God's choice: quick question for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

That's a difficult topic because the language used is steeped in ancient history and much of it is mythical in the sense of attempts to convey an inner experience by analogy, metaphor, parable etc.  Many of the words have changed status over the years from their original intention and translating them from one language to another adds to the difficulty.  There is also the tendency to personify words like God and Satan which doesn't help.  The word 'god', I believe, came from a Germanic source which meant 'that which is invoked' and so possibly related to whatever the individual had need of, e.g. power, peace, love, wisdom, etc. Spiritual practices of the uninitiated were difficult to sustain, perhaps personification helped them to focus and in this respect having one God with all the qualities is much easier than them being spread over many gods.  Satan represented the forces of opposition, resistance, division and temptation which are detrimental to spiritual progress.  So as far as the Christians are concerned, you might be seen as one of Satan's little helpers.

Yes, but that’s not the issue under discussion. Either you think that the contemplation of certain narratives leads to an altered mind state of some kind that says nothing to whether the objects of the stories actually exist “out there”, or you think the deep contemplation is a reliable means of identifying objectively real phenomena (regardless of how you describe them).

It’s a binary choice. The former I’m relaxed about; absent any means of verification, the latter seems to me to be indistinguishable from just guessing.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

That's fascinating stuff. How though do you make the jump from, "stuff people wrote down" to, "the claims claims of supernatural doings are therefore true"?

Strangely though it may seem to you, with the greatest of ease.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Strangely though it may seem to you, with the greatest of ease.

Yes it does seem strange to me - bizarre even, not least because (presumably) you don't allow the same latitude to supernatural stories from other religious traditions.

Why would say, my writing down, "I saw David Copperfield saw a woman in half and reconnect her today" be a less accurate account of what actually happened for a future reader than the equivalent stories from your choice of texts?

[ekim]

ekim,

Yes, but that’s not the issue under discussion. Either you think that the contemplation of certain narratives leads to an altered mind state of some kind that says nothing to whether the objects of the stories actually exist “out there”, or you think the deep contemplation is a reliable means of identifying objectively real phenomena (regardless of how you describe them).

It’s a binary choice. The former I’m relaxed about; absent any means of verification, the latter seems to me to be indistinguishable from just guessing.

A bit of both.  It says nothing as to whether the scriptural concepts e.g. God, Heaven exist 'out there' and it is a useful method of identifying real phenomena e.g. peace, love, hate, resistance 'in there'.

[SusanDoris]

Hi Susan,  My apologies for taking so long to respond to your request. 

No problem. I have referred back to my post which asked if you can cite one objective fact about Christ. I have listened carefully through your post. I did not question whether any of the books of the Bible, Old or New Testaments, had been written, nor whether the people whose writings have been studied (translated, re-translated, transcribed, etc) existed.   I do not know why you quoted so many BC writings, unless it was to show that there is corroborated history from those times and that is not disputed, and no-one doubts for instance that Caesar fought and wrote about his wars. Even if they do doubt such a thing, a religion was not started in his name and no faith beliefs are required in that case.

You quote dates and the earliest in AD is 96 AD. Bearing in mind the few people who could read or write, and the fact that those writing about this preacher known as Jesus were already convinced of the story being passed down by those who had invested in the new belief, it is not surprising that  the assertions made in some were biased.
By the time other writings appear, however minimal, well over a century had passed and you have only to think of the difference in life from just 100 years ago to consider how information would have changed. Nowadays we are morelikely to have correct information, but it is not guaranteed.
 

So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history.  Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales?  Well that is your call

I see bluehillside has read and responded to your post and thaty you use the phrase, ‘with the greatest of ease’. Please elaborate.

Oh, and I repeat my original question. Can you cite an objective fact about Christ?

[Dicky Underpants]

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect.  The two well-known manuscripts; the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are dated at around 350 AD.  However, there are considerable numbers of fragments of copies of the NT books dated in the period AD 100 – AD 200.  An example is a fragment of John’s Gospel, which was and I presume still is held in the John Rylands Library, Manchester.  This is dated circa AD 130, indicating that the fourth Gospel was already in circulation in Egypt by then, strong support for an early date for its writing.  And there are many other examples.

The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri consists of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament writings.  One of these containing the four Gospels and Acts belongs to the first half of the third century, while another containing Paul’s letters to churches and Hebrews dates at around 200 AD.

Another example is some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts at not later than AD 150 which contains paraphrases of several of the accounts found in the four Gospels.
 
Attestation of another kind is provided by quotations from the NT in many early writings.  The letter sent by Clement, bishop of Rome about AD 96 to the Corinthian church contains quotations from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter.  In letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch as he journeyed to his martyrdom in AD 115 there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.  Polycarp, the last living linked to the Apostles, in a letter to the Philippians c 120 AD quotes from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians,1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John.

So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history.  Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales?  Well that is your call

That there may be Christian manuscripts more ancient than many secular manuscripts is hardly significant, since most of the ancient manuscripts of Europe were preserved by the Christian Church in any case. The fact that we have a few manuscripts from a century or so after Christ does nothing to invalidate Susan's point about objective facts, nor blue's about moving from what a manuscript says to belief in the supernatural claims it makes.

However, your belief is based on even more shifting sands than this, since you base your belief on a canon and accepted text which only arrived on the scene fairly late. The first mention of a canon of scripture which you hold to be 'inerrant' is that formed by Athanasius in the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus (which you cite) contains the long scripture "The Shepherd of Hermas", no longer considered to be canonical. Yet it was once. Whence your source of divine truth? On a collection of writings that have happened in recent times to have been bound together between two covers?

In your belief in the inerrancy of scripture, have you even considered the fact that the early manuscripts were written in one case only, with no punctuation and no space between the letters?

Let me give you an instance of the problem in English:

lastnightisawabundanceonthetable.

Well, did I see 'abundance on the table' - or did I see 'a bun dance on the table'? Given the Christian propensity to believe in supernatural events, I suppose the latter might be a distinct possibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Some got there before me very competently in his Reply 177.

Yes he is rather a Bluehillside mini me isn't he....and comes out with the same poor arguments.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a sort of never mind the truth, feel the weight approach.

So that leads to  an explanation that I used some time ago:

Do I think that Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? Almost certainly and there isn't just documents that cover this and to pretend that it is would  be dishonest. (I'm looking at you, Alpha Course!!)


Do I think Jc crossed the Rubicon and said 'whoops, there go the dice!'. Deeply cynical, reads like propaganda.

Do I think he was descended from Venus?  Er no.

[DaveM]

However, your belief is based on even more shifting sands than this, since you base your belief on a canon and accepted text which only arrived on the scene fairly late. The first mention of a canon of scripture which you hold to be 'inerrant' is that formed by Athanasius in the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus (which you cite) contains the long scripture "The Shepherd of Hermas", no longer considered to be canonical. Yet it was once. Whence your source of divine truth? On a collection of writings that have happened in recent times to have been bound together between two covers?

I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture.  You might learn a thing or two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes he is rather a Bluehillside mini me isn't he....and comes out with the same poor arguments.

Presumably after all these years of ducking and diving you'll be along soon then to demonstrate that one of those arguments is "poor"?

Can't wait!

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture.  You might learn a thing or two.

Just to follow up on Susan's point, as you don't seem to be one of the knuckle draggers here I'd be genuinely interested to know how you "easily" jump from, "it was written down" to "that means the accounts of supernatural events are true", especially as there are countless written accounts of miracles from other faiths that you don't think to be true.

[Nearly Sane]

DaveM,

Just to follow up on Susan's point, as you don't seem to be one of the knuckle draggers here I'd be genuinely interested to know how you "easily" jump from, "it was written down" to "that means the accounts of supernatural events are true", especially as there are countless written accounts of miracles from other faiths that you don't think to be true.

There are no knuckle draggers here, only people massaging their hands with the pavement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There are no knuckle draggers here, only people massaging their hands with the pavement.

As the man with a dicky back said after a visit to the chiropractor, I stand corrected 

[DaveM]

DaveM,

Yes it does seem strange to me - bizarre even, not least because (presumably) you don't allow the same latitude to supernatural stories from other religious traditions.

Why would say, my writing down, "I saw David Copperfield saw a woman in half and reconnect her today" be a less accurate account of what actually happened for a future reader than the equivalent stories from your choice of texts?

In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section.  Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.

However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.  This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys.  Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.

Finally two comments of a more personal nature.  First to thank you for the kind comments you made in post #156.  Much appreciated.

Second although I have been involved here since the days of the old BBC Board you will see that I am still short of 600 posts in total. This for the simple reason that I do not find much time to participate, despite being fully retired.  I am actively involved in much Christian work.  In addition I live in a most beautiful part of the world with a superb climate and magnificent mountains, beaches, flora and fauna.  My great love is hiking and whenever the opportunity arises, and while I am still able, I head off into the mountains.  So my frequent absences are not from pique or irritation but simply because I am occupied with more important priorities.

With that I will wish you goodnight as it is nearly bedtime here at the southern tip of Africa.       

[Robbie]

God's own country indeed, sounds wonderful.

[Nearly Sane]

Note I did not say that DaveM should be on the FSA but that if he wanted to discuss faith with fellow Christians that was the place to do it, and that challenge from anyone is allowed and fine on The Christian Topic.

[jeremyp]

Do I think that Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? Almost certainly

You almost certainly think Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? I would have thought if anybody was certain of what you think, it would be you

Anyway, the title of first Roman Emperor is normally attributed to Caesar's successor: Augustus.

[jeremyp]

However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.

This is absolutely false. For example, some of the events of Julius Caesar's life (to borrow Nearly Sane's example) are attested by multiple contemporary sources. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings but writings by others including Cicero who was his political enemy. We even know what he looked like from near contemporary busts and coins that were struck while he was running Rome.

Evidence for the NT events doesn't even come close.

[Nearly Sane]

You almost certainly think Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? I would have thought if anybody was certain of what you think, it would be you

Anyway, the title of first Roman Emperor is normally attributed to Caesar's successor: Augustus.

Imperator is nor Emperor

[jeremyp]

Imperator is nor Emperor

Yes it is. However, I concede that in the time of Julius Caesar it meant something else and he was given that title in 60 BCE.

Have you decided whether you are certain of your thoughts yet?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is. However, I concede that in the time of Julius Caesar it meant something else and he was given that title in 60 BCE.

Have you decided whether you are certain of your thoughts yet?

And I would concede that by the time he was Imperator for life then it is so close to the basis for Octavian's ascension that it is difficult to see any difference.

The lack of certainty is simply the idea that we can be certain of nothing absolutely. The almost certain is about as close as I think we can be in on history. It means it would be bizarre to disagree.

[Gordon]

In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section.  Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.

That sounds like you'd prefer to discuss the miracle/supernatural claims in the Bible with those who already believe these claims to be true - thus avoiding challenges to these claims that would be disallowed in FSA..

However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.

Not sure about that, and anyway it isn't the 'normal' events that are significant though, is it? Even if these events were true they are trivially true: to extrapolate from these 'normal' Biblical events being true to presuming that the miracle/supernatural ones are also true by association isn't justified: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and all that entails.

This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys.  Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.

The NT accounts are primarily anecdotal, of uncertain provenance, seemingly contain the risks of mistakes or lies or propaganda that you guys seem reluctant to acknowledge and have little or no non-Biblical corroboration. So, I suspect your 'confidence' is largely due to your confirmation bias.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably after all these years of ducking and diving you'll be along soon then to demonstrate that one of those arguments is "poor"?

Can't wait!

Where to start. He and you missed the point of my post. Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.
He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions. I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.
He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.
There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.

[SusanDoris]

This is absolutely false. For example, some of the events of Julius Caesar's life (to borrow Nearly Sane's example) are attested by multiple contemporary sources. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings but writings by others including Cicero who was his political enemy. We even know what he looked like from near contemporary busts and coins that were struck while he was running Rome.

Evidence for the NT events doesn't even come close.

Hear, hear!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings

But under the practice of historical analysis operated by many atheists, own writings must be viewed with suspicion and any histories written after the event must be discarded.

Also of course Cicero's writing supports the existence of Caeser ........they are both Romans...................

Of course the above fallacies wouldn't be my approach. But it does outline that atheists ought to examine what ancient writings they are prepared to accept and why.