement you make. You don't know the religion well enough to cast dispersions on the faith of others.
You choose what you want to believe without any self searching or examination of truth.
-
Owls,
Yes, but have you not noticed that she uses CAPITAL LETTERS? So that must make her really bad attempts at arguments into really good ones then mustn't it?
MUSTN'T IT?
I see your lack of argument is affecting your morale. Never mind bluey, you have to admit that your attempts at sarcasm are even worse. I guess some times TRUTH is wasted on those who think they already know everything having never SEARCHED.
Do you know the difference. The words in capitals are the clues...
-
I see your lack of argument is affecting your morale. Never mind bluey, you have to admit that your attempts at sarcasm are even worse. I guess some times TRUTH is wasted on those who think they already know everything having never SEARCHED.
Do you know the difference. The words in capitals are the clues...
Honestly Sass, if bulls**t was brains your head would explode!
I have said before and I will say again - if I want to discuss the possible existence of God (specifically the Christian version) I will do it with the Wailing Wall, the Statue of Liberty, Big Ben (the bell and not the tower it lives in) and Donald Trump rather than with you because that way I would get a sensible and factual discussion on ther subject! Or, AT LEAST, more sensible and fsactual that I (or anyone else ever will) with you!
You Sassy, DO NOT DISCUSS, you PONTIFICATE! You DO NOT DIsCUSS, you state FAITH as being FACT, which it IS NOT!
I did not need to SEARCH for GOD - He was handed to me on a plate by my father from the day I was old enough to be lectured to about him.
-
As far as most non-Christians on this forum - me being one - are concerned that is all Sassy ever does and, until she can admit that her entire religion has no basis in fact, that is the way it will stay!
Maybe but I was jesting about faeries - tho' they could exist(I once thought I saw one in my bedroom light fitting, I was about five at the time). A little girl used to live next door to us who saw them regularly, she's a big grown up doctor now with children of her own, i'll have to ask her if she still meets with them.
Sass is a Christian, you can hardly expect her to diss her faith can you?
-
It is WRONG to claim something is the truth when it can only be a matter of belief, it is tantamount to telling lies.
-
It is WRONG to claim something is the truth when it can only be a matter of belief, it is tantamount to telling lies.
No it isn't. To lie is to consciously and deliberately tell a falsehood intending to mislead and deceive; it's not at all the same as being genuinely mistaken, or sincerely believing something to be the case but being wrong about it. There's no element of conscious deception involved in the latter cases as there is with lying.
-
No it isn't. To lie is to consciously and deliberately tell a falsehood intending to mislead and deceive; it's not at all the same as being genuinely mistaken, or sincerely believing something to be the case but being wrong about it. There's no element of conscious deception involved in the latter cases as there is with lying.
Hmmmmmmmmm!
-
If there's something amiss with what I said, by all means say so. If Sass genuinely believes in the stuff she comes out with, she's not lying if she states it as something she believes to be the case.
Now of course there's a whole other world of problems besides, but lying isn't one of them.
-
If there's something amiss with what I said, by all means say so.
I disagree, if you state something as a fact when it isn't, it is a lie, imo.
-
I disagree, if you state something as a fact when it isn't, it is a lie, imo.
No, since to lie is to knowingly tell a falsehood with the intent of deceiving others. It's not to state something which you genuinely believe to be true. Unless you think it's the case that Sassy states things she doesn't as a matter of fact believe, she isn't lying.
Stating as a fact something that no one can know to be true is seventy shades of stupid for sure, but if that something is believed to be the case no lying is involved.
-
No, since to lie is to knowingly tell a falsehood with the intent of deceiving others. It's not to state something which you genuinely believe to be true. Unless you think it's the case that Sassy states things she doesn't as a matter of fact believe, she isn't lying.
Stating as a fact something that no one can know to be true is seventy shades of stupid for sure, but if that something is believed to be the case no lying is involved.
I don't see it that way, so we will have to agree to differ.
-
I don't see it that way, so we will have to agree to differ.
Except given Shaker is right about lying and you are wrong, you are effectively arguing that you are expressing an opinion you think is tantamount to lying.
-
Maybe but I was jesting about faeries - tho' they could exist(I once thought I saw one in my bedroom light fitting, I was about five at the time). A little girl used to live next door to us who saw them regularly, she's a big grown up doctor now with children of her own, i'll have to ask her if she still meets with them.
Sass is a Christian, you can hardly expect her to diss her faith can you?
I am NOT (doing a Sass!) asking her to diss her faith. I have no problem with her having her faith - even her Faith - but I do have a problem with her insisting that the Bible is a 100.00% accurate historical record, that every single word is the, quite literally, God's Honest truth and that anyone who does not believe this must be browbeaten with quotes from the Bible, in bold, until they admit that they have been wrong all along and that Sass is right!
I have said that I was brought up in my falther's faith, High Church Anglican, Sunday School started on the first Sunday after I entered school and continued until I was eleven when I transferred to the adult services.
At fifteen I joined the Junior Leaders Regiment of the Royal Armoured Corps (the Regiment was, sadly, disbanded some years ago) and at the first Church parade (attendance was compulsory) our Padre, a much bemedalled WWII D-Day paratrooper, gave a sermon on the Ten Commandments.
When he got to the Sixth my belief in Christianity shot out through the window!
"Thou shalt not kill!"
Preached to soldiers! WTF!
I am now a Pagan - and I am, as previously stated, perfectly at ease with the FACT that my beliefs are nothing more than a statement of FAITH!
I will get off Sass's santimonious back when she grows a set and admits that her beliefs are faith and not fact!
-
I am NOT (doing a Sass!) asking her to diss her faith. I have no problem with her having her faith - even her Faith - but I do have a problem with her insisting that the Bible is a 100.00% accurate historical record, that every single word is the, quite literally, God's Honest truth and that anyone who does not believe this must be browbeaten with quotes from the Bible, in bold, until they admit that they have been wrong all along and that Sass is right!
I have said that I was brought up in my falther's faith, High Church Anglican, Sunday School started on the first Sunday after I entered school and continued until I was eleven when I transferred to the adult services.
At fifteen I joined the Junior Leaders Regiment of the Royal Armoured Corps (the Regiment was, sadly, disbanded some years ago) and at the first Church parade (attendance was compulsory) our Padre, a much bemedalled WWII D-Day paratrooper, gave a sermon on the Ten Commandments.
When he got to the Sixth my belief in Christianity shot out through the window!
"Thou shalt not kill!"
Preached to soldiers! WTF!
I am now a Pagan - and I am, as previously stated, perfectly at ease with the FACT that my beliefs are nothing more than a statement of FAITH!
I will get off Sass's santimonious back when she grows a set and admits that her beliefs are faith and not fact!
Except the idea that it means you can never kill is incorrect in what the Hebrew means and in what was the intention of the writers of the KJV and others.
See link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
-
I don't see it that way, so we will have to agree to differ.
If you believe what you say is true, then you are not telling a lie.
There are issues about some things that are claimed, when the person claiming it has a strong conviction (perhaps without justification that it is true), but that is a different issue, and not them telling lies.
-
If you believe what you say is true, then you are not telling a lie.
There are issues about some things that are claimed, when the person claiming it has a strong conviction (perhaps without justification that it is true), but that is a different issue, and not them telling lies.
But stating something to be a FACT when you have no evidence to substantiate it isn't telling the truth.
-
But stating something to be a FACT when you have no evidence to substantiate it isn't telling the truth.
Then they are just not very good at stating facts.
They do believe it to be true (when they may have no good reason to!), so they are not telling lies, they are not perhaps so good at knowing how to tell when something can be stated as fact.
Plus, absolute certainty on anything is a problem.
-
Then they are just not very good at stating facts.
They do believe it to be true (when they may have no good reason to!), so they are not telling lies, they are not perhaps so good at knowing how to tell when something can be stated as fact.
Plus, absolute certainty on anything is a problem.
Why is absolute certainty a problem if it can be proved?
-
Why is absolute certainty a problem if it can be proved?
Because proof is only available in mathematics.
You cannot prove anything to 100% certainty.
-
But stating something to be a FACT when you have no evidence to substantiate it isn't telling the truth.
It's your opinion that they have no evidence, it isn't Sass's. Ergo she isn't lying.
-
Because proof is only available in mathematics.
You cannot prove anything to 100% certainty.
Are you certain that proof is available in maths?
-
Are you certain that proof is available in maths?
We made up the rules, so I guess we get to say if it follows the rules, it is fact.
But, I am no good at maths anyway.
-
Sassy isn't lying.
-
It's your opinion that they have no evidence, it isn't Sass's. Ergo she isn't lying.
There is no evidence, which can be substantiated.
-
There is no evidence, which can be substantiated.
In your opinion, Sassy's sees it differently.
-
There is no evidence, which can be substantiated.
In which case, without going into the specifics of evidence in general or the take of anyone here, if someone believes something and rejects what others present to them as evidence to the contrary (however compelling this evidence seems to be) then you could justifiably say they were wrong but you couldn't presume they were lying, since to lie they'd have to say something they knew to be false.
-
In which case, without going into the specifics of evidence in general or the take of anyone here, if someone believes something and rejects what others present to them as evidence to the contrary (however compelling this evidence seems to be) then you could justifiably say they were wrong but you couldn't presume they were lying, since to lie they'd have to say something they knew to be false.
OK.
-
Sassy isn't lying.
No I agree she isn't. To lie there has be intent. Reallyglad to see people come out and say as much as often people are accused of lying when they are stating what they believe but can't prove it. Lying isn't that.
-
Except the idea that it means you can never kill is incorrect in what the Hebrew means and in what was the intention of the writers of the KJV and others.
See link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
All well and good for a Christian who has studied the Bible in far more detail than most trying to back out of the argument or a pedant.
How many children going into Sunday School and being taught the Ten ever have this distinction, translation variable, explained to them?
It never was to me and, as far as I can see, still is not. It is taught -THOU SHALT NOT KILL - with no degree or other moderator applied.
To me your argument is fine for adults but it is not what is taught to anyone in any form of religious education that I have had either myself or have heard of via school children, including my own.
-
Just because I'm a non believer where all of these various beliefs seem so obviously man made to me, it doesn't mean I look on the religious minded as the enemy; I am the enemy of religious privillege.
Believers in any of these questionable beliefs are begining to be looked on as, well a bit eccentric and that will only be on the increase, more so as time moves on.
Sass, isn't a liar and I feel sure is a really decent person, I would really miss seeing her elaborate postings, good on you Sass.
Regards ippy
-
I disagree, if you state something as a fact when it isn't, it is a lie, imo.
For much of human history, people genuinely believed the Sun went round the Earth. Were they lying when they said so?
-
Are you certain that proof is available in maths?
I certainly am.
If you assume Euclid's five axioms of plane geometry, then Pythagorus' theorem is definitely true.
The above statement is a true mathematical statement and it has been rigorously proven in any number of ways.
-
I actually find it more troublesome when religious people dont state their beliefs, however full on they might be. It's one reason why I mistrust a politician who isn't open about his or her belief - now that's lying, and about something that is supposedly of great importance to them. It's why faith should never be just a private matter - it can tell you so much about a person.
-
All well and good for a Christian who has studied the Bible in far more detail than most trying to back out of the argument or a pedant.
How many children going into Sunday School and being taught the Ten ever have this distinction, translation variable, explained to them?
It never was to me and, as far as I can see, still is not. It is taught -THOU SHALT NOT KILL - with no degree or other moderator applied.
To me your argument is fine for adults but it is not what is taught to anyone in any form of religious education that I have had either myself or have heard of via school children, including my own.
If you mean the detailed understanding of the original Hebrew, then yes, absolutely, it's not common. But any reading of the OT can recognise that there is 'killing' that the OT god thinks is fine. And not surprisingly, imo, it was brought up by children being taught the 10 Commandments when I was being taught them at 6/7. And at that time without any of the whole 'this is what it says in Hebrew' the idea of illegal killing was covered. That something isn't taught well doesn't make the bad teaching correct.
-
If you mean the detailed understanding of the original Hebrew, then yes, absolutely, it's not common. But any reading of the OT can recognise that there is 'killing' that the OT god thinks is fine. And not surprisingly, imo, it was brought up by children being taught the 10 Commandments when I was being taught them at 6/7. And at that time without any of the whole 'this is what it says in Hebrew' the idea of illegal killing was covered. That something isn't taught well doesn't make the bad teaching correct.
I cannot see that the hypocricy of condemning ALL killing - the Sixth - and then preaching that God alone knows how many specific forms of murder and the murder of specific groups are acceptable because God condones them makes them "right"!
Either the Sixth is God's (the Christian God's) law, Commandment, or it is not - I, for one, by a Google search, can find no reference to the Sixth being noted as being amended or replaced.
If 5 and 6 year old can see the inconsistancy why cannot adults - especially adult priests? Priests who are - effectively teaching that hypoicricy is OK as long as it is their God's hypocricy!
-
N S
Reference the OP title - Where, if anywhere, can it be shown that Jesus, if, of course, he actually existed as described in Christian teaching, said one word of what is "quoted"?
-
We can never prove what Jesus actually said, only go on what we believe he said based on writings.
In my work and life I have chosen the words that we (are reported) Jesus said, which make sense: love one another.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated, basis of Equal Opportunities statements& the like.
Whether we believe in the diviinity of Jesus or not, we can't argue with that.
-
We can never prove what Jesus actually said, only go on what we believe he said based on writings.
In my work and life I have chosen the words that we (are reported) Jesus said, which make sense: love one another.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated, basis of Equal Opportunities statements& the like.
Whether we believe in the diviinity of Jesus or not, we can't argue with that.
Agreed.
I would venture to suggest that you have already calculated the odss on you not being one of the targets of my ongoing abuse of the Christian religion and its claim to the Ultimate Truth of Life, the Universe and Everything.
Now, where in Hell have I heard that phrase before? (snigger)
-
When you were hitchin' a ride!
-
When you were hitchin' a ride!
You got it in one, buddy!
-
Agreed.
I would venture to suggest that you have already calculated the odss on you not being one of the targets of my ongoing abuse of the Christian religion and its claim to the Ultimate Truth of Life, the Universe and Everything.
Now, where in Hell have I heard that phrase before? (snigger)
What a sad post. It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith. You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.
-
What a sad post. It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith. You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.
Some of your posts don't come over as well thought out, which is a polite way of putting it.
-
What a sad post. It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith. You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.
Sensible debate?
If my post is sad, yours is a joke!
The Christians on this forum, for the most part, do NOT debate the topic.
They first of all make the statement that the Bible is the unquestioned historical truth in every single word, syllable and letter and anyone who dares to have the audacity to dispute that is allied directly to the anti-Christ or is too mentally deficient to see the TRUTH! Or their version of said truth!
Unless and until the Christians - every last one of them, not just those on this forum - can admit that the Bible is one of the most translated, edited, revised and re-written books ever published and, being 2,000 years old, is, for the most part, irrelevant to the 21st century and that their religion is, like every other religion on Earth, FAITH NOT FACT, I will continue to post as I do.
The words put into Jesus' mouth are fine as a guideline for life. No question of that, BUT, was Jesus the son of God? Probably not.
Is the Bible a factual historical record? Probably not.
Is the Bible an accurate translation into English of the original Hebrew writings? Probably not.
If you want to see what I mean about not debating take a look back over Sassy's voluminous postings.
-
Is the Bible an accurate translation into English of the original Hebrew writings? Probably not.
.
The new testament was written in Greek.
You say 'probably not' several times in your post.....let's see the money. For my part Antitheists and antichristians show a poor grasp of some of the basic facts of ancient history....e.g. Only bit's of it survive. Also they demonstrate very little evidence of applying the same doubts on other works of the same or similar date,i.e. special pleading
Christianity stands out above similar grassroots movements probably as a movement as dedicated to preserving it's beliefs and history more than other non governmental bodies of the time.
Also evident is the wildly inaccurate and deliberately misleading caricature of Axial age writers as 'Bronze aged goat herders'.......so much for the New Atheism and the historical method.
-
Christianity stands out above similar grassroots movements probably as a movement as dedicated to preserving it's beliefs and history more than other non governmental bodies of the time.
To what extent though do you think the survival and profile of Christianity was aided by its 'governmental' support, such as from the 4th century CE?
-
To what extent though do you think the survival and profile of Christianity was aided by its 'governmental' support, such as from the 4th century CE?
Bit of a double edged sword I think. Is a state Christianity linked to a personal religion and if so in what way?
I was not a church attender until after conversion and would argue that the state had no part in my conversion and get the feeling that the government of the time would rather had me worshipping at a Tesco on Sunday.
The whole point of Protestantism after all was that perhaps millions were lost in the midst of wholesale communal religion and both Protestant and orthodox Christianity are at least a stab at the preconstantinoan church.
Are you building up to the Christianity would not have survived without state support (How would that ride against that other New Atheist hobbyhorse namely Christianity has no merits and just got lucky because after all religion is a load of cobblers etc) theory?
-
Bit of a double edged sword I think. Is a state Christianity linked to a personal religion and if so in what way?
I was not a church attender until after conversion and would argue that the state had no part in my conversion and get the feeling that the government of the time would rather had me worshipping at a Tesco on Sunday.
The whole point of Protestantism after all was that perhaps millions were lost in the midst of wholesale communal religion and both Protestant and orthodox Christianity are at least a stab at the preconstantinoan church.
Are you building up to the Christianity would not have survived without state support (How would that ride against that other New Atheist hobbyhorse namely Christianity has no merits and just got lucky because after all religion is a load of cobblers etc) theory?
As usual you over egg the pudding.
I was simply noting that survival of Christianity involves its role in power and politics from the 4th century CE onwards and that, as such, that it survived doesn't imply that that it's tenets are essentially true.
-
I was simply noting that survival of Christianity involves its role in power and politics from the 4th century CE onwards.
Does it indeed? assuming Christianity did become power and politics from the 4th century onwards, that would imply it became something different from what it had been for the three centuries prior, the success of which would have to be explained in some other way.
In the light of that I think that there is a case that Christianity could have survived itself.
-
Does it indeed? assuming Christianity did become power and politics from the 4th century onwards, that would imply it became something different from what it had been for the three centuries prior, the success of which would have to be explained in some other way.
Nope - once it was adopted by the politically powerful in the Roman Empire, and even then there were theological differences, the role of the Christian church changed in terms of its influence: for example the situation involving Ambrose and Theodosius.
Contrast that with the treatment of Christians under Nero and it is clear that its social and political role did change by the 4th century as did the theology, since this was around this time that the likes of Arius had influence and where it was Constantine who sought to regularise matters, hence Nicea in 325. I'd say its adoption by the Romans was instrumental in both its theology and its survival, given the power and influence exercised by Christian clerics (like Ambrose and various Popes and Archbishops etc).
In the light of that I think that there is a case that Christianity could have survived itself.
What case?
-
Nope - once it was adopted by the politically powerful in the Roman Empire, and even then there were theological differences, the role of the Christian church changed in terms of its influence: for example the situation involving Ambrose and Theodosius.
Contrast that with the treatment of Christians under Nero and it is clear that its social and political role did change by the 4th century as did the theology, since this was around this time that the likes of Arius had influence and where it was Constantine who sought to regularise matters, hence Nicea in 325. I'd say its adoption by the Romans was instrumental in both its theology and its survival, given the power and influence exercised by Christian clerics (like Ambrose and various Popes and Archbishops etc).
What case?
You continually ignore the first three hundred years of Christianity Gordon. Why do you keep doing this?
It looks suspiciously like it's inconvenient for your argument.
-
You continually ignore the first three hundred years of Christianity Gordon. Why do you keep doing this?
It looks suspiciously like it's inconvenient for your argument.
I'm not ignoring it: by drawing specific attention to its adoption by those exercising political power in the 4th century I'm recognising a change in the fortunes of Christianity in terms of its survival.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you'd like me to have said.
-
I'm not ignoring it: by drawing specific attention to its adoption by those exercising political power in the 4th century I'm recognising a change in the fortunes of Christianity in terms of its survival.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you'd like me to have said.
Change in fortune? In what way was the Christianity of the first three century on the way out?
How can its transmogrification into a state religion where one is a Christian for reasons to do with state citizenship be referred to as survival?
I pose these as questions in the general category of asking you to justify your theory that Constantine was instrumental in the survival of Christianity.
-
Change in fortune? In what way was the Christianity of the first three century on the way out?
How can its transmogrification into a state religion where one is a Christian for reasons to do with state citizenship be referred to as survival?
I pose these as questions in the general category of asking you to justify your theory that Constantine was instrumental in the survival of Christianity.
I never said that Christianity was 'on the way out' prior to the 4th century, so another of your endless straw men.
I'd have thought any idea, from among competing ideas, that became the subject of considerable government support would see it as good fortune: so in the 4th century Christianity benefited in a way that the the pagan alternatives didn't, which is perhaps why there aren't too many Temples of Apollo/Jupiter/Neptune etc in regular use down your way (or mine for that matter).
The later Roman Emperors, with the notable exception of Julian the Apostate, certainly gave Christianity a leg up and Constantine was a key player: after all, iirc, it was he who called the First Council of Nicea which was (and still is) fairly influential on Christian theology ('Nicene Creed', setting the date of Easter etc).
-
I never said that Christianity was 'on the way out' prior to the 4th century, so another of your endless straw men.
I'd have thought any idea, from among competing ideas, that became the subject of considerable government support would see it as good fortune: so in the 4th century Christianity benefited in a way that the the pagan alternatives didn't, which is perhaps why there aren't too many Temples of Apollo/Jupiter/Neptune etc in regular use down your way (or mine for that matter).
The later Roman Emperors, with the notable exception of Julian the Apostate, certainly gave Christianity a leg up and Constantine was a key player: after all, iirc, it was he who called the First Council of Nicea which was (and still is) fairly influential on Christian theology ('Nicene Creed', setting the date of Easter etc).
Alas even the numerous temples to Bacchus are declining numerically down our way.
The point I am making is that a religion of personal conviction rather than a state religion of social camouflage existed successfully in the three centuries prior to the Roman Empire and survived it thereafter.
I think there is a thread in New Atheism where it's cognoscenti see Nicea as the birth of Christianity
Not so I'm afraid but I can see how a modern conception of society which revolves round state permission and sanction might make that assumption.
-
Alas even the numerous temples to Bacchus are declining numerically down our way.
The point I am making is that a religion of personal conviction rather than a state religion of social camouflage existed successfully in the three centuries prior to the Roman Empire and survived it thereafter.
So, are you saying the changes to Christianity in the 4th century, such as the Council of Nicea, had no effect: Christianity today is as it was prior to the 4th century?
I think there is a thread in New Atheism where it's cognoscenti see Nicea as the birth of Christianity
Not so I'm afraid but I can see how a modern conception of society which revolves round state permission and sanction might make that assumption.
Can you? That's nice for you.
-
So, are you saying the changes to Christianity in the 4th century, such as the Council of Nicea, had no effect: Christianity today is as it was prior to the 4th century?
For many yes and let's not forget what is in the Nicenes wasn't exactly invented in pre or apres council recreation. These ideas had been doing the rounds.
I think you follow a rather Thomas Carlyle view of History.
-
For many yes and let's not forget what is in the Nicenes wasn't exactly invented in pre or apres council recreation. These ideas had been doing the rounds.
Perhaps some of your fellow Christians could comment on your theological insights: intrigued about the 'recreation'.
I think you follow a rather Thomas Carlyle view of History.
Do you really think so!
-
Perhaps some of your fellow Christians could comment on your theological insights: intrigued about the 'recreation'.
My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.
Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.
-
My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.
Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.
How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?
-
How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?
There is zero theological content in the idea that people at a conference have recreational time.
-
There is zero theological content in the idea that people at a conference have recreational time.
Super; so this will be you evading yet again.
-
Super; so this will be you evading yet again.
Evading what......you asked me what other theological views were on people at the council of Nicaea having recreational time........... what has theology got to do with recreational time?
-
Evading what......you asked me what other theological views were on people at the council of Nicaea having recreational time........... what has theology got to do with recreational time?
Trying reading my posts again, Vald.
-
Trying reading my posts again, Vald.
I would but since I believe you to be mind gaming now I shan't if it's all the same to you
-
I would but since I believe you to be mind gaming now I shan't if it's all the same to you
More evading: so to refresh your memory: you said this;
My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.
Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.
I replied:
How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?
I didn't specify whether any other theological views might be ancient or current, or somewhere in between, and my question seems a reasonable one which you seem either unable or disinclined to answer.
Which is it?
-
More evading: so to refresh your memory: you said this;
I replied:
I didn't specify whether any other theological views might be ancient or current, or somewhere in between, and my question seems a reasonable one which you seem either unable or disinclined to answer.
Which is it?
Once again what the various Bishops did when they were not theologising is not a matter of theology.
What I am saying is that Arianism and athanasianism were not made up at Nicaea. And that's it.
That is my reading.
By theological views then. Do you mean those of certain Jesus mythers who believe that Christianity was invented at Nicea.
My view contradicts theirs which is in effect a Dan Brown type conspiracy of recent fabrication.
If you agree with it then please render it in the beautiful antitheist baritone quality of your best typing finger.
-
Once again what the various Bishops did when they were not theologising is not a matter of theology.
What I am saying is that Arianism and athanasianism were not made up at Nicaea. And that's it.
That is my reading.
By theological views then. Do you mean those of certain Jesus mythers who believe that Christianity was invented at Nicea.
My view contradicts theirs which is in effect a Dan Brown type conspiracy of recent fabrication.
If you agree with it then please render it in the beautiful antitheist baritone quality of your best typing finger.
Don't be silly Vlad: I simply asked if your 'reading', which went: 'My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.
Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.'
... fit with other theological views.
My views are neither here nor there - so stop evading.
-
Q2C
You are proving my point - you are NOT disccussing/debating anything! You are making statements without the slightest factual backing.
The earliest known writings on Christ are dated at least 30 years after his death.
FFS - even the sainted four gospels don't agree on what happened and what was said!
-
The new testament was written in Greek
From The New Bible society
However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD.
-
Q2C
The earliest known writings on Christ are dated at least 30 years after his death.
Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?
-
Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?
Could you quote something word for word which someone said 30 years ago or even last week, I know I couldn't?
-
Could you quote something word for word which someone said 30 years ago or even last week, I know I couldn't?
Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.
I can't see you applying these sentiments to other documents and so I have to ask you whether you are serious.
-
Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?
The official report of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 noted that some of the police accounts made at the time contained outright lies - confirming that witness accounts, even comparatively recent ones where the witnesses were known to have been on the scene, aren't necessarily true.
-
Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.
WRONG WRONG WROING!
According to the Christian Church the BIble is a record of EXACTLY what Christ said not a synopsis or an edited version!
-
WRONG WRONG WROING!
According to the Christian Church the BIble is a record of EXACTLY what Christ said not a synopsis or an edited version!
The desperation of losing the argument.
1. Biblical chapter and verse for what you are saying.
2.Are you actually serious about the unreliability of everything written retrospectively about 1987? You did express doubts because the earliest Christian literature being written 30 years after Christ.
3. If you are going to introduce some kind of statute of limitations on this do so uniformly.
-
The official report of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 noted that some of the police accounts made at the time contained outright lies - confirming that witness accounts, even comparatively recent ones where the witnesses were known to have been on the scene, aren't necessarily true.
Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.
-
Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Not really.
The comparison would work:
1. If in 1987 we never had the kind of mass instant communication and mass media that we in fact did have; and
2. If in 1987 we had lived in a pre-scientific society or culture where superstitious/magical thinking held sway.
Other than that, though ...
-
Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.
I can't see you applying these sentiments to other documents and so I have to ask you whether you are serious.
Conveying the sense of something is what you make it out to be, it could be very different to what was intended.
-
Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.
How do you know the gospels claims about Jesus are factual?
-
Not really.
The comparison would work:
1. If in 1987 we never had the kind of mass instant communication and mass media that we in fact did have; and
2. If in 1987 we had lived in a pre-scientific society or culture where superstitious/magical thinking held sway.
Other than that, though ...
Firstly any recollections based on whether the science was right would not be historical recollections but scientific result recording therefore red herring.
Secondly People did not believe in resurrections in the first century...That's for the umpteenth time of telling.
Thirdly, many recollections from 1987 are not validatable by the means of mass communication you appeal were not used in most recollections from 1987 in other words, they weren't taped, or videod or selfied or facebooked..........That's slapdash assumption on your part.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
The desperation of losing the argument.
1. Biblical chapter and verse for what you are saying.
2.Are you actually serious about the unreliability of everything written retrospectively about 1987? You did express doubts because the earliest Christian literature being written 30 years after Christ.
3. If you are going to introduce some kind of statute of limitations on this do so uniformly.
Three words for you to consider with regard to this responce Q2C
COMPLETE UNADULTERATED RUBBISH
-
Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.
I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.
What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.
So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?
-
I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.
What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.
So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?
He hasn't.
Having been spoon-fed them, via his ears, over the years they are accepted without question.
This is, I believe, called both brainwashing and indoctrination.
-
I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.
What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.
So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?
It was a question. Gordon.
-
I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.
What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.
So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?
I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?
-
I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?
When discussing events which lack credibility, like much of those relating to Jesus, it is for those claiming them to be factual to come up with the evidence, as has been stated many times.
-
I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?
How did you eliminate the chance of mistakes or lies?
-
When discussing events which lack credibility, like much of those relating to Jesus, it is for those claiming them to be factual to come up with the evidence, as has been stated many times.
Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.
Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history. The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.
If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil.
-
I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What did we conclude?
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
Nice try, but no dice: it isn't my claim and all I'm asking is how the risks of mistakes and lies have been assessed: I haven't asserted anything regarding whether mistakes were made or lies told.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
What are you saying here?
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?
I've yet to see any Christian here tackle how the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT have been assessed in any meaningful sense: indeed they seem reluctant to even acknowledge these risks. On you go then!
-
Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.
What about being dead and then not: that doesn't seem at all credible.
Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history.
Which requires the assessment of the 'happening', where one possibility is that the 'happening' didn't happen: therefore mistakes and lies are risks that need to be assessed.
The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.
Don't be silly: no it isn't. There alternative may be of a fundamentally different character from the 'original' if the alternative involves, say, a wholly fictitious claim.
If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil.
I think the claimant is the one who needs to state criteria that will stand scrutiny.
-
What about being dead and then not: that doesn't seem at all credible.
Which requires the assessment of the 'happening', where one possibility is that the 'happening' didn't happen: therefore mistakes and lies are risks that need to be assessed.
Don't be silly: no it isn't. There alternative may be of a fundamentally different character from the 'original' if the alternative involves, say, a wholly fictitious claim.
I think the claimant is the one who needs to state criteria that will stand scrutiny.
And yet people believe that somebody did it probably because they have encountered the risen Christ in whatever state he comes to them
We can analyse why and why people don't since incredulity is due to underlying philosophy which is IMHO there because of God dodgery.
For some strange reason Gordon you guys believe you have the default position on pretty much everything you don't you have no more default position than I do.
I am not the one trying to deny my burden. You guys are.
Any version of history has a burden. We all know how the Christians answer questions of historicity. It is the bankruptcy of New atheism which seeks to change the playing field from history to statistical probability and science and avoid the same questions.
-
Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.
Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history. The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.
If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil.
The Bible cannot be considered a historical novel.
No one comes back to life if they are really dead. If Jesus did appear to his disciples after his supposed death, then he didn't actually die. Surely if Jesus had really resurrected he would have appeared to Pilate, Herod and the religious mafia who wanted him dead. Apart from his disciples, no independent observer appears to have seen him.
-
The Bible cannot be considered a historical novel.
No one comes back to life if they are really dead.
Bzzzzzzzzz Problem of induction.
-
And yet people believe that somebody did it probably because they have encountered the risen Christ in whatever state he comes to them
So they say: but not convincingly.
We can analyse why and why people don't since incredulity is due to underlying philosophy which is IMHO there because of God dodgery.
Which is both a non sequitur and sounds like begging the question (by presuming there is a god to be dodged).
For some strange reason Gordon you guys believe you have the default position on pretty much everything you don't you have no more default position than I do.
No idea what you're on about, Vlad.
I am not the one trying to deny my burden. You guys are.
I'm sure you think you have a 'burden': but that might just be you.
Any version of history has a burden. We all know how the Christians answer questions of historicity. It is the bankruptcy of New atheism which seeks to change the playing field from history to statistical probability and science and avoid the same questions.
History doesn't deal with the events you have faith in - it just recognises that people have different religious faiths and the consequences of that in terms of what people do (or don't). What you have faith in is another matter, and investigating that requires a method other than history.
No amount of flailing about addresses the problem of there being no current method to investigate claims of the divine: for crying out loud you seem reluctant to even consider the risks of mistakes or lies involving the human aspects of the NT.
-
Bzzzzzzzzz Problem of induction.
Ehhhhh?
Blimey Vlad you change your name more often than you change your pants! ;D
-
So they say: but not convincingly.
Which is both a non sequitur and sounds like begging the question (by presuming there is a god to be dodged).
No idea what you're on about, Vlad.
I'm sure you think you have a 'burden': but that might just be you.
History doesn't deal with the events you have faith in - it just recognises that people have different religious faiths and the consequences of that in terms of what people do (or don't). What you have faith in is another matter, and investigating that requires a method other than history.
No amount of flailing about addresses the problem of there being no current method to investigate claims of the divine: for crying out loud you seem reluctant to even consider the risks of mistakes or lies involving the human aspects of the NT.
I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.
It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.
I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter. You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.
In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.
I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny
-
I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.
It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.
I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter. You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.
In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.
I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny
Wow, I have just come up with a good username for you when you change it again, 'Vlad the Confused'! ;D
-
Wow, I have just come up with a good username for you when you change it again, 'Vlad the Confused'! ;D
Very Good and I have a new name for you when you change yours. ''Antony Floo gave up atheism'' Ha Ha Ha.
-
I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.
You are reluctant, just like other Christians I've asked this of, since you haven't explained how you've assessed these risks - dismissing them out of hand isn't the same thing.
It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.
What hypothesis is this? The authorities at the time Jesus was executed had no reasons to treat this as being anything other than routine for those times.
I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter.
Do tell.
You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.
It's actually unclear what you're claiming: you say you've had an encounter with the divine then you deny you're invoking the divine and suggest that what most Christians regard as the key miracle involving divine intervention (the resurrection of Jesus) was some kind of physical change to matter. I think you need to think this through a bit more.
In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.
So are we dodging 'God' or the 'idea of God'?
I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny
I don't have a 'take' on history - since you guys haven't addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT as regards the claimed divinity of Jesus then I don't think its something I need to take seriously, especially since the claims involved are outwith the scope of the historical methods.
-
I don't have a 'take' on history -
OOOHHHKAAAAYYYYYYYY!!????
-
It's actually unclear what you're claiming: you say you've had an encounter with the divine then you deny you're invoking the divine
Yes Christians claim an encounter. But that is not the history we are discussing. We are discussing the resurrection among other events.
As historical events they would have been witnessed without dependence on faith or lack of it. I see no reason to invoke divinity or faith or my experience here.
As I have said to describe a physical resurrection as a matter of faith or divinity is a mistake. Since the problem of induction allows us to postulate a physical resurrection as an unexplained rearrangement of matter which technically could be observed.
A spiritual resurrection after the death of Jesus would in fact be more convenient in one sense since it would chime with my experience and would in fact be less of an embarrassment in terms of having obligations to announce and explain it.
But i'm afraid it is there as an historical claim of a physical resurrection with witnesses and there it is.
-
But i'm afraid it is there as an historical claim of a physical resurrection with witnesses and there it is.
Shouldn't that be claims of witnesses?
-
Shouldn't that be claims of witnesses?
Or even a historical claim of witnesses I suppose.
Did I not use the word claim? Oh I did.
-
Very Good and I have a new name for you when you change yours. ''Antony Floo gave up atheism'' Ha Ha Ha.
I don't get that?
-
Or even a historical claim of witnesses I suppose.
Did I not use the word claim? Oh I did.
You did. l just wanted to emphasise that it is claimed there are witnesses but no independent accounts.
-
I don't get that?
A reference to Anthony Flew. An interesting character. Not sure why it was funny though.
-
I don't get that?
Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism. Gave atheism up, packed atheism in, flushed atheism down the toilet, binned it, repudiated it. Gave it the bums rush, flicked it the middle finger, bid it aufwiedersehen, wished it luck as he waved it goodbye, had a whip round for it, gave it the last rites, buried it in boot hill, left it in the big white bag outside the charity shop.
-
A reference to Anthony Flew. An interesting character. Not sure why it was funny though.
Nor do I, but then working out what Vlad is on about isn't exactly easy.
-
You did. l just wanted to emphasise that it is claimed there are witnesses but no independent accounts.
OK in which case I just want to state that we do not know the faith positions of the 500 or so witnesses claimed by Paul. If that's what you mean by ''independent''?
Were the witnesses people who became what we called Christians or were they philosophical materialists or strict monolithic monotheristic Jews or Ebionites or what?
-
Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism. Gave atheism up, packed atheism in, flushed atheism down the toilet, binned it, repudiated it. Gave it the bums rush, flicked it the middle finger, bid it aufwiedersehen, wished it luck as he waved it goodbye, had a whip round for it, gave it the last rites, buried it in boot hill, left it in the big white bag outside the charity shop.
He was also senile at the time.
-
He was also senile at the time.
it obviously confers some advantages then.
-
Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism. Gave atheism up, packed atheism in, flushed atheism down the toilet, binned it, repudiated it. Gave it the bums rush, flicked it the middle finger, bid it aufwiedersehen, wished it luck as he waved it goodbye, had a whip round for it, gave it the last rites, buried it in boot hill, left it in the big white bag outside the charity shop.
He declared himself a deist but it is worth reading up on what he said he believed and why - although this seemed to vary.
-
OK in which case I just want to state that we do not know the faith positions of the 500 or so witnesses claimed by Paul. If that's what you mean by ''independent''?
Were the witnesses people who became what we called Christians or were they philosophical materialists or strict monolithic monotheristic Jews or Ebionites or what?
No, I meant contemporary accounts from sources outside of the Bible. The philosophical position of those claiming there were witnessesis more relevant I would think
-
No, I meant contemporary accounts from sources outside of the Bible. The philosophical position of those claiming there were witnessesis more relevant I would think
That's ancient history i'm afraid. We have a limited range of extant viewpoints throughout ancient history.
-
Wow, I have just come up with a good username for you when you change it again, 'Vlad the Confused'! ;D
You just have it in for Transnominalists like me.
-
That's ancient history i'm afraid. We have a limited range of extant viewpoints throughout ancient history.
Sure but its always worth remembering.
-
Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism. Gave atheism up, packed atheism in, flushed atheism down the toilet, binned it, repudiated it. Gave it the bums rush, flicked it the middle finger, bid it aufwiedersehen, wished it luck as he waved it goodbye, had a whip round for it, gave it the last rites, buried it in boot hill, left it in the big white bag outside the charity shop.
Vlad, am I right in thinking Antony Flew was an atheist to which the discovery of DNA gave him an awakening to the realisation that there was something really worth questioning? I know this has happened to other ex-atheists.
-
Vlad, am I right in thinking Antony Flew was an atheist to which the discovery of DNA gave him an awakening to the realisation that there was something really worth questioning? I know this has happened to other ex-atheists.
No, given we are talking the 2000s and that he seems to have leaned to deism.
-
Vlad, am I right in thinking Antony Flew was an atheist to which the discovery of DNA gave him an awakening to the realisation that there was something really worth questioning?
Not quite.
Antony Flew was the atheist who thought that the lack (as he then thought) of a plausible naturalistic account of the origin of life led to a deist, Aristotelian god*, but who later admitted that he hadn't kept up with the relevant science (e.g. organic chemistry) and had allowed himself to be misled by those with a religious axe to grind, confessing that he had "made a fool" of himself in the affair. (Flew's own phrase, not mine, hence the quotation marks).
I hope this answers your question, albeit one put to Vlad; from recent experience Vlad's grasp of Flew's muddled latter years isn't exactly all that.
* If anyone should be left in any doubt that a very elderly man's once tack-sharp faculties were not as they used to be, the evidence lies in the fact that he felt this was a good enough argument to accept deism and not the rancid barrel of donkey jizz that it actually is, to wit, the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
-
I found this on Wiki...
In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
-
I found this on Wiki...
In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
Smashing.
However, he changed his mind. (In a rather sad fashion, at that).
Oh - argument from authority fallacy; invoking Einstein or any other big name adds nothing. "His own insight" meant diddly doo dah - he was a philosopher, not a biochemist. Fred Hoyle - an astrophysicist - similarly used to make an arse of himself quite regularly when he used to try to stray into biology and chemistry. Creationists - by definition not the brightest lamps in the lane - still quote him to this day.
Sad how he slipped at the end. It wouldn't have happened earlier.
-
Smashing.
However, he changed his mind. (In a rather sad fashion, at that).
Oh - argument from authority fallacy; invoking Einstein or any other big name adds nothing. "His own insight" meant diddly doo dah - he was a philosopher, not a biochemist.
Sad how he slipped at the end. It wouldn't have happened earlier.
I'm not sure he did 'slip at the end'. Checkout Wiki.... which seems to say differently..
-
I'm not sure he did 'slip at the end'. Checkout Wiki.... which seems to say differently..
Already have.
It doesn't have a fraction of the detail and evidence of the New York Times article by Mark Oppenheimer: http://tinyurl.com/yd9b7g3k
-
he was a philosopher, not a biochemist. Fred Hoyle - an astrophysicist - similarly used to make an arse of himself quite regularly when he used to try to stray into biology and chemistry.
It cuts both ways of course....... Myers, Coyne and Dawkins in philosophy and of course Hawking who went the whole 9 yards and declared science had made philosophy redundant.
-
It cuts both ways of course....... Myers, Coyne and Dawkins in philosophy
Only courtiers think that you need to be a formally-trained academic philosopher to identify a horseshit argument when you hear one.
and of course Hawking who went the whole 9 yards and declared science had made philosophy redundant.
Feynman did that decades ago.
-
Only courtiers think that you need to be a formally-trained academic philosopher to identify a horseshit argument when you hear one.
Courtiers reply or the Myers shuffle where Myer is the courtier and the invisible cloak is the fine workmanship spun by Dawkins that he somehow needs no logic or reason or knowledge for declaring something incorrect.
From another point of view an invisible cloak is a ''shit can't think out of the box'' materialist stab at a God who is never suggested as an old man with a beard.
Basically Dawkins makes up the argument, invents the object of the argument and declares it ''horseshit'' or maybe even starts with the assumption of horseshit.......You know, Shakes i'm sure that's a fallacy.
-
That's not writing, Vlad; that's typing.
-
Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism.
I give you Muhammad Ali who gave up Christianity.
Punched it in the face, did a butterfly dance around it, knocked it out for a count of ten, shuffled around it so fast it didn't know what happened to it, Bolo punched it into submission, got it on the ropes then knocked it through the ropes, put it in the spit-bucket, wrapped it up in a parcel and posted it 'return to sender'.
This is a good game. who shall we do next?
-
That's not writing, Vlad; that's typing.
Infinite-monkey typing?
-
I give you Muhammad Ali who gave up Christianity.
Punched it in the face, did a butterfly dance around it, knocked it out for a count of ten, shuffled around it so fast it didn't know what happened to it, Bolo punched it into submission, got it on the ropes then knocked it through the ropes, put it in the spit-bucket, wrapped it up in a parcel and posted it 'return to sender'.
S'funny Seb I've seen something like this before. It looks like a ringer, a copy, a facsimile, an imitation, a clone, a wannabee, Humour manqué, a derivative, a pale shadow, a borrowing,
-
Already have.
It doesn't have a fraction of the detail and evidence of the New York Times article by Mark Oppenheimer: http://tinyurl.com/yd9b7g3k
An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say.... let the man speak from his grave..
-
Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution. Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..
-
An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say....
And that's not you with your theist's hat on trying to prop up some incredibly bad arguments, conveniently glossing over Oppenheimer's abundantly clear evidence of Flew's cognitive failings and his being taken for a ride by others in any way at all, I take it?
-
Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution.
We usually find that's a job for scientists.
So that's Berlinski out, as he isn't one. Scientists ask the questions and with a great deal of patience, persistence and hard work sometimes come up with the answers - actual ones. Berlinski ... not really.
Unless of course you can name a single one of these questions of his that he has actually answered. Anything spring to mind?
Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..
Or indeed thinking - using the word loosely - outside of science altogether.
Not tremendously useful in scientific matters.
-
We usually find that's a job for scientists.
You're either doing a brilliant job of refuting 'courtiers reply/Myers' shuffle or supporting specially pleading ''scientists.''
Har Har.
-
Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution. Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..
Thinking outside the box, does that mean talking about stuff which he has little actual knowledge about?
-
An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say.... let the man speak from his grave..
Worth looking at the filmed interviews on youtube then I would think. A clear contrast between his early and later ones it seems to me but take a look if you haven't already.
His conversion was, he said, was due to the integrated complexity which science has revealed but, he felt, not explained. He applied his philosophical way of thinking to the science, which is fine so long as you recognise he is a philosopher nota scientist.
-
There has been some arguments about faith being true.
So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.
So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
-
There has been some arguments about faith being true.
So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.
So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
There's always one clown here who'll wheel out the negative proof fallacy, surely the go-to piece of bad reasoning of religionists.
-
There has been some arguments about faith being true.
So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.
So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
There you go again, stating something is factual when it is only a belief you can't back up.
-
There has been some arguments about faith being true.
So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.
So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
Something can only be claimed to be true if there is sufficient supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence something cannot be said to be true but that is different from saying something is false. The latter would require supporting evidence.
I'm afraid we don't know faith to be true or that God is real. On that basis did you say that? If it was because God's existence cannot be disproved then this is a classic negative proof fallacy.
-
Something can only be claimed to be true if there is sufficient supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence something cannot be said to be true but that is different from saying something is false. The latter would require supporting evidence.
I'm afraid we don't know faith to be true or that God is real. On that basis did you say that? If it was because God's existence cannot be disproved then this is a classic negative proof fallacy.
Can you just define NPF again I thought it was a conclusive statement that something exists or doesn't because it cannot be disproved or proved.
Eg God exists because he cannot be disproved or God doesn't exist because he cannot be proved.
-
Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?
-
Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?
Yup:
I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot disprove means it can be accepted as existing.
Textbook NPF.
-
Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?
I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.
-
I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.
I think you're over thinking that!
-
I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.
No not at all.
I think he just noted she had used the classic NPF, which makes her argument useless.
I believe X is true, you cannot prove X is not true, is a classic fallacy.
If you claim X is true, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that X is true. No one has to show that X is not true.
Things are not assumed to be true. They have to be demonstrated.
-
I think you're over thinking that!
That's a first.
-
I think you're over thinking that!
No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist which if not an NPF is the equivalent of dry humping one.
Look Meaeghtt
No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.
Thus it is that when a forum antitheist claims a tiny victory on the NPF stakes the whole of the world, rational atheists, Aardvarks, Aliens Freemasons along with the whole company of heaven and earth allow themselves a modest titter.
-
No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist
I'm not seeing the problem.
Look Meaeghtt
No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF
Despite the fact that earlier Sassy did a cunningly close impression of doing exactly that - #544, relevant bit quoted in #550.
but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.
Or rather any evidence, let alone proof.
-
I'm not seeing the problem.
.
That's obvious.
You don't mind being a big stripey humbug do you Shakes?
-
That's obvious.
You don't mind being a big stripey humbug do you Shakes?
I certainly don't mind being sweet ;)
-
I certainly don't mind being sweet ;)
I'm a bit worried about those brown stripes though Shakes.
-
No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist which if not an NPF is the equivalent of dry humping one.
Sassy posted a classic NPF plus a statement about it being the end of the matter. Whst is overdoing it about pointing that out on a discussion forum?
Look Meaeghtt
Its Maeght - no need to mess with that please..
No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF
Of course not which is why I've never suggested they do.
...... but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.
No, I don't think so, rather its because they have no belief in God. The reasons people give for being atheist vary but essentially I think the evidence discussion is secondary go personal belief or lack of belief.
Thus it is that when a forum antitheist claims a tiny victory on the NPF stakes the whole of the world, rational atheists, Aardvarks, Aliens Freemasons along with the whole company of heaven and earth allow themselves a modest titter.
Possibly, but I didn't titter - just wanted Sassy to understand what she saying.
-
No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist
No. People on here say because there is no evidence for God he/she/it can be treated as if he/she/it does not exist. If you want to believe in God even though there is no evidence for its existence, feel free.
-
There's always one clown here who'll wheel out the negative proof fallacy, surely the go-to piece of bad reasoning of religionists.
Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! It does not answer what was asked. Excuse Excuse Excuse... Hiding behind a false dictamen .
-
We usually find that's a job for scientists.
So that's Berlinski out, as he isn't one. Scientists ask the questions and with a great deal of patience, persistence and hard work sometimes come up with the answers - actual ones. Berlinski ... not really.
Unless of course you can name a single one of these questions of his that he has actually answered. Anything spring to mind?Or indeed thinking - using the word loosely - outside of science altogether.
Not tremendously useful in scientific matters.
There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.
-
There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.
And yet you and your kind are conspicuously silent when it comes to stumping up with any alternative methodology for finding out about reality. You can't say you haven't been asked.
I'll stick with science, thanks. It works. You're welcome to your guesses.
-
There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.
How do know?
-
How do know?
he doesn't but he doesn't know that . and therein lies the blinding flaw, however I too look forward to his answer.
-
And yet you and your kind are conspicuously silent when it comes to stumping up with any alternative methodology for finding out about reality. You can't say you haven't been asked.
I'll stick with science, thanks. It works. You're welcome to your guesses.
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.
-
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Which isn't an issue since 'purpose', as I suspect you intend by this term, is outwith the scope of science.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.
See above: you've yet to demonstrate that there is either 'purpose' or 'meaning': both sound like yet more reification.
-
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.
We give ourselves purpose.
The only 'real' purpose in life is to procreate.
-
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.
But science IS my purpose (well, one of them). To learn, to enquire, to explore, to discover, to tease apart the tiny distinctions that differentiate water from sulphuric acid, sunlight from sunburn, weather from climate...
O.
-
But science IS my purpose (well, one of them). To learn, to enquire, to explore, to discover, to tease apart the tiny distinctions that differentiate water from sulphuric acid, sunlight from sunburn, weather from climate...
O.
Outrider! My main man!
-
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Actually no - I find my purposes (plural deliberate) in and of my life tend to sort themselves out quite naturally.
But the gut-churning arrogance of the smug and simpering passive-aggressive theist is certainly noted.
-
The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.
How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.
I could use the start of Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts, but what would be the point?
A blind person needs to be cured of their blindness before they can see.
-
I could use the start of Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts, but what would be the point?
Quite. What would be the point?
-
Actually no - I find my purposes (plural deliberate) in and of my life tend to sort themselves out quite naturally.
But the gut-churning arrogance of the smug and simpering passive-aggressive theist is certainly noted.
to engage with them allows them to think they have value , stop doing it ,please .
-
to engage with them allows them to think they have value , stop doing it ,please .
While I slightly agree and have a modicum of sympathy with this view, I can't go along with it. We have much too much of this clownish shit in the world and it needs to be challenged and challenged hard. Weeds only thrive when left alone.
-
While I slightly agree and have a modicum of sympathy with this view, I can't go along with it. We have much too much of this clownish shit in the world and it needs to be challenged and challenged hard. Weeds only thrive when left alone.
I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country
-
I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country
I've known him virtually for a number of years - I think I can safely say he does ;)
-
I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country
No I don't, actually - not quite in the way that El Voyager du Trent is probably thinking.
There's no need, principally. It's a question of priorities, the priority being: who is trying to materially affect and influence the lives of citizens on the basis of their unevidenced belief in immaterial entities who supposedly have opinions on how people live? Some Christians are. They're a problem. Some Muslims are. They're a problem. I know of no evidence at all that Buddhists and neo-pagans (for example) are. They're not a problem. I'm not particularly bothered that people think that good karma will lead to a meritorious rebirth in the future if they're not (again for example) agitating on that basis to stop gay couples getting married or to prevent stem cell research. I don't believe a word of it; it would be preferable that people weren't silly sausages in such an egregiously pork-herb-and-oatmeal manner but hey ho.
Like I said: priorities.
-
No I don't, actually - not quite in the way that El Voyager du Trent is probably thinking.
There's no need, principally. It's a question of priorities, the priority being: who is trying to materially affect and influence the lives of citizens on the basis of their unevidenced belief in immaterial entities who supposedly have opinions on how people live? Some Christians are. They're a problem. Some Muslims are. They're a problem. I know of no evidence at all that Buddhists and neo-pagans are. They're not a problem.
Like I said: priorities.
Ah yes - slightly misrepresenting you. But on an individual basis if someone of any given faith is spouting harmful rubbish I've never known you to shy away from being forthright.
-
Ah yes - slightly misrepresenting you. But on an individual basis if someone of any given faith is spouting harmful rubbish I've never known you to shy away from being forthright.
Shitsticks.
And there was me trying to keep it quiet :D
-
Don't think you are fooling anyone.
-
Bah >:(
-
No I don't, actually - not quite in the way that El Voyager du Trent is probably thinking.
There's no need, principally. It's a question of priorities, the priority being: who is trying to materially affect and influence the lives of citizens on the basis of their unevidenced belief in immaterial entities who supposedly have opinions on how people live? Some Christians are. They're a problem. Some Muslims are. They're a problem. I know of no evidence at all that Buddhists and neo-pagans (for example) are. They're not a problem. I'm not particularly bothered that people think that good karma will lead to a meritorious rebirth in the future if they're not (again for example) agitating on that basis to stop gay couples getting married or to prevent stem cell research. I don't believe a word of it; it would be preferable that people weren't silly sausages in such an egregiously pork-herb-and-oatmeal manner but hey ho.
Like I said: priorities.
well, I wouldn't want you next to me in a battlefield fox hole , grow the eff up.
-
well, I wouldn't want you next to me in a battlefield fox hole , grow the eff up.
I wouldn't want anyone in a foxhole with me on a modern battlefield - foxholes are a sure-fire way to get yourself deaded. Modern warfare is primarily about mobility...
O.
-
I've known him virtually for a number of years - I think I can safely say he does ;)
and as for you, brown nosing is not a pretty sight .
-
and as for you, brown nosing is not a pretty sight .
My you are in fine fettle today aren't you?
-
I wouldn't want anyone in a foxhole with me on a modern battlefield - foxholes are a sure-fire way to get yourself deaded. Modern warfare is primarily about mobility...
O.
its a figure of speech mate , phew!
-
and as for you, brown nosing is not a pretty sight .
No, but neither is your perpetually obnoxious bile even to those on the same (for want of a better term) 'side'.
-
My your in fine fettle today aren't you?
I have modded myself mate, believe me.
-
I have modded myself mate, believe me.
That's nice for you. Are we supposed to be grateful?
-
No, but neither is your perpetually obnoxious bile even to those on the same (for want of a better term) 'side'.
you only prove my judgment .
-
I have modded myself mate, believe me.
Did you sit on your hand till it went to sleep so it could feel like you were being modded off someone else?
-
Quite. What would be the point?
Perhaps to show the total inner coherence between the two accounts, purported to be written by the same person? :) After all, the Ascension in Luke's gospel is described as occurring a few days after the Crucifixion*, whereas the account in Acts relates that Jesus stayed around for forty days after the Resurrection. Now what could be more historically accurate and consistent than that?
Unless the supposed author had some other significance he wished to convey by his accounts of the Ascension? Jack Shelby Spong, the floor is yours....
*On "the first day of the week" - the day of the supposed "Resurrection".
-
Did you sit on your hand till it went to sleep so it could feel like you were being modded off someone else?
works every time hahah ;)
-
Actually no - I find my purposes (plural deliberate) in and of my life tend to sort themselves out quite naturally.
But the gut-churning arrogance of the smug and simpering passive-aggressive theist is certainly noted.
I never understand this thing about there being no purpose, without theism. It's obviously untrue. As you say, purposes leap out at me all the time. Right now, for example, I am writing this post. Hurrah. I suppose some kind of final purpose is meant - well, there is tonight's drinkies. Hurrah.
-
I never understand this thing about there being no purpose, without theism. It's obviously untrue. As you say, purposes leap out at me all the time. Right now, for example, I am writing this post. Hurrah. I suppose some kind of final purpose is meant - well, there is tonight's drinkies. Hurrah.
don't wear out your hurrahs old chap , you might need one for later this evening. ;) ;) ;)
-
I never understand this thing about there being no purpose, without theism. It's obviously untrue. As you say, purposes leap out at me all the time. Right now, for example, I am writing this post. Hurrah. I suppose some kind of final purpose is meant - well, there is tonight's drinkies. Hurrah.
I might just get a few posts in before I go to the adjacent Wetherspoons. Then I have to think not so much about purpose as integrity of moral conscience: a lot of my friends (and me) are very anti-Brexit, whereas Boss Tim is emphatically not.
-
I might just get a few posts in before I go to the adjacent Wetherspoons. Then I have to think not so much about purpose as integrity of moral conscience: a lot of my friends (and me) are very anti-Brexit, whereas Boss Tim is emphatically not.
Dicky , make sure you suitably suck up to Boss Tim if you want to keep your job , even after a few pints.
-
But science IS my purpose (well, one of them). To learn, to enquire, to explore, to discover, to tease apart the tiny distinctions that differentiate water from sulphuric acid, sunlight from sunburn, weather from climate...
O.
Yes, but you have just defined your purpose with non scientific terms. There is no scientific definition for enquiring, exploring, discovering or teasing. These are all activities driven by the conscious will of the human soul - not by any naturally driven chains of inevitable cause and effect.
-
Well, I'm out at the pub tonight with a few bird watching(please no puns!) mates. That's purpose enough for the moment.
-
Dicky , make sure you suitably suck up to Boss Tim if you want to keep your job , even after a few pints.
I think you may have misunderstood - "Boss Tim" refers to Tim Martin, the boss of the whole of Wetherspoons, who is notoriously pro-Brexit. He's not my personal boss, so I won't be sucking up to him. I simply drink in his pubs (not very much - his firm would have collapsed if all were like me).
-
I think you may have misunderstood - "Boss Tim" refers to Tim Martin, the boss of the whole of Wetherspoons, who is notoriously pro-Brexit. He's not my personal boss, so I won't be sucking up to him. I simply drink in his pubs (not very much - his firm would have collapsed if all were like me).
okay, I get it , enjoy your baby Cham.
-
Yes, but you have just defined your purpose with non scientific terms. There is no scientific definition for enquiring, exploring, discovering or teasing. These are all activities driven by the conscious will of the human soul - not by any naturally driven chains of inevitable cause and effect.
Arguably - why is that a problem? Science is one of my purposes, I don't have only one.
As to the rest:
a) in what way are acts of the conscious mind not an example of cause and effect
b) what's a 'soul'? On what basis do you think one exists? How have you validated that concept in any reliable way?
O.
-
Arguably - why is that a problem? Science is one of my purposes, I don't have only one.
As to the rest:
a) in what way are acts of the conscious mind not an example of cause and effect
b) what's a 'soul'? On what basis do you think one exists? How have you validated that concept in any reliable way?
O.
By the argument from ignorance fallacy. He cannot understand how the brain can do what it does, so he invents a soul to make the problem go away.
-
I get the impression AB thinks the 'soul' is unrelated to the brain and consciousness and is a separate entity.
-
I get the impression AB thinks the 'soul' is unrelated to the brain and consciousness and is a separate entity.
In religious terms that's pretty much the standard definition, isn't it?
-
Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.
So what purpose does your faith give you?
-
I get the impression AB thinks the 'soul' is unrelated to the brain and consciousness and is a separate entity.
Historically interesting, as it seems to go back to Descartes, who had a soul/body split. Trouble is, you then have to show how they connect. Having said that, I think you can see this idea in Plato also.
Another view comes down from Aristotle, where the soul is the 'form' of the body. Trouble is, it's difficult say what this means, but people are still attracted to the view, since there is less separation.
Or of course, you can see soul as psyche, which makes it psychological. A more modern view.
-
We give ourselves purpose.
The only 'real' purpose in life is to procreate.
I understand how scare quotes work yet I can't make out what work they're doing in your second sentence, unless you're using the word real in its metaphorical gene's-eye-view sense.
Either last night or the night before there was one of those cheap and cheerless documentaries (Channel 5 is the usual culprit for this sort of tat) about a woman who has had (IIRC) 12 children and who has done so while living on benefits. I didn't see the programme, only read the description; as far as I can make out this seems to be the beginning and end of any reason why she should have her 60 minutes including ad breaks in the public spotlight.
Meanwhile, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Newton, Beethoven, Nietzsche, Van Gogh and innumerable others died childless. I'm not saying that there's some sort of objective, external standard of the pointfulness or pointlessness of a human life (exactly the opposite, actually); but I am saying that, given the fact that you're only ever one generation away from the end of your genetic line (i.e. you may produce children who do not themselves reproduce), the capacity for having children seems a thin rationale on which to hang the point/meaning/purpose of a life.
-
So what purpose does your faith give you?
Agreed. This seems merely to kick the problem back an extra step. The theist may say that (their belief in) a god gives life purpose, but this comes at the expense of quietly gliding over the questions that this engenders and pretending that nobody else has noticed. How and why would a god create purpose(s)? Just why would or should its (assumed; presumed) purpose(s) be mine anyway? If the theist can terminate his infinite regress at a god, I can terminate mine at the things in my life that I enjoy and find interesting, pleasurable, meaningful and worthwhile. And in my case, with validation and justification.
-
I think you may have misunderstood - "Boss Tim" refers to Tim Martin, the boss of the whole of Wetherspoons, who is notoriously
sensibly pro-Brexit. He's not my personal boss, so I won't be sucking up to him. I simply drink in his pubs (not very much - his firm would have collapsed if all were like me).
ippy
-
I understand how scare quotes work yet I can't make out what work they're doing in your second sentence, unless you're using the word real in its metaphorical gene's-eye-view sense.
Either last night or the night before there was one of those cheap and cheerless documentaries (Channel 5 is the usual culprit for this sort of tat) about a woman who has had (IIRC) 12 children and who has done so while living on benefits. I didn't see the programme, only read the description; as far as I can make out this seems to be the beginning and end of any reason why she should have her 60 minutes including ad breaks in the public spotlight.
Meanwhile, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Newton, Beethoven, Nietzsche, Van Gogh and innumerable others died childless. I'm not saying that there's some sort of objective, external standard of the pointfulness or pointlessness of a human life (exactly the opposite, actually); but I am saying that, given the fact that you're only ever one generation away from the end of your genetic line (i.e. you may produce children who do not themselves reproduce), the capacity for having children seems a thin rationale on which to hang the point/meaning/purpose of a life.
It was me, saying there is no objective purpose to our lives, and we make that purpose for ourself.
Genes just 'want' to continue, so a very limited view of purpose, would be simply to keep living and produce more life.
That seems to be how we are designed by evolution.
-
By the argument from ignorance fallacy. He cannot understand how the brain can do what it does, so he invents a soul to make the problem go away.
I know it's difficult, but I'm certain Alan sincerely believes in this soul idea of his, for me it shows how vulnerable some of us are to indoctrination into all sorts of mad ideas, I dare say it's only luck with a combination of how D N A influenced the development of my own brain and my upbringing, that I have managed to avoid a similar fate to Alan, it could have been any one of us.
The good side for Alan is he goes to all of these reinforcement meetings with his fellow travellers waving their hands to the sky singing and picking up more pamphlets about all sorts of religion based topics, they all seem to be quite happy, not doing a lot of harm, as long as it stops there and they're not still expecting privileges for these beliefs, good on em, keeps em happy.
ippy
-
I know it's difficult, but I'm certain Alan sincerely believes in this soul idea of his, for me it shows how vulnerable some of us are to indoctrination into all sorts of mad ideas, I dare say it's only luck with a combination of how D N A influenced the development of my own brain and my upbringing, that I have managed to avoid a similar fate to Alan, it could have been any one of us.
The good side for Alan is he goes to all of these reinforcement meetings with his fellow travellers waving their hands to the sky singing and picking up more pamphlets about all sorts of religion based topics, they all seem to be quite happy, not doing a lot of harm, as long as it stops there and they're not still expecting privileges for these beliefs, good on em, keeps em happy.
ippy
I think the harm they do, is that they infect young vulnerable people with all this nonsense.
He is a carrier wanting to infect young minds, that are not yet able to counter the irrationalism he displays.
-
I think the harm they do, is that they infect young vulnerable people with all this nonsense.
He is a carrier wanting to infect young minds, that are not yet able to counter the irrationalism he displays.
I'll go with you 100%, it's a very dark aspect of all these beliefs, how do we save the children from them?
ippy
-
I'll go with you 100%, it's a very dark aspect of all these beliefs, how do we save the children from them?
ippy
Camps? Do you want my mother's address to help you round her up. She's 87 but she infected 4 children.
-
I'll go with you 100%, it's a very dark aspect of all these beliefs, how do we save the children from them?
ippy
we know who they are, we should ............................................
-
Camps? Do you want my mother's address to help you round her up. She's 87 but she infected 4 children.
age is no hiding place
-
age is no hiding place
My father's dead but you might want to unperson him by vaporising.
-
Camps? Do you want my mother's address to help you round her up. She's 87 but she infected 4 children.
Perhaps it's better to not over react, just start with odd few very selective death squads say only doing about a couple of thousand a day for starters.
ippy
(Not being serious).
-
Perhaps it's better to not over react, just start with odd few very selective death squads say only doing about a couple of thousand a day for starters.
ippy
(Not being serious).
Phew! However the lazy use of disease as a metaphor that you were happily indulging in with others is the sort of rhetoric that is hard to distinguish from other ways of dehumanising people.
-
Phew! However the lazy use of disease as a metaphor that you were happily indulging in with others is the sort of rhetoric that is hard to distinguish from other ways of dehumanising people.
I didn't introduce disease into the frame, not guilty, it's more to do with the lottery of our D N A and our upbringing, for me, that makes the Alan and the likes of Alan somehow more susceptible to indoctrination.
I have to admit I find it somewhat depressing/disappointing seeing very young vulnerable children being dragged along to various meetings of the religious variety by their various guardians/parents.
ippy
-
I didn't introduce disease into the frame, not guilty, it's more to do with the lottery of our D N A and our upbringing, for me, that makes the Alan and the likes of Alan somehow more susceptible to indoctrination.
I have to admit I find it somewhat depressing/disappointing seeing very young vulnerable children being dragged along to various meetings of the religious variety by their various guardians/parents.
ippy
Didn't say you introduced it. That would be BeRational in #615, to which you in #616 said you went along with it 100%. So you did go along 100% with the lazy rhetoric.
-
Didn't say you introduced it. That would be BeRational in #615, to which you in #616 said you went along with it 100%. So you did go along 100% with the lazy rhetoric.
Lazy Rhetoric ? I used to go to school with him !
-
Didn't say you introduced it. That would be BeRational in #615, to which you in #616 said you went along with it 100%. So you did go along 100% with the lazy rhetoric.
Religion does behave in a very similar way to disease, so it would make it debatable dependent on each individuals view, I am unable to see much in the way of a benefit coming from the direction of religions, any of them, pity the authorities can't put something in our water supply. You know N S, it's getting rid of the bodies that's the problem.
ippy
-
Religion does behave in a very similar way to disease, so it would make it debatable dependent on each individuals view, I am unable to see much in the way of a benefit coming from the direction of religions, any of them, pity the authorities can't put something in our water supply. You know N S, it's getting rid of the bodies that's the problem.
ippy
So you are happy to use the type of dehumanising and as long as you you put 'just joking' at the end any effect of that doesn't matter.
In what way does religion behave similarly to disease? If you want to go down the meme route, it's worth noting that you are then saying non religion and all human communication and thought is like disease which means singling out religion is illogical.
-
Lazy Rhetoric ? I used to go to school with him !
Big lad? Sat at the back? Used to trip up smaller kids and say 'Don't fall, it gets you down?'
-
While I slightly agree and have a modicum of sympathy with this view, I can't go along with it. We have much too much of this clownish shit in the world and it needs to be challenged and challenged hard. Weeds only thrive when left alone.
Well, you need to up your game. All this allegedly clownish shit around and all you can offer to challenge it is ... what exactly?
-
Well, you need to up your game. All this allegedly clownish shit around and all you can offer to challenge it is ... what exactly?
You have no evidence to support your POV on faith.
-
Well, you need to up your game. All this allegedly clownish shit around and all you can offer to challenge it is ... what exactly?
Reason.
That's why there are so many irrational clowns: they don't possess any. The 'game' is perfectly fine as it is already and needs no upping, but as a famous man once said, trying to use reason with someone who has renounced it is like giving medicine to a corpse.
-
Big lad? Sat at the back? Used to trip up smaller kids and say 'Don't fall, it gets you down?'
hmmm...................were you in my class?
-
So you are happy to use the type of dehumanising and as long as you you put 'just joking' at the end any effect of that doesn't matter.
In what way does religion behave similarly to disease? If you want to go down the meme route, it's worth noting that you are then saying non religion and all human communication and thought is like disease which means singling out religion is illogical.
[/quot]
To date I haven't seen anything that would make me want to take the religions themselves seriously, you can do your usual with that lot N S although I'm certain you know exactly what my meaning is.
If you wish to have a discussion about something you think you've read into my previous post, be my guest, just leave me out of it please, no doubt you'll read something into this part of my post, and on, and on, and on, and on______________________
ippy
-
So you are happy to use the type of dehumanising and as long as you you put 'just joking' at the end any effect of that doesn't matter.
In what way does religion behave similarly to disease? If you want to go down the meme route, it's worth noting that you are then saying non religion and all human communication and thought is like disease which means singling out religion is illogical.
To date I haven't seen anything that would make me want to take the religions themselves seriously, you can do your usual with that lot N S although I'm certain you know exactly what my meaning is.
If you wish to have a discussion about something you think you've read into my previous post, be my guest, just leave me out of it please, no doubt you'll read something into this part of my post, and on, and on, and on, and on______________________
ippy
Your evasion of questions is very funny.
-
To date I haven't seen anything that would make me want to take the religions themselves seriously, you can do your usual with that lot N S although I'm certain you know exactly what my meaning is.
If you wish to have a discussion about something you think you've read into my previous post, be my guest, just leave me out of it please, no doubt you'll read something into this part of my post, and on, and on, and on, and on______________________
ippy
Your evasion of questions is very funny.
Just Joking and now I'm, very funny? You please yourself N S.
ippy
-
Just Joking and now I'm, very funny? You please yourself N S.
ippy
Continued evasion noted, and hilarious.
-
Continued evasion noted, and hilarious.
Unless any one posts without numerous caveats covering every aspect of whatever is posted, poor old N S refuses to indulge with anything less, until the subject of the thread whatever it may have been when started is lost, the only alternative is quite a few generally accepted colloquialisms, generalisations, phrases, good use of semantics if you like, if that's how you like to post N S, fair enough, have a good laugh to yourself whatever pleases you, just don't bother me with any of it, we all have our own ways of dealing with posts the latter is how you like to deal with them.
If you see my point about your writing style as me avoiding or evading that's up to you, please yourself, I don't see there is any need for me to take the bother or feel inclined to bother with your pedantics, it's always the same with you N S.
Many kind regards, ippy.
-
Unless any one posts without numerous caveats covering every aspect of whatever is posted, poor old N S refuses to indulge with anything less, until the subject of the thread whatever it may have been when started is lost, the only alternative is quite a few generally accepted colloquialisms, generalisations, phrases, good use of semantics if you like, if that's how you like to post N S, fair enough, have a good laugh to yourself whatever pleases you, just don't bother me with any of it, we all have our own ways of dealing with posts the latter is how you like to deal with them.
If you see my point about your writing style as me avoiding or evading that's up to you, please yourself, I don't see there is any need for me to take the bother or feel inclined to bother with your pedantics, it's always the same with you N S.
Many kind regards, ippy.
Nothing about writing style, just your evasion of answering a simple question. Again.
-
Nothing about writing style, just your evasion of answering a simple question. Again.
Of course it is N S.
Ippy
-
Of course it is N S.
Ippy
Good to know you agree about your evasion.
-
Good to know you agree about your evasion.
Now have your last word I'm aware of how important it is to you N S.
ippy