Need some help this Argument. . .

[Guest]

[reply to Steve]

You say -- In assessing you from your writings (which are all that I have to go on), I am actually taking your words more justly at face value than you are doing with the words of the New Testament writers. You have accused them of fabrication—on the basis of nothing that an unbiased man would regard as evidence that they have fabricated anything at all. Your case would be thrown out of a court of law, since actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused is generally required.

Really? Please cite me where I said the New Testament writers fabricated something. This is very telling. To contrive a rebuttal, you apparently devise misrepresentations of what I said, then to use those misrepresentations to contrive absurb and groundless ad hominem attacks on my character. What it does is speaks volumes of your character, integrity and honesty, or lack thereof.




You say -- My assessment of your honesty and your narrowness of research was drawn from your direct statements, in which an entirely gratuitous skepticism prevails, without objective warrant—a skepticism which, if applied to other areas of inquiry, would leave you incapable of knowing much of anything other than what you prefer to believe.

Thanks for proving my earlier assessment. About the only thing that can honestly be said about me is I am skeptical and use critical thinking in approaching any ancient legends. However, you interpolate and exagerate that, along with devising other 'assesments' such as accusations about fabrication, to fit your preconceived prejudices against anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the bible. From this, my initial appraisal appears quite accurate.





You say -- Your statements about my desire to harmonize all my positions with some late-dated orthodoxy—and even with the assumption that the New Testament writings are the inerrant word of God—was not referencing any intimation made on my part that the documents are inerrant—nor did I appeal to any orthodox authority. I have simply looked at the New Testament material and assessed it as I would assess any other. You have found nothing beyond this in in my correspondence.

But you already have many posts on this board from which this appraisal is plainly evident. Are you saying my assessment is wrong?





You say -- I was able to point out the specific cases of irresponsible handling in your statements before accusing you.

You did nothing of the sort. What you did was to deceitfully mischaracterize and exagerate what was stated in a lame attempt to fabricate a fallacious, ad hominem attack.




You say -- Thus, your response was not "in kind."

No, it was actually more benign and considerate of you. I did not fabricate lies about what you said.




You say -- If assessing our arguments thus far, an unbiased observer would, I think, say that I have not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the gospels are historically accurate (it has not been my task to do so, nor is it my responsibility to do so), and, likewise, that you certainly have provided no solid evidence that they are not reliable.

What you just did is use the "no true scotsman" fallacy, as labelled by Anthony Flew. As you've demonstrated a penchant for leaping to conclusions about others based on devised evidence, your ability and integrity for speaking on behalf of an unbiased observer is rather questionable.




You say -- Such a position allows one to take the evidence in the Roman historians and in Josephus and the Talmud at face value (omitting, for the sake of argument, the evidence from Josephus' disputed paragraph)

Of course you would need to omit that evidence. lol. It is only by a superficial reading without any critical analysis that one can jump to the conclusion that these non-christian sources appear to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. For Josephus, even conservative christian historians recognize the TF was interpolated, probably around Eusebius's time. There is further evidence that it may be a total fabrication. But, of course, since it is inconsistent with your dogmatic preconceived interpreation on the historicity of Jesus, you must omit that evidence. Even if part of it is authentic to Josephus, he borrowed from other accounts for events prior to ~55 CE. A statistically significant correlation has been found between the text of the TF and the Emmaus Narrative in Luke, indicating Josephus probably used a christian source for the TF. Thus, it would not provide independent corobboration.

As to the Talmud, if you are referring to those Yeshu's, such as ben Stada and ben Panteira, you again should delve deeper than just the face value you think you see. If you read it more than just superficially, you may discover that these stories are set during the reign of Alexander Janneus, more than a century before the gospel stories. Other Yeshu stories are set over a century after.




You say -- If we accept this, we can then accept the testimony of the church fathers, many of whom were martyred for believing that these things happened within living memory of people whom they knew personally.

One of the earliest martyred church fathers was Ignatius. In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, he warns of heretics who denied Jesus's physical existance (deny that he was of the flesh). Yet, Ignatius never relies on this argument of yours. He never says he knew anyone who knew Jesus personally.




You say -- We can then present a simple and coherent explanation of the phenomenon of Christianity that had such pervasive influence throughout the Roman Empire at least as early as twenty years after the alleged time of "the Jesus character's" death.

If you're referring to around the 5th decade, the evidence of a "pervasive influence throughout the Roman Empire" comprises, what, Paul's letters to about a half-dozen christian missions? You again show your disposition for exaggeration. In addition, there is nothing in Paul's letters indicating they were written just a few decades after Jesus's death.




You say -- We can give a sensible reason why so many of His local contemporaries either believed the written and preached accounts of His life—or at least never made any recorded protests that the records were inaccurate.

This time, you committed the fallacy of begging the question. You assume the gospels existed and were available in Jerusalem contemporaneously, and then argue that since no one protested, that assumption must be true. Please show me evidence that any resident of Jerusalem in the mid first century had read or heard any account of a Jesus according to the gospels which even could have been disputed. The Church fathers don't even mention the gospels until well into the 2nd century.

Also, please explain why Philo, who wrote both of Pilate's mistreatment of Jews in Jerusalem, as well as his syncretion of the Logos, never mentioned Jesus or any accounts of him, even though the Jesus of the Gospels would have been the validation of theory of the Logos.




You say -- We can make sense of the fact that secular research has again and again proven Luke's critics wrong in their earlier assertions that he had made things up, in which he was subsequently vindicated by fuller archaeological discoveries.

Old news, Steve. Today biblical historians are more concerned with the concordance between Luke-Acts and Josephus's accounts, to the extent they are considered not independent. Steve Mason has made a fairly good case that Luke used Josephus's account. That wouldn't make Acts inaccurate, but it would put its date of authorship almost into the 2nd century.



You say -- In other words, we can just let the evidence speak without feeling we have to desperately find imaginary errors in every Christian document, or have to debunk every early reference in secular historians that seems to confirm what the Christian story claims.

Given your disposition for accepting things at face value without critical analysis, this is hardly surprising. But, by your logic, why shouldn't I accept at face value the zoroastrian avestas, and believe in Mithra, or accept accept at face value the vedas, and believe in Lord Krishna?




You say -- To claim that Jesus never existed is, in my judgment, the most anti-intellectual position on the subject available. To say that He really did exist, but was not very much like what all the earliest Chrtistians believed Him to have been, is scarcely more intellectually respectable (except among determined idealogues, who simply have agreed to respect each other's theories without real proof).

Of course you'd feel that way, seeing as how you feel that any sort of doubt or questioning of the literal interpretation is equivalent to dishonesty. Based on your past posts, your competency for judging what is "intellectually respectable" is highly questionable.



You say -- To deny that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is to set oneself against all relevant historical records, whether Roman, Jewish or Christian.

Other than the christian gospels, what records independently attest to Jesus's crucifixion under Pilate?



You say -- To suggest that He is still in His grave is a theory that allows no explanation for the belief of the early Christians that He was no longer in there—and for the inability of their opponents to prove them wrong.

Your point is moot, for I never said he was in the grave to begin with.



You say -- I guess my question to you, Jackal, is really, what if you are wrong? Do you ever consider this possibility? Does it even matter to you, or is this just an intellectual low-stakes game for you? If God (by the slightest chance) does exist and has visited His creation in the person of the man Jesus, and you have determined to reject this upon the flimsy arguments you have presented here, or upon the imaginary authority of some amorphous group called "the majority of critical scholars"—what have you gained, and what have you lost?

Good ole' Pascal's Wager. My question to you is the same -- what if you're wrong, and after death you come face to face with Allah, or Osiris, or Mithra or Yama, or the god of any other estological religion? How will you explain your worship of a false god?



You say -- Since those upon whose authority you are staking everything are a relative minority of thinking academics (considering all those who have lived and held some informed opinion or other about these matters) you are hanging a great deal of weight on a very slender branch.

Unlike you, I don't accept any authority uncritically. My present opinions are based on review and analysis of all sides, and balancing the weight of the evidence and arguments.




You say -- Do you realize that saying that "the majority of critical scholars" reject the Christian records is little else than saying "the majority of non-Christian scholars reject Christianity." No surprises there.

No, it is not the same. What you implicitly assume is that these scholars, in critically analyzing the bible, have some sort of prejudice against christianity. Analyzing the bible outside the orthodox dogma does not involve any a priori prejudice against christianity, any more than studying and analyzing ancient greek mythology infers some prejudice against Greeks.




You say -- That's why I would urge you to worry less about what one camp of "scholars" (or ideologues) believe, and put on your thinking cap—the same one you would wear if you were examining the evidence for a subject about which you were dispassionate—and look at the actual evidence without bias. If you can do this and come out still thinking that the arguments you have presented have merit, then I must leave you to your conclusions...and thank whatever Powers that be that I was given the grace of a greater objectivity.

Funny, I was going to suggest the same to you.

[Guest]

[reply to JC]

You say -- What I'm encountering more and more are individuals like this who lean heavily on "scholarship" but do so at the expense of common sense. Steve summed it up pretty well by indicating that it is a presupposition against the supernatural that undergirds all of the liberal scholarship I've seen.

If belief in supernatural events is "common sense", then there should be plentiful examples of such which are easily and unequivocably verifiable. Please provide one.



You say -- Who is more open minded, the person who believes supernatural events could occur or those who claim no such things are possible right from the outset?

Beginning with Isaac Newton, observed phenomenon have been continually explained by naturalistic processes and laws. Even where a natural explanation has not yet been developed (abiogenesis), nothing has shown that such is impossible by natural processes. While I leave the possibility open, extraordinary explanations require extraordinary proof. So far I haven't seen any, which justifies any initial skepticism against a supernatural cause.



You say -- I'm often amazed how such well read individuals can make such basic mistakes in their thinking.

That begs the question of whether they have committed a mistake, or rather that they are just a little less gullible.



You say -- Steve also brought up an interesting point that you don't hear much. If there's a 50% chance the gospel writers were telling the truth and a 50% chance they were not, what would cause someone to lean in one direction or the other? It seems that the heart of the individual comes into question here. How could it not? Skeptics can claim intellectual honesty all they like, but if equally compelling arguments can be demonstrated from both sides of an issue, only a person's preference could sway an undecided mind.

That argument presumes an equal probability of the alternate hypothesis. It also presumes that each gospel writer intended for the gospels to be factually accurate historical accounts. Only after delving below the surface do historians find evidence for reasonably inferring, with more than 50% probability, that the gospels are not factual, historical accounts.






You say -- Perhaps Jakal and others like him/her find their fulfillment in being labeled "intellectuals" by their peers but I don't want to be uncharitable by claiming to know their motives.

If that were, in fact, my motive, I certainly came to the wrong place for that. lol.



You say -- What I do know is that a few decades from now every one of us will be dead. That's an objective fact that skeptics can agree with us on, which is why it baffles me that anyone would be so cavalier in their thinking as to consider this a light matter, or something of mere entertainment.

Not to speak for others, I have taken it seriously, very seriously. But, I accept the consequences of my conclusions, and move on from there to live my life.




You say -- If the gospel writers were telling the truth, then a time will come when each person will be judged by the creator of the universe by the one called Christ.

Since you are easily able to rely on the possibility of divine revelation to accept the gospels, then how do you know you're right? How do you know you won't come fact to face with Allah, since the qu'ran is alleged to be divinely inspired? What if the judge is Mithra, as the divinely inspired zoroasterian avestas predict, or Yama, as the divinely inspired Hindu vedas predict, or Osiris, as predicted by the inspired Egyptian writings?




You say -- If that POSSIBILITY doesn't at least put a stone in your shoe, then the psalmist was correct in declaring: "a fool says in his heart, there is no God."

But then God would be punishing me for the very reasoning process and abilities that he instilled in me. Maybe this is what led Martin Luther to supposedly say, "To be a Christian you must pluck out the eye of reason".

[Guest]

Hello again Jackal. I'm glad you're back.

It's obvious that you don't believe in Christ, but do you mind if I ask you what it is you do believe? How would you classify yourself? (atheist, deist, agnostic, jew, muslim, new age, etc).

I'm just curious because in all you have posted, it really doesn't seem to amount to much more than:

Gen 3:1
"Has God indeed said,
NKJV

I see your attempt to cast doubt on the validity of Christianity, but I have yet to see you offer up what you believe the ultimate truth to be.

Do you mind if I ask? And what it is that convinces you of your beliefs?

I honestly would like to know.

Thanks.

[Guest]

I am very busy today, but I am reserving this parking spot. I'll get back to it shortly.

[_JC]

Jackal, I'm also curious about your own beliefs. Now, regarding your questions to me, I'll give you my thoughts. I use the term "common sense" to refer to those things which should be easily recognizable as long as one isn't blinded by irrational skepticism. For example, let's take a known law and apply it to a factual statement. First, the law of causation states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Second, intelligence exits (otherwise, you couldn't ponder my rebuttal). If the first is true, then the second needs a cause. How, then, can intelligence come from non-intellegence? Abiogenesis? Hmm... that wouldn't seem to work since intelligence isn't tangible matter. It would seem, then, that only an original, intelligent first source could spawn that non-physical attribute. The fact that we can even debate this proves an intelligent source exists.

Your comment about Newton was a bit odd since he believed in the supernatural (though you could argue the man wasn't a Christian). Your quote from Luther seems out of place too, since all of us here would certainly disagree with him, to an extent. That's the funny thing about the reformation... we have the liberty to disagree on many things. But regardless, the point you're trying to make here, I think, has some merit. No one can absolutely prove God's existance or the resurrection of Christ so if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it by doing mental gymnastics.

You also asked Steve and I to express why we are so sure we're correct and won't end up facing All'ah or another deity. I can't speak for Steve but I'll give you my thoughts. Since my answer to this could easily fill a book, I'll try to be more condensed. If what Jesus taught was actually true, then everything that is contrary to it is false. You're aware of the law of non-contradiction so you know how that applies here. But that presupposes that the teachings ascribed to Jesus in scripture are actually true. I believe they are and this is based on a number or arguments you probably know quite well but reject for your own reasons.

I would also say that if you believe Christians are more gullible than skeptics then you haven't met enough Christians (or skeptics). Both Christians and skeptics can be painfully gullible at times. I know it gives comfort to skeptics to think of themselves as more intellectually honest than believers so don't let us get in your way. The scripture does say that the humble will see God but he will set his face against the proud. You may consider this gesture a grand cosmic joke but I think God has chosen the weak things of this world to confound the wise. You have the same evidence available to you that the rest of us have so God isn't hiding anything from you. You might say the difference between us is a matter of gullibility. I'd say it's a matter of humility. That's not my personal judgement of you (I don't make a habit of judging non-believers) but this is what the scriptures say of you.

[Guest]

First, the law of causation states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

This seems to be an unusual assertion, JC. What is your source for this "law of causation"?

The philosophy of determinism states that every event has a cause.

Pehaps "begin to exist" could be considered as an event, and thus your "law of causation" may have validity ---- if determinism is true.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I think "law of causation" is probably a synonym for the law of "cause and effect." While I don't make any boast of keeping up with the vogues of scientific theorizing, I was not aware that the law of cause and effect was even a matter of controversy. As I understand it, this law states that, for every effect, there must be an adequate cause. If this is true (which, as I said, I did not know to be controversial), then JC's point would seem to be correct.

[_JC]

Paidion, the law of cause and effect is a scientific deduction and one of the easiest to demonstrate. There is also a philisophical equivalent and that's what I was referring to, although either could certainly apply to my argument. If I'm not mistaken here, I believe the law of causation was first a philisophical assertion and was later scientifically proven by Newton in his third law of motion.

[Guest]

You say -- Now, regarding your questions to me, I'll give you my thoughts. I use the term "common sense" to refer to those things which should be easily recognizable as long as one isn't blinded by irrational skepticism.

That, of course, depends on what you think as "irrational"



You say -- For example, let's take a known law and apply it to a factual statement. First, the law of causation states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

That is an axiom usually used in the cosmological argument, but it is not valid. Quantum physics has shown many events, such as, for the example, decay of a free neutron, which happen for no apparent cause. Matter, both as particles and anti-particles, appear and then anhiliate each other randomly without apparent cause. Thus, I cannot accept your premise that every event must have a cause.




You say -- Second, intelligence exits (otherwise, you couldn't ponder my rebuttal). If the first is true, the the second needs a cause. How, then, can intelligence come from non-intellegence?

You seem to confuse a tangible thing with properties of tangible things. I could say a ball has roundness. Therefore, roundness needs to have a cause. The roundness does not exist independently from the ball, any more than "intelligence" exists as an independent entity separate from our brain.




You say -- Abiogenesis? Hmm... that wouldn't seem to work since intelligence isn't tangible matter. It would seem, then, that only an original, intelligent first source could spawn that non-physical attribute. The fact that we can even debate this proves an intelligent source exists.

No, it just proves our brains exist, such as they are.




You say -- Your comment about Newton was a bit odd since he believed in the supernatural (though you could argue the man wasn't a Christian).

He was an Arian. I'll leave that to others to debate whether that is a "true" christian. Regardless, he did not believe in supernatural influence of events in this universe, in contrast to the beliefs in the Prime Mover and the like of the earlier Scholastics. Newton saw all motions and actions as the result of properties innate and immanent to the unvierse, such as mass, momentum and gravity.




You say -- Your quote from Luther seems out of place too, since all of us here would certainly disagree with him, to an extent.

I wouldn't know that up front, and Luther is the founder of one of the larger christian churces, so an assumption that his ideas carry some weight among christians would not be unreasonable.



You say -- That's the funny thing about the reformation... we have the liberty to disagree on many things. But regardless, the point you're trying to make here, I think, has some merit. No one can absolutely prove God's existance or the resurrection of Christ so if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it by doing mental gymnastics.

I am not trying to prove anything, just seeking a little enlightenment and answers to a few questions. I tend to use a more adversive or oppositive format, which oftens annoys or aggravates some, but it does force them to dig up their best arguments, which is what I'm interested in hearing.




You say -- You also asked Steve and I to express why we are so sure we're correct and won't end up facing All'ah or another deity. I can't speak for Steve but I'll give you my thoughts. Since my answer to this could easily fill a book, I'll try to be more condensed. If what Jesus taught was actually true, then everything that is contrary to it is false. You're aware of the law of non-contradiction so you know how that applies here. But that presupposes that the teachings ascribed to Jesus in scripture are actually true. I believe they are and this is based on a number or arguments you probably know quite well but reject for your own reasons.

But you start from the premise that what Jesus said, or more correctly what the books of the New Testament say, is true, which you acknowledge as a presupposition. While you believe that to be true, that belief is based principally on faith. For someone who doesn't share or hold to that faith, that presupposition doesn't hold, and then it becomes impossible to tell which, if any, may be true.




You say -- I would also say that if you believe Christians are more gullible than skeptics then you haven't met enough Christians (or skeptics). Both Christians and skeptics can be painfully gullible at times.

I agree.




You say -- I know it gives comfort to skeptics to think of themselves as more intellectually honest than believers so don't let us get in your way.


I only worry about being intellectually honest to myself. That is why I have trouble accepting any dogma purely on "faith". You may see your faith in an honest way, and for you, that is fine. We each must be honest to ourselves.




You say -- The scripture does say that the humble will see God but he will set his face against the proud. You may consider this gesture a grand cosmic joke but I think God has chosen the weak things of this world to confound the wise.

Actually, I believe these phrases were given by Paul (or whomever) to motivate the early christians who were receiving criticism of the absurdity of their dogma (not saying it is or isn't, just of what the christians were being told).



You say -- You have the same evidence available to you that the rest of us have so God isn't hiding anything from you. You might say the difference between us is a matter of gullibility. I'd say it's a matter of humility. That's not my personal judgement of you (I don't make a habit of judging non-believers) but this is what the scriptures say of you.

Christians rarely appreciate how arrogant they come across when they hide behind scripture to hurl insults, though this is not my personal chriticism of you, just what common sense says.

[Guest]

Paidion, the law of cause and effect is a scientific deduction and one of the easiest to demonstrate. There is also a philisophical equivalent and that's what I was referring to, although either could certainly apply to my argument. If I'm not mistaken here, I believe the law of causation was first a philisophical assertion and was later scientifically proven by Newton in his third law of motion.

Newton's 3rd law is that, for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. It reflects the conservation of energy and of momentum. It says nothing of what was the cause of the first action.