Why the Religious Will Perish with the Unbelievers

[jsanford108]

I suspect that they are all Catholics.

Berlinski: Secular Jew.
Hoffmeier: Unsure.
Hunt: Atheist.
Spielvogel: Unsure (definitely not Catholic).

Josephus: Pagan.
Luis De Granada: Catholic.
Tertullian: Catholic, Heretic.

Hahn, Ray, Staples: Catholic.

 

[jsanford108]

Yes, those last three are Catholic apologists. They would call themselves scholars but their traditional Catholic bias means you have to double-check every claim against those who oppose their views.

Stuart

Do you not do that for every source? I do. It is what is intellectually honest and unbiased.

 

[God's Truth]

Scholars? Who cares about that? The truth is hidden from them, according to God.

 

[jsanford108]

And which of the points made by the authors in this list will you be raising in support of your arguments? And how will corroborating, independent evidence match those claims?

Stuart

These are all sources for my historical points. Corroborating evidence will match my claims, due to two of those sources being collegiate accepted history text books.

Hoffmeier is a scholar, archaeologist, etc. He has lead and been in charge of several excavations. He is considered a reputable and credible historian, commonly referenced by Discovery, National Geographic, etc.

Berlinski is a credible source, as well. Sure, atheists dismiss him as being "disproved," yet there is never evidence that supports these claims. Berlinski is more mathemetician than anything else.

Josephus is a pagan, attesting to the existence of Christ. Tertullian is an early Christian, who had disagreements with the Church.

Luis de Granada is a historian. Yes, a friar. But most of the historians of his day were religious.

The Various Catholic Scholars are all highly educated, and have not put forth historical claims that have been disproved by historical evidence.

 

[jsanford108]

Well, does it help if I rephrase my assumption as "2. I assume that my senses do not deceive me"? That's not far off what I mean. You must appreciate that you cannot use your senses to confirm that they are not being deceived. And you must know examples of when each of your senses have deceived you, mainly because of the incorrect modelling done by the brain on the data fed in from the sense organs.

I agree.

Stuu: You can't have 'causes' if time doesn't exist yet...

Sorry, but it's true.

Why? Can you provide a source that proves that cause is dependent upon time?

Agree. You seem to be doing exactly this.

Is this a comeback? "I know you are but what am I?" Come on, man.

You haven't yet posted anything that a real historian would recognise as valid.

Interesting, since my sources are history text books, scholars who are utilized by National Geographic, Discovery, BBC, etc.

So, since my evidence is accepted, does that not render this claim of yours false? (This is rhetorical; of course it does)

The oldest version is from the Fourth Century CE, and by that time onwards you get variations in different versions that arise from copying errors. So then if you take all the bits that are in Greek, and the bits in Aramaic, and the bits in Hebrew, and put them all together to find the common language, why is the consensus of the scholars doing this work that the original was written in Greek? That is entirely inconsistent with the author being who you seem to be claiming it was.

Can you provide a source that makes this claim? The only "whole" manuscript we have, is in Greek. However, scholars claim that it is not the original, only a transcribed copy. As for the fragments, written in Aramaic, scholars agree that these fragments are from original copies.

No, I expect evidence not assertion. You are just presenting the traditional view as assertion.

Right. Except that my assertions are found as historically accurate. Found in history. Found in reality.

Go ahead. Check my sources.

Sorry, it's not ad hominem because I wasn't using it as an argument against your claim, it was just an observation. On the other hand, you are using a strawman argument, because I didn't make any claims of higher intellect, I didn't deny anything in particular, and I didn't say that you are any kind of loon, if you care to read those 10 words above.

False. It is ad hominem when you claim that a person is utilizing an argument/claim that they are not (in this case, the claim of me using a strawman) as a means of showing that the person is being intellectually dishonest. Strawman is when you set up a false conclusion or claim, then knock it down. I never did that. But, you use that as a fulcrum for claims of me asserting traditional views, false evidence, etc., without ever giving examples of such.

Granted, on some claims of evidence, you just dismiss it as being false or disproved in some fashion, yet failing to provide any details in support of these dismissions.

You don't know what you are talking about, do you.

This is that attack of character. An excellent example. Claim that I do not know what I am talking about, yet never provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, ad hominem.

Well, don't just tease us. Tell us exactly what helpful input Josephus has, and what can be read from it, and do the same for Lucian.

I did. But, I shall again.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared." (Source: Josephus, Antiquities)

Hearsay added in the Second Century by zealots with a motive is not evidence. I hope, when you give your dissertation on Josephus you mention the fact that some of his writing was dishonestly altered by early christians. That is enough evidence on its own to establish motive to rewrite history in favour of a Jesus myth, and therefore to continue to be cautious about any claims made by early christians.

Do you have proofs of hearsay? Do you have proofs of Josephus writings, specifically Antiquities, being altered?

Hold yourself to the same standard you are holding to me. I have not documented my sources alongside my claims, as I would a dissertation. The fault there is my own. But I did not figure in going into such realms of proof. Yet, when challenged, I am honest enough to rise to it. If I question someone's evidence, I usually can at least suggest where my aggravating evidence comes from.

Probably just addiction to Answers in Genesis.

At least we agree on 6days.

Thank you for the link. That page has this:

The Herodian dynasty began with Herod the Great, who assumed the throne of Judea, with Roman support, bringing down the century long Hasmonean Kingdom. His kingdom lasted until his death in 4 BCE

Then if you go to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius you get this:

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE

It then goes on to say:

The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation has been put forward to resolve the contradiction,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.

So can you fix the historical error in the gospels?

But there is aggravating evidence, which points to Herod's son assuming rule and conducting a census (source: Making of the West). After all, Herod's ruling sons called themselves "Herod."

So, fixing the gospel accounts in unnecessary, when there is evidence that suggests that the historian, Luke, did an adequate job of accurately describing the events of the census.

Yep, I think it is best for you that you don't further comment on ID. Unless you do some more reading. But you will only be disappointed by all kinds of creationism, it's just telling lies for a god.

I won't comment on ID, as it leads off topic. I don't agree with 99% of creationism theories, as they ignore natural evidence.

I read the Wikipedia page on Berlinski, having heard his name quite a few years ago. Looks like he is a fan of a handful of disproved canards of creationism.

Like what? And how were they disproved? Just saying they are does not make them so.

Yep, I did that at school. So I might be able to understand a devastating statistical argument against evolution by natural selection of you put one up. If it is the one I think you have in mind, then I wouldn't bother, but by all means go ahead if you wish.

I was referencing the statistical calculations for the number of genetic and physical changes that a single species would have to undergo to transition from an aerobic land species to an aerobic aquatic species. Such calculations deem it impossible for such changes to occur successfully, given even the most liberal of timelines for the age of the earth.

Carl Linnaeus' system is the one still used for classification. Like most scientists of the 18th Century he defaulted to creationism, so it is not necessary to have Darwin's theory to classify species. But I agree with your point, that in order for your state or country not to be a laughing stock, and to produce graduates from schools and colleges who can work meaningfully in the biological sciences, then indeed it is necessary to teach evolution. It is the central organising principle of all biology.

Another agreement. This is all factual. And I personally use and like the taxonomy system that science uses.

If you think evolution by natural selection is wrong, then because it is a proper scientific theory all you will need is evidence that disproves it. Do you have any?

Do you want to go down this road? If so, I will provide the evidence, with sources, in my reply.

Creationists have been trying and failing since 1859 to actually disprove evolution by natural selection. It is one of the longest standing and most successful theories in all of science; chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology have all been completely revolutionised since then. The theory of natural selection is surprisingly robust and remains the best explanation for the variety of life on earth.

I disagree. But again, if you want my evidence, I will provide it.

Who are you quoting there? You can't make that claim for yourself because you don't understand what the evidence was, if your previous writing is anything to go on.

It was a quote of emphasis, not a direct or personal quote.

If I am going to be honest, I am reaching my threshold for this conversation. I have presented evidence, sources, etc. only to have you just dismiss them as "disproved" or faulty in some capacity. This is the common tactic of a person who does not want to accept credible evidence that disproves their position.

Anytime you have provided a source, I looked at it. I read it. I examined credentials. I compared it with parallel, mitigating, and aggravating sources, to check for authentic historical accuracy. This is just my personal habit that was developed in my educational career. The purpose of this was to always be unbiased and skeptical when reviewing evidence.

Yet time and again, you simply dismiss me as "not knowing what I am talking about." You propose that I am simply making conjecture, based on my traditional view and bias. You do this despite historical sources supporting my claims. My claims are made based on such sources and evidence. This is why we agree on people like 6days, who just spout their ideas, ignoring easily acquired evidence.

If you want to continue, for instance, with the evolution argument, I will. But as far as the historical evidence of Christ, the Bible, etc. I have provided my proof. If you want to ignore factual evidence, you have that right. While I have not exhausted my sources and research, I have just seen a pattern in your responses that shows an immediate dismissal of any claim or proof that goes against your personal bias.

Best of luck, friend.

 

[Robert Pate]

There is a lot to be said for child like faith in Christ and his Gospel and the belief that the Bible is the word of God.

"Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein" Mark 10:15.

 

[beloved57]

There is a lot to be said for child like faith in Christ and his Gospel and the belief that the Bible is the word of God.

"Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein" Mark 10:15.

Child Like Faith in Christ ? Why you dont believe His Blood saved them it was shed for ! Thats unbelief !

 

[Stuu]

Do you not do that for every source? I do. It is what is intellectually honest and unbiased.

I do. Do they?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

These are all sources for my historical points. Corroborating evidence will match my claims, due to two of those sources being collegiate accepted history text books.

Hoffmeier is a scholar, archaeologist, etc. He has lead and been in charge of several excavations. He is considered a reputable and credible historian, commonly referenced by Discovery, National Geographic, etc.

Berlinski is a credible source, as well. Sure, atheists dismiss him as being "disproved," yet there is never evidence that supports these claims. Berlinski is more mathemetician than anything else.

Josephus is a pagan, attesting to the existence of Christ. Tertullian is an early Christian, who had disagreements with the Church.

Luis de Granada is a historian. Yes, a friar. But most of the historians of his day were religious.

The Various Catholic Scholars are all highly educated, and have not put forth historical claims that have been disproved by historical evidence.

They are irrelevant, until you state what page of what book each citation is on, so other can check what you mean.

All you have here is one big fallacy of the appeal to authority, and even then we don't know what you are actually claiming.

Stuart

 

[Robert Pate]

Child Like Faith in Christ ? Why you dont believe His Blood saved them it was shed for ! Thats unbelief !

You don't have child like faith in Christ and his Gospel. You have faith in a heretic.

 

[jsanford108]

They are irrelevant, until you state what page of what book each citation is on, so other can check what you mean.

All you have here is one big fallacy of the appeal to authority, and even then we don't know what you are actually claiming.

Stuart

Point taken on citation. Most on TOL will meet check such sources, thus, my lack of initiative in providing exact correct citations. Apologies.

As for the fallacy to authority, I would say that is a false application. I am not making an appeal to authority. One could make a very thin, flimsy argument that I am making an appeal to my sources' authority; but then any source provided by myself or you can then be dismissed as appealing to authority.

The claim that I am making by defending my sources is that they are credible sources. My reliance being more on non-religious sources (quality) should make my claims even more solid. Yes, I have a higher quantity of religious sources, but I used them the least. Most of my historical claims are sources from the history texts.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[beloved57]

You don't have child like faith in Christ and his Gospel. You have faith in a heretic.

Your false savior is the will of man.

 

[Stuu]

Why? Can you provide a source that proves that cause is dependent upon time?

What would you say the word 'cause' means, and what do you think its relationship is to the direction of time, as part of three space-time coordinates? That is what we are discussing.

Interesting, since my sources are history text books, scholars who are utilized by National Geographic, Discovery, BBC, etc.

Sure, whatever. Here is how the Holy Wikipedia cites references:

William A. Herzog. Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pp. 1–6

Journals of historical research will have a similar format. But you haven't even cited references. You haven't said which point is found in which book. It's all the appeal to the authority of individual writers, when what we are looking for is scholarly consensus. So you need references that are reviews of the range of conclusions obtained by those who know what they are doing, and that's going to be more credible if the authors are not Catholic apologists, but academics with every motive to be unbiased, and if those authors are surveying the field of opinions and weighting them with justification.

You could use online sources, of course, and I hope you have noted that I have linked to sources online. But you did claim the knowledge was in books. So, it's a bit harder, but give us the page numbers if you are going to do that.

The only "whole" manuscript we have, is in Greek. However, scholars claim that it is not the original, only a transcribed copy. As for the fragments, written in Aramaic, scholars agree that these fragments are from original copies.

"The tradition about Matthew is even less fruitful, since the two things that Papias tells us are that (a) Matthew's book comprised only "sayings" of Jesus—whereas our Matthew contains a lot more than that—and (b) it was written in Hebrew. On this latter point, though, New Testament specialists are unified: the Gospel of Matthew that we have was originally written in Greek. Papias does not appear, therefore, to be referring to this book."

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3, p.43

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared." (Source: Josephus, Antiquities)

Very glad you mentioned Josephus. The first, obvious point is that Josephus was not an eyewitness of Jesus. He lived from 37CE to 100CE. The second is that 'He was the Christ' are not the words of Josephus.

"Josephus the Jewish historian in his Jewish Antiquities (written in the 90s) refers to Jesus twice. The first passage has clearly been subject to Christian redaction, but there is a broad consensus that Josephus wrote something like the following:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling
deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he
gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin.
And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among
us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not
cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after
him) has not died out (Ant. 18.63-64).

The second passage is briefer and presumably alludes back to the earlier passage. It is an account of the summary execution of James (in 62 CE), who is described as 'the brother of Jesus who is called Messiah' (Ant. 20.200). Few have doubted that it came from Josephus' pen."

Dunn, James (2003). Jesus remembered. ISBN 0-8028-3931-2.p.141

So, what should be said about early christians altering the words of a Jew recording history? That muddies the waters, doesn't it. Does any writing by early christians deserve to be taken seriously, if dishonesty is the stock and trade of at least one with enough access to alter the writing of an impartial diarist?

But there is aggravating evidence, which points to Herod's son assuming rule and conducting a census (source: Making of the West). After all, Herod's ruling sons called themselves "Herod."

Well, go ahead then. Cite us a reference, then explain how that helps when it was Quirinius who was appointed by Augustus to take over from an incompetent son of Herod.

I was referencing the statistical calculations for the number of genetic and physical changes that a single species would have to undergo to transition from an aerobic land species to an aerobic aquatic species. Such calculations deem it impossible for such changes to occur successfully, given even the most liberal of timelines for the age of the earth.

Go on then, share your reference with the rest of us. We need a good laugh at this point.

Stuu: If you think evolution by natural selection is wrong, then because it is a proper scientific theory all you will need is evidence that disproves it. Do you have any?

Do you want to go down this road? If so, I will provide the evidence, with sources, in my reply.

You mean you will provide references to properly peer-reviewed science, published in proper journals, that unambiguously disproves evolution by natural selection? Then I will come to Sweden when you are awarded the Nobel Prize, and stand and applaud you.

Yet time and again, you simply dismiss me as "not knowing what I am talking about." You propose that I am simply making conjecture, based on my traditional view and bias. You do this despite historical sources supporting my claims. My claims are made based on such sources and evidence.

I think you took notes at some course run by an apologist type, who wasn't being honest with you. Apologist types are not scholars, and not honest.

But as far as the historical evidence of Christ, the Bible, etc. I have provided my proof.

Still waiting for those page numbers.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Most on TOL will meet check such sources

You reckon? Not on any science topic, they won't.

As for the fallacy to authority, I would say that is a false application. I am not making an appeal to authority. One could make a very thin, flimsy argument that I am making an appeal to my sources' authority; but then any source provided by myself or you can then be dismissed as appealing to authority.

The difference is critical. We might not be scholars, but we can judge motive, and that is only possible when you can read the exact citation, look for the author's own citation of primary sources, decide whether the publishers of those primary sources have robust processes for peer-review, and balance the claim against others who take a contrary view, along with similar critical judgments about them.

The claim that I am making by defending my sources is that they are credible sources.

So now you are appealing to your own authority.

My reliance being more on non-religious sources (quality) should make my claims even more solid. Yes, I have a higher quantity of religious sources, but I used them the least. Most of my historical claims are sources from the history texts.

Your list of Catholic apologists didn't inspire confidence in either me or Robert Pate!

Stuart

 

[Hawkins]

What do you mean by 'confirm'? Are you trying to say that because there can be uncertainty when comparing sources, that therefore you can claim any fantasy story you like and squeeze it into history and be credible?


I recommend you read my post again (the one you quoted), especially the bit where the writer of Luke tells you which census he or she was writing about.

Stuart

There's no fantasy there. Even what you did just yesterday can't be proven. Is it what you did yesterday all fantasies. That's the nature of history instead! So if an eye-witness wrote about what you did, one can choose to believe. By you token of reasoning however, what you did yesterday were all fantasies due to the lack of evidence!

That said. "Quirinius was governor of Syria" is just a common understanding of his military role in the Palestine area by from the Jews perspective, not necessarily his formal title assigned by Rome. The census he did in Luke's story may be the one he launched but cancelled later on. He did another census in a larger scale later on (when he gained the official title of governor which is an administrative role) but not the one mentioned in Luke's story. That's the possibility.

It's instead your fantasy to think that Luke's story contradicts history when such a possibility exists.

 

[Stuu]

There's no fantasy there. Even what you did just yesterday can't be proven. Is it what you did yesterday all fantasies. That's the nature of history instead! So if an eye-witness wrote about what you did, one can choose to believe. By you token of reasoning however, what you did yesterday were all fantasies due to the lack of evidence!

I have plenty of evidence of what I did yesterday. It would be perverse to conclude that I didn't buy the thing I have a receipt for, and I did end up in a photograph taken by someone else whose phone has yesterday's date recorded with it. Of course you can try to assert that the entire universe was created this morning complete with false memories of a past in each of us. That rather does for your Jesus myth though, doesn't it.

That said. "Quirinius was governor of Syria" is just a common understanding of his military role in the Palestine area by from the Jews perspective, not necessarily his formal title assigned by Rome.

Have you actually looked up who Quirinius was, and how he got to be in the position he held?

The census he did in Luke's story may be the one he launched but cancelled later on. He did another census in a larger scale later on (when he gained the official title of governor which is an administrative role) but not the one mentioned in Luke's story. That's the possibility.

It's fatuous nonsense. It's the kind of thing, or so I read in the Holy Wikipedia, that the scholar Géza Vermes called "exegetical acrobatics".

It's instead your fantasy to think that Luke's story contradicts history when such a possibility exists.

But such a possibility only exists in your head, and in the heads of other exegetical acrobats. It didn't actually happen. Of course, you could cite a convincing, balanced, peer-reviewed account of a consensus amongst the scholars who actually know what they are talking about, ie not just you and me. If you are going to make extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

Stuart

 

[jsanford108]

What would you say the word 'cause' means, and what do you think its relationship is to the direction of time, as part of three space-time coordinates? That is what we are discussing.

First, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I use the mobile app a lot, which also explains the errors in my quote formatting, and somehow this post was marked as read.

On to the discussion....

Cause exists outside of time. "Cause" is a non-physical entity. The same as "thought." It describes an existing idea of a "thing," which we all accept to be true.

So what is "cause?" "Cause" is the reason for an action, phenomenon, etc., existing a physical or non-physical.

Sure, whatever. Here is how the Holy Wikipedia cites references:

William A. Herzog. Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 066422

Journals of historical research will have a similar format. But you haven't even cited references. You haven't said which point is found in which book. It's all the appeal to the authority of individual writers, when what we are looking for is scholarly consensus. So you need references that are reviews of the range of conclusions obtained by those who know what they are doing, and that's going to be more credible if the authors are not Catholic apologists, but academics with every motive to be unbiased, and if those authors are surveying the field of opinions and weighting them with justification.

You could use online sources, of course, and I hope you have noted that I have linked to sources online. But you did claim the knowledge was in books. So, it's a bit harder, but give us the page numbers if you are going to do that.

I want to applaud you for proper citation, but this is the first time that you have employed it. Not ascribing this to you, but often in such debates, atheists will cry for sources, while having never provided any themselves. Once provided, the sources are labeled as "proven wrong, incorrect, etc." It is, at least in my limited experience, always the atheist who first cries for sources. You did ask for them, yet, you are the first to ask for page numbers.

What good do page numbers do? Unless you own, or have access to, the exact books I referenced, page numbers are frivolous.

I accepted that your claims derived from your sources were acute to the information contained therein. Up until this point, you have only referenced various studies/research, providing no direct sources (until this post) with accompanying page numbers. But, as I said, I am taking your word. (I would not have done this for various TOL users).

Saying all that, I am going to be honest and say that I did not document exact page numbers. My notes merely cite my sources (which own). And, I am not going to pour through these books to provide numbers that you won't, can't, or both, even look up.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3, p.43

I am very glad you mentioned Ehrman. I was actually going to recommend his book "How Jesus Became God." While I disagree with Ehrman on every level, in both these books, I find them very interesting. Several of your arguments, such as the authorship of the gospels, reminded me of Ehrman.

Ehrman, and subsequently you, propose that the authorship of the Gospels is unknown, correct? And that no one witnessed Christ, in any capacity.
1.) Can you point me to a Gospel manuscript with no author? (Every ancient manuscript we have has an attributed transcriber or hagiographers)

2.) How did all the Churches across the world attribute the exact same authorship to four different works of text, with no disagreement on assumed authorship?

Very glad you mentioned Josephus. The first, obvious point is that Josephus was not an eyewitness of Jesus. He lived from 37CE to 100CE.

No disagreement. Never said he was an eyewitness.

The second is that 'He was the Christ' are not the words of Josephus.

"Josephus the Jewish historian in his Jewish Antiquities (written in the 90s) refers to Jesus twice. The first passage has clearly been subject to Christian redaction, but there is a broad consensus that Josephus wrote something like the following:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling
deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he
gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin.
And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among
us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not
cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after
him) has not died out (Ant. 18.63-64).

The second passage is briefer and presumably alludes back to the earlier passage. It is an account of the summary execution of James (in 62 CE), who is described as 'the brother of Jesus who is called Messiah' (Ant. 20.200). Few have doubted that it came from Josephus' pen."

Dunn, James (2003). Jesus remembered. ISBN 0-8028-3931-2.p.141

Dunn is not a disagreeing with my point. In fact, he is supporting my claim of historical proof for the existence of Christ.

Go on then, share your reference with the rest of us. We need a good laugh at this point.

Stuu: If you think evolution by natural selection is wrong, then because it is a proper scientific theory all you will need is evidence that disproves it. Do you have any?

You mean you will provide references to properly peer-reviewed science, published in proper journals, that unambiguously disproves evolution by natural selection? Then I will come to Sweden when you are awarded the Nobel Prize, and stand and applaud you.

Any source I provide will be dismissed by you, without proofs. As with ID, atheists make arguments, but never give logic and proof, then say "see, it is proven wrong."

I think you took notes at some course run by an apologist type, who wasn't being honest with you. Apologist types are not scholars, and not honest.

This would be a good point, except that my courses were taught by atheists.

Also, to say apologists are not scholars, nor honest, is false, and prejudicial. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist. Does that make him dishonest, lacking scholastic authority? What about Richard Dawkins?

If you argue that apologetics lack scholarship and honesty , then we can consider Hitchens and Dawkins discredited.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Stuu]

First, I apologize for taking so long to respond.

No problem!

Cause exists outside of time. "Cause" is a non-physical entity. The same as "thought." It describes an existing idea of a "thing," which we all accept to be true.

So you mean cause is an abstract noun?

So what is "cause?" "Cause" is the reason for an action, phenomenon, etc., existing a physical or non-physical.

Would you say that a cause could happen after the effect it is causing?

What good do page numbers do? Unless you own, or have access to, the exact books I referenced, page numbers are frivolous.

If you are not going to give the page number because you don't expect that your interlocutor has access to the book, then aren't you just appealing to the authority of the author by mentioning the book at all? The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand if you could establish that a particular author has a reputation for dealing in scholarly consensus and isn't an apologist for example, but on the whole it should be avoided if you want to be credible. The other thing about not giving page numbers is that it suggests you are paraphrasing from memory, rather than quoting or summarising an argument that has actually been made in the book.

Ehrman, and subsequently you, propose that the authorship of the Gospels is unknown, correct? And that no one witnessed Christ, in any capacity.

Possibly he is a leading proponent of that because he has written books along those lines, but you must understand that this is also the consensus of scholars.

1.) Can you point me to a Gospel manuscript with no author? (Every ancient manuscript we have has an attributed transcriber or hagiographers)

The gospels are anonymous. Of course they were written by one or more humans, but we don't know who they were.

2.) How did all the Churches across the world attribute the exact same authorship to four different works of text, with no disagreement on assumed authorship?

Sorry, not with you there. Which four texts are claimed to have the same author?

Dunn is not a disagreeing with my point. In fact, he is supporting my claim of historical proof for the existence of Christ.

So, to be clear, so far we don't have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus? I don't think you are dealing with really strong evidence here, so I wouldn't be as bold to claim 'historical proof'. Josephus is writing hearsay. It may or may not be accurate hearsay, but as we have agreed it is not an eyewitness account so you can only treat it at face value, which is to say that he is reporting what christians claimed, not what he saw himself.

Any source I provide will be dismissed by you, without proofs.

Well, find sources that are more difficult to dismiss, ones that are compelling and would make me look perverse to be denying them.

As with ID, atheists make arguments, but never give logic and proof, then say "see, it is proven wrong."

Not sure what you are claiming there, exactly.

This would be a good point, except that my courses were taught by atheists.

What, based on texts written by Catholic apologists?

Also, to say apologists are not scholars, nor honest, is false, and prejudicial.

Prejudicial is the perfect word for apologists.

Christopher Hitchens is an apologist. Does that make him dishonest, lacking scholastic authority?

He was honest because he was almost uniquely well read, being knowledgable about his own arguments and the objections to them, and because he always gave credit, and frequently named the actual scholars on which he built his arguments.

He particularly respected situations where a person had drawn conclusions that were contrary to their own natural interest. But Hitchens never claimed to be a scholar on the religious topics he argued, and never claimed scholarly authority.

What about Richard Dawkins? If you argue that apologetics lack scholarship and honesty , then we can consider Hitchens and Dawkins discredited.

Dawkins really is a scholar on ethology and evolutionary biology. So he has complete scholarly authority to speak on creationist claims as they relate to natural history, and to claims by creationists about the nature of science. And because the topic of why humans would believe crazy things is still in the realm of biology, it is still within his field, especially when he offers evolutionary arguments for why those crazy ideas survive. In fact he introduced the concept of the meme, the unit of cultural inheritance of ideas, including crazy religious ones.

What authority does he have to criticise the fiction of the Judeo-christian scriptures? Well, what particular authority do you need? Anyone can read the KJV, as he has done, and react to its immorality and absurdity without any particular qualifications. I think the one criticism you might level reasonably is that it's not your particular version of christianity that he criticises; you don't believe all those things he attacks, so you see his arguments as strawmen.

But it is true that everything he attacks is a position of at least some groups of christians, and it's not his fault that chrstianity can't get its story straight. In his work as a professional biologist, if there is a dispute then empirical evidence is used to resolve it whenever possible. In the world of conspiracy theories of what invisible friends do, there is no objective way of arbitrating, which is probably why there are over 41,000 christian denominations in existence currently.

Stuart

 

[jsanford108]

So you mean cause is an abstract noun?

Yes.

Would you say that a cause could happen after the effect it is causing?

There is a logical progression error. "a cause could happen after the effect it is causing?" How could a "cause" cause an effect, but occur after the effect?

If you are not going to give the page number because you don't expect that your interlocutor has access to the book, then aren't you just appealing to the authority of the author by mentioning the book at all? The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand if you could establish that a particular author has a reputation for dealing in scholarly consensus and isn't an apologist for example, but on the whole it should be avoided if you want to be credible. The other thing about not giving page numbers is that it suggests you are paraphrasing from memory, rather than quoting or summarising an argument that has actually been made in the book.

Usually, I provide the quote in quotation marks, followed by the text in parenthesis. Example: "Quotation" (Text, Year). So, while I get your point, neither of us did this until your last post. Thus, employing this agreement of citation, we are kind of starting from scratch. But, I will just assume that all past quotes or references are accurate.

For the sake of continuing, I will use reference notation for scholastic material from here on out.

The gospels are anonymous. Of course they were written by one or more humans, but we don't know who they were.

Do you have evidence of this?

Sorry, not with you there. Which four texts are claimed to have the same author?

I mean the four gospel accounts, not four separate texts. My fault on the lack of clarity.

So, to be clear, so far we don't have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus?

Let us consider history itself. How much do we know about the ancient world that is not based on eyewitness accounts of events/people? After all, records are just a gathering and compiling of eyewitness accounts and testimonies.

Richard Bauckham, a New Testament scholar, says "It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony." (Jesus and Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, p. 5).

I don't think you are dealing with really strong evidence here, so I wouldn't be as bold to claim 'historical proof'. Josephus is writing hearsay. It may or may not be accurate hearsay, but as we have agreed it is not an eyewitness account so you can only treat it at face value, which is to say that he is reporting what christians claimed, not what he saw himself.

Let us return to Ehrman, then. In a Huff Post essay about his book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman says that those who deny Jesus was a real, historical figure is akin to denying the Holocaust, observing that this "unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) perposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead." ("Did Jesus Exist" The Huffington Post, March 20, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html.)

It does seem a little improbable that the exact same figure, performing the exact same miracles, including rising from the dead, occurs in such high numbers. Ehrman goes on to note that few of these mythicists have any training "in ancient history, religion, biblical studies, or any cognate field," and that none teach NT at "any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world." (Ibid). Belief that Jesus didn't exist is simply "so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99% of the real experts." (Ibid).

Prejudicial is the perfect word for apologists.

Do you include Hitchens and Dawkins, as such? After all, despite being "scholars" in their respective fields, they talk extensively on apologetics.

On Hitchens: He was honest because he was almost uniquely well read, being knowledgeable about his own arguments and the objections to them, and because he always gave credit, and frequently named the actual scholars on which he built his arguments.

He particularly respected situations where a person had drawn conclusions that were contrary to their own natural interest. But Hitchens never claimed to be a scholar on the religious topics he argued, and never claimed scholarly authority.

Not true. Was he "scholastic" in his field of study? Well, his field of study is apologetics (with focus on politics, as well)! So, either Hitchens is dishonest, lacking authority, as you say those who study apologetics are, or you are being a hypocrite.

Dawkins really is a scholar on ethology and evolutionary biology. So he has complete scholarly authority to speak on creationist claims as they relate to natural history, and to claims by creationists about the nature of science.

No disagreement there. But, that doesn't make him always correct. Scholars can be, and have been, wrong before.

And because the topic of why humans would believe crazy things is still in the realm of biology, it is still within his field, especially when he offers evolutionary arguments for why those crazy ideas survive.

But, it is outside of his realm to reject religious ideas that do not directly mention biology, by your assertions. And I get your point, I really do. We don't ask Meteorologists for information and theory on Astrophysics. That makes sense. But, the hypocrisy comes in when atheists accept the religious musings of atheist scientists as factual, while rejecting the religious musings of theist scientists.

The issue is when science makes conclusions on the supernatural. Science can only describe natural, by definition.

Anyone can read the KJV, as he has done, and react to its immorality and absurdity without any particular qualifications.

What immorality and absurdity?

Consider, if it is "absurd" because it is supernatural, it cannot be proven, nor disproved, by science.

I think the one criticism you might level reasonably is that it's not your particular version of christianity that he (Dawkins) criticises; you don't believe all those things he attacks, so you see his arguments as strawmen.

That is a difference between myself and other theists. If his argument is against something I don't believe in, then I am usually in agreement with him. So, that would not be a strawman fallacy.

But it is true that everything he attacks is a position of at least some groups of christians, and it's not his fault that chrstianity can't get its story straight.

What is an example of Christianity not being able to get its story straight?

which is probably why there are over 41,000 christian denominations in existence currently.

I, as does logic, points to over 41,000 denominations existing, is the actions of Luther's claim of personal interpretation. Such a claim is no different than modern day ideas of Relativism.

 

[Stuu]

There is a logical progression error. "a cause could happen after the effect it is causing?" How could a "cause" cause an effect, but occur after the effect?

So perhaps you understand the problem of trying to determine a 'cause' of the beginning of the universe. You cannot have a temporally-related cause if time does not exist. You need a different concept. It looks to me like our limited idea of one event setting off a second one is completely inadequate when it comes to Big Bang cosmology.

Stuu: The gospels are anonymous.

Do you have evidence of this?

Obviously the texts don't contain the name of the author, in any of the four cases. So, over to you. What compelling evidence is there for identification of the authors?

Let us consider history itself. How much do we know about the ancient world that is not based on eyewitness accounts of events/people? After all, records are just a gathering and compiling of eyewitness accounts and testimonies. Richard Bauckham, a New Testament scholar, says "It is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony." (Jesus and Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, p. 5).

Yes, but relies in what sense? History is not a collection of testimonies, history is a set of conclusions derived from critical analysis of testimonies, combined with archeological evidence.

Let us return to Ehrman, then. In a Huff Post essay about his book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman says that those who deny Jesus was a real, historical figure is akin to denying the Holocaust...

Yes, 'akin to' in the sense that it denies a reasonable conclusion of the process of the discipline of history, but not identical to, because there are eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust. But you have no disagreement with me on the existence of Jesus.

It does seem a little improbable that the exact same figure, performing the exact same miracles, including rising from the dead, occurs in such high numbers.

Well, what does the scholarly consensus say about what we can know about Jesus? Certainly not miracles, or walking again after execution.

The two events that attain almost universal scholarly agreement are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and execution by crucifixion.

On p.47 of Mark Powell's Jesus As a Figure in History : How Modern Historians View the Man From Galilee he gives the argument that because the ritual of washing sin away from a man is described by christians who believed that man to be sinless, it is contrary to their interest and therefore gains some credibility. Dunn agrees too, that these two events constitute a true consensus.

On p.3 (ibid) Powell makes the following point: With regard to Jesus, the task of defining what constitutes a historical approach can be especially difficult. For one thing, most scholars who study Jesus are likely to have personal investment in the outcome of their work. In itself, this problem is not unique, since historians do not usually study people about whom they care nothing. But with Jesus, the level of investment tends to be especially pronounced.
...which is why individual historians and New Testament scholars are not as good as that thing they call 'scholarly consensus'.

Not true [that Hitchens never claimed scholarly authority].

Well I think you need to cite pretty direct evidence to support that denial.

Was he "scholastic" in his field of study? Well, his field of study is apologetics (with focus on politics, as well)! So, either Hitchens is dishonest, lacking authority, as you say those who study apologetics are, or you are being a hypocrite.

I think you are asserting a lot there that doesn't apply to Hitchens. You can certainly bend the definition of the word 'scholar' to include Hitchens in a general sense. But that isn't how the word is used commonly. It really means someone with a PhD (especially these days), and/or with a reasonably wide reputation for high-quality work that is acknowledged by others in the same field.

Then, what are you saying was his field of study? In the academic sense it was a fairly mediocre degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford, the usual degree of the politician. His occupation was as an author, columnist, essayist, orator, religious and literary critic, social critic, and journalist, and he is internationally known for it. He wrote a biography of Jefferson, but he did not claim to be a scholar on that topic.

There is no sense in which it is reasonable to say 'his field of study is apologetics'. The religious criticism was a fairly late, and incidental tack-on to his career. You don't have to be a scholar to be a critic. I don't think there is any sense in which Hitchens can be said to have 'Scholarly authority', and as I said earlier, he never claimed it, and often denied it.

Stuu: Dawkins really is a scholar on ethology and evolutionary biology

No disagreement there. But, that doesn't make him always correct. Scholars can be, and have been, wrong before.

But science has a means of objective arbitration (as much as we can have such a thing), and he is an advocate of that, and he is open about being happy to be proved wrong by empirical evidence. So being wrong, in itself, is not a problem in science. In fact it happens to scientists very commonly, and being right is quite rare, when it comes to new discovery.

But now I think you are equivocating between the different interests Dawkins pursues. There is still a distinction between being a professional scientist and being an author of books that criticise religion. The only intersection of those is creationism, on which topic he is entirely professionally qualified to comment.

But, the hypocrisy comes in when atheists accept the religious musings of atheist scientists as factual, while rejecting the religious musings of theist scientists. The issue is when science makes conclusions on the supernatural. Science can only describe natural, by definition.

Right, so religious apologists are advocates for particular musings, and atheists are critics of those musings. Neither has a responsibility to finding what is true, in the way that a professional scientists has a kind of social contract to be open about what can be concluded from evidence and what can't. I agree that scientists who try to use their work to establish non-scientific philosophical positions of any disposition aren't being honest about the nature of scientific knowledge.

But as you are doing yourself here, theologians and apologists are often great at defining their god as remaining outside the realm of scientific investigation, which is at best convenient, and at worst extremely hypocritical. How can you muse on a god that is undetectable to the senses or their technological extensions (the tools of science), and still claim to have knowledge about that god?

What immorality and absurdity?

Absurdity: men are not born of only one biological parent; men do not walk on the surface of water; men do not walk after successful execution; donkeys and snakes do not talk.

Immorality: compulsory love on pain of being burned in sulfur is immoral; imposing totalitarian systems of belief is immoral (how many ways are there to god?); being judged by a god that is alleged to have been responsible for perhaps over 20 million human deaths, is immoral; ordering genocide is immoral; vicarious punishment (scapegoating) is immoral. Perhaps your morality is happy with all this.

What is an example of Christianity not being able to get its story straight?

How long have you got? Where to start?

How about that one above: why was Jesus baptised, if Jesus was free of sin?
Was Jesus born in the time of Herod, or was he born in the time of the Census of Quirinius?
Works or faith?
Trinity or not?
Eternal punishment or final destruction?
Can your god be seen?
Who was Joseph's father?
Was Mary a virgin?
How, and when did Judas die?
When did Jesus ascend?

More?

I, as does logic, points to over 41,000 denominations existing, is the actions of Luther's claim of personal interpretation. Such a claim is no different than modern day ideas of Relativism.

Right, but you take my point, there is no objective reference for deciding what should be considered true. Possibly none of it is, except maybe the baptism and the execution.

Stuart