“These are the ordinances that you are to set before them.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
Sometimes rules make sense. I think about classroom rules when I was in grade school. Don’t talk without raising your hand. No running with scissors. Keep your hands to yourselves. Sometimes, though, rules need a little more clarification. How about what counts as traveling in basketball or pass interference in football? The Ten Commandments are pretty clear, all things considered. But they don’t cover everything in the kind of detail that would help us avoid lots and lots of questions about exactly what to do and what not to do in order to stay right with God. As a result, this next part of our journey has lots of rules. We’ll unpack them as we go, but let’s start here by looking at the big picture for a few minutes.
The next two and a half chapters are pretty much nothing but rules and laws. There are rules and laws that cover all kinds of different situations and settings. As we have talked about before, they were designed and intended to help the people understand the boundaries of what a relationship with Him looked like in more detail than the Ten Commandments themselves gave. Most of these likely came out of the people’s bringing different situations to Moses to adjudicate. That seems a little odd of me to say given that this chapter starts with this verse, but I think what we see here is more of a transition statement than an indication the people were still standing at the base of the mountain drinking up every word Moses spoke to them. That doesn’t mean these weren’t all still the things God wanted passed on to the people, and it doesn’t mean Moses didn’t still speak these words directly to the people, but framing out the likely context a little more fully helps us make a little more sense of why what comes next is here.
When it comes to the various laws we are going to be talking about, scholars have developed a system of categorizing them over the years. This system puts the individual laws into one of three groups: religious or ceremonial, civil, and moral. That is, some laws seem to address how the Israelites were to conduct their worship of God. Other laws governed how they were to get along in society with one another. The third class was about how they were to behave generally in light of the fact that they worshiped a God who was holy and righteous.
Creating categories like this is helpful because it gives us some substance to guide our thinking and talking about them. It has also given scholars trying to sort out which laws carry over into the new covenant and which don’t a means of drawing some lines of distinction. Generally speaking, they’ll argue that the religious and ceremonial laws are just for the old covenant, the moral laws all carry over, while the civil laws aren’t always as clear as we would like.
The drawbacks of this kind of an approach to thinking about the various laws God gave the people through Moses is that it is inherently artificial. That is, it was entirely made up by scholars trying to make sense of the Law. That doesn’t mean they were entirely wrong to do so, but they are reading into the Law something that the Law doesn’t try to claim for itself anywhere in the text. Because of that, there is occasionally debate about which laws fit into which categories. Drawing lines of distinction like this also divides laws from one another that were not perhaps intended to be so separated. Laws that cover civil matters also govern moral behavior. How the people were to behave before God morally speaking informed how they were to worship Him. And worshiping a God who is righteous and just properly necessarily carried over to how the people behaved in society. In other words, these kinds of categories can lead us to think about the laws in ways that God may not have meant.
Another issue here is that the authors of the New Testament don’t seem to think about the laws in this way. One of the aims of scholars who use these categories is sometimes to determine which laws Christians are still on the hook for following. But the apostle Paul makes pretty emphatically clear that picking and choosing which laws to follow is not something that can be done. Jesus’ brother James makes the same argument. The law exists as a block. It is a comprehensive system. Either you operate within the system and keep the laws, or you don’t. There’s no picking and choosing which laws you are going to keep and which you are going to discard. Now, this doesn’t mean that some of the same ideas conveyed in the Law don’t still get picked up and continued in the new covenant, but the way they apply is different.
The reason for this is that the Law as we are going to encounter it doesn’t apply to us. It wasn’t written for followers of Jesus, and Jesus doesn’t even suggest that His followers have to keep it. But wait! Doesn’t Jesus literally say that He didn’t come to get rid of the Law? Doesn’t He say that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (who were assiduously dedicated to keeping every single detail of the Law) we will never enter the kingdom of heaven? Yes, but He wasn’t talking about His followers’ keeping the Law there. He was talking about what God’s standards were for our being able to be in a right relationship with Him. As He would go on to imply and Paul would make explicit, we can’t keep that standard on our own. We need Jesus’ help for that. He fulfilled the Law so that we don’t have to even try. Instead, we can trust in Him and enter into the new covenant He made through His blood. The writer of Hebrews asserted clearly that in light of the new covenant, the old covenant is obsolete and passing away. And the new covenant has just one law: love one another after the pattern of Jesus’ love for us. We don’t need all the other laws. They may offer helpful commentary on how we keep our one law, but they aren’t for us.
Speaking of not being for us, as we read all of these various laws, some of which are really hard to understand through the lens of modern culture and even just the new covenant ethic of Jesus, we have to keep in mind that they were given to a culture pretty vastly different from our own. The kinds of behaviors they were given to regulate are often not things we struggle with today at all. They deal with situations we consider so obviously out of bounds that seeing laws intended to prohibit them catches us off guard. Well, they weren’t for us. They were for a people removed from us by thousands of years. Some of the principles are still good because people haven’t changed all that much in that time in terms of the basic things we struggle with. But culture has changed in radical and profound ways. We don’t need to feel threatened or offended by any of these laws. They didn’t threaten or offend the people who were receiving them. This is because they were for them. They weren’t for us.
One last thought here. One of the things we have talked about before and that we see evidence for all over the Scriptures is that God meets us where we are and brings us forward from there. In the parable of the prodigal son, when the father sees his lost son returning to the farm, he doesn’t stand there waiting until the boy has cleaned himself up and made himself fit for life on the farm once again before receiving him. Not at all. Instead, at the first sighting of his son, he hikes up his robes and utterly debases himself (in the minds of the people who first heard the story) and runs to greet him. He takes him just as he is, welcomes him home, and then cleans him up from there.
What we will see throughout the laws we examine is example after example of God’s meeting the people where they are culturally speaking and legally speaking and even religiously speaking and moving them forward from there. Some of the laws will regulate things we know to be entirely wrong. So, why not just prohibit them? Because the people weren’t ready for that yet. In some ways the Law of Moses was like training wheels to help us learn our moral balance before we could start enjoying the full freedom of the new covenant. Rather than giving a bunch of commands that wouldn’t make any sense given where the people’s moral imaginations were at the time, God issued many commands that regulated certain behaviors (like slavery) to start steering them in the direction of the kind of righteousness we assume is normal today. But we only assume it is normal because of the work God started doing then to bring us to this point.
That’s about it for today. I’m excited for what comes next. There is going to be some really good stuff that will make us think hard about God’s character and our own lives and where those two things intersect. We are going to come to a better understanding of why God does what He does and says what He says. We are going to see just how good the new covenant really is. You won’t want to miss any of it as we get started next week. Tomorrow will be a grab bag day. Monday will be the next part of our journey to the cross with Mark. And then Tuesday we’ll be back to start unpacking some crazy-sounding laws. I can’t wait.
The Nexus 
As a Christian how do you deal with the fact that.
A) critical scholarship does not regard Moses as a genuine historical figure and (naturally he couldn’t, therefore possibly be the author of the books traditionally attributed to him), based on archeological evidence the Exodus /Conquest narrative is now considered geopolitical foundation myth?
and
B) from even a casual reading of the words attributed to Jesus he apparently regards Moses as a genuine historical figure.
Or do you consider Jesus was fully aware Moses was an archetypal hero figure just as he was also aware the Exodus narrative is myth and he was simply using the mythological tales as a vehicle/ medium to help his followers grasp his message of salvation?
LikeLike
What happened to bringing things back to just one thread? ;~)
I’ll tackle both comments here.
You are welcome to stick to your guns regarding the historicity of Acts. That being said, a couple of things come to mind. First, I’m not sure that you have answered my question about whether your skepticism is the result of genuine historical inaccuracies in Acts, or the result of their being reports of miraculous events. If you have, my apologies, I’ll go back and read more carefully. (That is a fault that both of us have shared.)
The second thing is this: If we were to take the standards you are insisting on as far as what can be considered positive evidence for the Gospels and Acts and apply them to ancient historical sources more broadly, we would quickly find ourselves in the position of knowing a great deal less than most historians would claim to know about what actually went on in the ancient world.
Allow me to take us back to my references to Alexander the Great. He is mentioned in a bare handful of ancient documents (if you take the various New Testament documents individually – which was how they were originally composed, and so that is not an unreasonable thing to do – he is mentioned in far fewer ancient documents than Jesus). The earliest surviving copies we have of these documents date from hundreds of years after Alexander lived. The most thorough biography we have was first written around 300 years after he lived. And yet, we generally regard this and them as historically reliable reports of his life and times.
Jesus, His life and ministry, and His death and resurrection are mentioned in many, many more ancient documents, and the earliest surviving copies we have of these date to inside of 100 years of their composition and we know that a great many of them (notably the documents that form the New Testament) were written within a generation of His life. If we apply the same standard of evidence to both sets of documents then either we don’t really know anything about Alexander the Great that we think we know, or else we know a great deal more about Jesus than what you claim we know and the only possible reason for doubting what I claim we can know is the existence of the miracle reports in those documents that are otherwise to be considered historically reliable.
The reason for doubting those reports is not a lack of evidence. Again, we have 23 documents written inside of 60 years of the resurrection that all make mention of it, and that doesn’t include any non-biblical documents. That’s more than we have for anything Alexander is reported to have done. The reason for doubt is a worldview that rejects the supernatural and miraculous for philosophical reasons. From this position, rules are formulated regarding what can be considered as evidence that aren’t equally applied to Alexander or many (any?) other ancient historical figure. When this one figure is treated differently than all the rest, that says a great deal more about the people doing the treating than it does about the figure Himself.
That was more than I intended at first, but I got on a bit of a roll. As far as the evidence goes for the resurrection, I’ve already presented it. More than once. We just keep going in a circle here.
On the question of Moses’ existence as an historical figure, here’s a bit of food for thought. Prior to 1993, the scholarly historical consensus was that the character David was a mere biblical invention to create a backstory for Jesus. That is, “everyone” (and by “everyone” I of course mean skeptical scholars as Christian scholars had long since been certain of David’s historical existence because of their confidence in the historical reliability of the Scriptures for reasons we have already talked about) “knew” that David never existed. Then the Tel Dan Inscription was discovered making mention of “the house of David,” and the whole world had to admit that, yes, David was almost certainly a real historical figure.
The story of the capture of Jericho was long considered just a fable…and then archaeologists discovered evidence of an enormous ancient wall that had crumbled to the ground dating from about the time biblical scholars had claimed Israel conquered the city. Sodom and Gomorrah were obvious fabrications until 2005 when the site of those ancient cities was finally discovered along with evidence of a massive destructive event dating from about the time scholars had previously dated their destruction in Genesis 19. Caiaphas, the priest who led the condemnation of Jesus to death was another mythical figure until 1990 when archaeologists discovered his tomb and his bone box. They knew it was his because his name was on it. Prior to 1896 the scholarly consensus was that the Canaanite peoples were just a made up enemy of Israel in the Bible. And then archaeologists found record of their existence. That same inscription mentioned Israel and came from around 1200 BC. This means they were a settled people in Canaan late enough that the Exodus could have taken place.
No, there are not any extra-biblical references to Moses as an historical figure. But given all of these discoveries and more like them overturning what had previously been the scholarly consensus of the non-existence of one biblical figure or another, you’ll have to excuse me for hanging onto my confidence that not only was Moses a real, historical figure, but that mention of him will yet be found. And even if it isn’t found, the trajectory of skeptical doubt being overturned by historical evidence here suggests that my conclusion is not an unreasonable one at all.
LikeLike
Well, we could argue over the points you have raised here, but numerous scholars, archaeologists and historians far more qualified and erudite than me have squared this away a long time ago and only it seems that these days only those with religious inclinations consider there is any genuine historicity to the Exodus/ Conquest narrative as per the Bible so let’s just stick to providing evidence for the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
So, as per the dictionary definition for evidence please bullet point the universally accepted facts about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLike
So, scholars who are predisposed to doubt the historical claims of the Scriptures…doubt the historical claims of the Scriptures, while scholars who are predisposed to accept the historical claims of the Scriptures…accept the historical claims of the Scriptures. Worldview really does seem to matter here.
As for the universally accepted facts about the resurrection, I’ve presented the facts, but you declined to accept those because you argued they are disputed and not universally accepted. Given the opposite camps here, I don’t suppose there are universally accepted facts. For that matter, you can always find someone who takes a different opinion on just about any point. Are there really any universally accepted facts about anything? Why don’t we stick with the facts that are available? Of course, things that I have presented as facts already you have declined to accept because you don’t accept them as historical facts, but the products of what you have identified as a work of historical fiction. Hmm…quite a quandary we have for ourselves here.
In any event…
1. Jesus was crucified. That may be about the closest to a universally accepted fact as we are going to get. He was killed on a Roman cross and buried in a tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is on the site that is traditionally associated with this location, but there aren’t any inscriptions to certify that belief. That being said, the belief goes back to awfully early on in church history. In any event, that part doesn’t matter. The fact is: Jesus was crucified.
2. Jesus’ followers had experiences they believed were with the actual resurrected Jesus. We can absolutely doubt their claims, but it is abundantly clear from the Gospels and Acts that they believed this to be true.
3. Jesus’ followers radically reoriented their lives around claiming the truthfulness of these experiences and began proclaiming Jesus as raised from the dead to everyone who would listen. This resulted in the formation of what would become known as the church, which was originally called merely the assembly. The word “church” didn’t enter our lexicon for several more centuries when German translators took the Greek word Jesus used for this movement and used a German word to translate it that made sense based on what the movement had become because of Constantine’s institutionalization of the church, but arguable wasn’t anywhere close to the best word in terms of accuracy with what the original Greek word conveyed.
4. James, Jesus’ brother and who had been known to be a vigorous skeptic of His claim to be the Messiah of prophecy became a follower of Jesus after having His own experience with who he believed to be his resurrected brother. James went on to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem and held a pretty wide respect from the community.
5. Saul of Tarsus, who would eventually change his name to Paul probably in honor of his first major, high profile convert, and who had been a committed foe of the Jesus movement became a Jesus follower after his own experience with what he believed to be the resurrected Jesus.
These facts are surely not all universally accepted as you can undoubtedly find scholars as well as “scholars” who dispute them, but they are accepted as historically sound by a critical mass of scholars in varying and relevant fields. There are more like these, but these are the ones with the broadest possible support. If these things are true, then the question becomes: what is the best explanation for their all being true? I submit that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the only thing that foots the bill.
LikeLike
It would probably be fair to say that many of the critical scholars were once believers and once they began to seriously question said beliefs is when the lack of evidence for the claims they once held to be true became glaringly apparent.
Ehrman comes to mind, and I have also mentioned Crossan. But there are plenty of others.
1. Jesus was crucified.
On the face of it I am prepared to accept this as a generally accepted fact.
Nothing about the rest of point 1, tomb etc, can be regarded as a generally accepted fact.
2. We do not know they had experiences, all we have are the claims in the gospels which are anonymous and unsubstantiated.
3. See 1.
4. Again, all we have are the bible claims and nothing independant to substantiate this claim of a brother called James.
The assertion regarding the brother has been challenged suggesting that the Josephus passage was not referring to a sibling.
5. Saul of Tarsus experienced a vision or hallucination. The story of his conversion in Acts does not correspond with his own description of events.
Thus we only have one generally accepted event that we could call a fact, and you mentioned it twice.
Jesus was crucified.
Your submission regarding the resurrection does not come close to meeting what could be called a generally accepted fact.
In fact, it is the least likely option and on the basis of the dictionary definition of fact it remains simply a faith based belief.
LikeLike
You cite formerly believing scholars who became critics as if that is evidence in favor of your point. I’m not sure I see the relevance of that. I’m curious: what do you do with formerly critical scholars who became believers because of their own serious investigation of the evidence? Were these somehow more unreasonable than individuals who went the other direction? On what grounds could we make such a determination? The truth is that a naked examination of the evidence is almost never the singular reason a person decides for or against the Christian faith?
As for the rest, you’ll likely not be shocked to learn that I disagree with your assessment. As we have already covered more than once, you don’t accept the historical reliability of the Gospels, and you are operating from an anti-supernaturalist worldview. Add to that the fact that I don’t get the sense you actually want any of this to be true. I can continue making the case until my fingers fall off, but because of those things (although the third is only a surmission which, if incorrect, I will quickly discard) I won’t move you on the matter. Ultimately, that’s something on God can do anyway.
I’m curious: what kind of background do you have with the church? What’s your story? Did you claim faith at some point in the past? Or have you always trended in the direction of skepticism?
LikeLike
No one converted because of evidence. There isn’t any.
Conversions are because of emotional reasons.
And yes, in case you ask, I am fully aware of Strobel.
You really don’t want to know my feelings about him.
I am operating from a position that if evidence for supernaturalism is presented I will most assuredly reevaluate my current position towards it.
Therefore, I urge you to present your evidence.
The historical reliability of the gospels is only held by believers and the degree of reliability is not universally agreed upon even by them!
The most comprehensive takedown of the reliability argument I ever saw/ watched was when Ehrman thoroughly schooled Mike Licona during one of their debates. It is the only time I have ever felt sympathy for a Christian apologist.
Licona became so befuddled I truly thought he was on the brink of tears
It is somewhat ironic then to question my scepticism when even Christians cannot agree.
I was baptized C of E. Apart from that I would consider myself merely a Cultural Christian: Little bit of Sunday School, Church parade once a month with the boyscouts ( I was in the band), bible readings at morning school assembly and one school year of RE.
After leaving school never gave it another thought. Although, in the interest of full disclosure I was married in a cathedral. For me it was, once again, the cultural aspect and had zip to do with belief. Surprisingly I was genuinely unaware one could have a non religious, no church wedding other than getting married at a registry office.
How naive one can be at 22!
LikeLike
How interesting that you profess to know more about the experience of people who have converted to Christianity better than they do themselves. To simply assert that no one converts because of evidence because there isn’t any says a great about your worldview commitments and very little about any evidence.
I had not even considered Strobel. My mind went to J. Warner Wallace since his book is one I’ve read recently. I’m curious why you seem to have such strongly negative feelings toward Christian apologists. What drives that?
You mention again your willingness to accept evidence. I’ll present the same question I’ve asked several times already: what would you consider as evidence? What would you consider as something indicative that the supernatural exists?
On the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars who reject the Christian worldview don’t accept it. This really isn’t a mark in favor of your position. If they accepted the historical reliability of the Gospels, they would probably be believers themselves. I would argue that it is a lack of genuine belief that precedes a rejection of historicity, not the other way around.
On your own experience, thank you, I’m glad to know that. That helps me understand you better. From that history, I would argue—and I genuinely mean no offense by this—that you never really believed any of it in the first place. You certainly never had anything like a conversion experience followed by patient and careful discipleship from a mature believer. Without any of that, it doesn’t come as a surprise to me at all that you are where you are. For what it’s worth, I was married in the atrium of a hotel.
Two last things: what did you play in the band? I marched four five years many moons ago. And, yes, 22 is a remarkably naive age 🙂
LikeLike
In actual fact if evidence were the reason for religious conversions then that same evidence would have been presented here.
Furthermore, presuming we are currently discussing solely about Christianity to cite evidence as the reason for conversion dismisses every single evidentiary claim from every individual who ever converted to a different religion. That strikes me as the height of arrogance and disrespect.
And believe me, I have been in discussion with Christians who have asserted that their religion is the only one supported by evdence!
What is just as ridiculous are the claims by believers who belong to particular Christian sects who dismiss out of hand the conversion claims of other Christians.
How many times have you heard / read that Catholics aren’t Christians?
Or Christadelphians?
So no, evidence is not the reason for conversion.
Smile. Yes, I had forgotten about Wallace. If he really had evidence and being a former cop and an apologist he would surely have gone on to convert the entire police force he once worked for.
Christian apologists prey ( pun?) on emotion. Their aim is to shore up doubts of believers with hyperbole and cleverly framed rhetoric.
I find them distasteful and by and large not terribly honest. People like Greg Koukl make my skin crawl. Although this apparent lack of honesty could be that they themselves are indoctrinated.
I don’t mind listening to the more thoughtful people such as Tom Wright. I don’t agree with much of what he says but at least he has a respectful way of presenting his beliefs. Oh, and he also acknowledges the gospels are anonymous, which made me smile.
Having never experienced anything supernatural I genuinely have no idea at this point in time what would convince me.
What convinced you? Maybe this will convince me also?
I’ll wager you lack any genuine belief in the claims of Islam. Why is that?
Evidence, perhaps?
I played the cornet and for a short while the side drum.
LikeLike
As I have said before, I have presented evidence. You have rejected it as evidence. That doesn’t speak to the worthwhileness of the evidence, but to the worldview commitments you have made in your thinking about the evidence. You can reject it, of course, and you can come to a different conclusion regarding it, but I stand firmly by my insistence that it is nonetheless evidence.
To your second point, you seem to be saying that it is arrogant and disrespectful to believe you are right on a point and that people who disagree with you are wrong. Am I correct in understanding that? Please correct me if not. Assuming on that for the moment, you believe certain things about the creation of the world because of how you understand the available evidence and have pronounced people who believe differently based on their understanding of the available evidence as idiotic. How is that any different from what you seem to be accusing Christians of here? Do you think Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists correct in the claims they are making? Or do you think that your position is the only one supported by the evidence? What other positions other than yours do you believe to be supported by the evidence? Mine certainly doesn’t seem to be included among those. Using your logic, doesn’t that make you arrogant and disrespectful? Indeed, you seem to be continuing to insist that people who have declared the evidence to be the reason for their conversion to Christianity are wrong in what they believe. By your definition, how is that not arrogant and disrespectful of you? How is it that you understand their experience better or in a more enlightened way than they do?
Personally, I don’t find it arrogant or disrespectful in the slightest to be convinced that you are correct on some matter and that others are incorrect. It’s just honest. You can hold to such a position without the slightest shred of arrogance and in fact with a great deal of humility. If a person believes something to be true and is not persuaded by evidence to the contrary, then so be it. I can think he’s wrong and he can think I’m wrong without showing each other any disrespect.
On competing claims of who is a Christian and who is not, that word has been used and claimed so much that it isn’t as helpful or descriptive as it perhaps once was. I still use it for the sake of convenience, but when talking with my church I pretty consistently talk about people as either followers of Jesus or not followers of Jesus. That makes a little more specific what I mean by the distinction and also broadens it to include people like Catholics. If you are following Jesus, then you are following Jesus. As for folks like the Christadelphians, while they do indeed claim to be following Jesus, the Jesus they claim to be following cannot be said to be the same Jesus I claim to follow. The reason is that they are unitarians. They believe that God is one, not three. The position of historic Christian orthodoxy has been that God (including Jesus) is trinitarian. Well, either He is trinitarian or He is not. He can’t be both. Christians and Christadelphians can both make the claim to be following Jesus, but only one of them can be correct. This conclusion, though, does not come from a position of arrogance, but of honesty. I’m taking seriously the claims they are making and responding accordingly.
I’m not sure I follow how Wallace “would surely have gone on to convert the entire police for he once worked for.” How would he have done that? Are you aware that he didn’t make the case based on his understanding of the evidence to as many former coworkers as he could? What if some of them, like you currently do and like he used to do, rejected the evidence as he presented it? What about the ones with whom he didn’t have any kind of a relationship or opportunity to present the evidence to them? What if they weren’t willing to hear him in the first place? Have you interacted at all with Wallace’s case in order to dispute the claims that he makes? I’m not sure I understand what your point here is.
Can you offer examples of Christian apologists playing on emotion? Certainly some of them will include emotional appeals as a part of their presentations, but honestly so do many skeptics. They simply prey on, to borrow your phrase, a different set of emotions. I’ve interacted with a whole lot of apologists over the years. I was very close on two different occasions to pursuing a doctorate in apologetics. I confess I haven’t seen very many emotional appeals as compared with the number of factual presentations I have encountered. Do you have examples of hyperbole or cleverly framed rhetoric that were particularly irksome to you? Which apologists have you found to be dishonest and what were the things they said that struck you as such? Why does Greg Koukl make your skin crawl? That’s an awful strong reaction. Apologists obviously believe the things they are presenting or they would not likely be presenting them. Does that make them indoctrinated? Using similar logic, when a skeptic believes very strongly in the things he is presenting, is he also indoctrinated but from a different direction?
On an experience with the supernatural, are you open to personal testimony and experience? That’s where my personal experience has occurred. Beyond my personal experiences, though (which I understand will necessarily seem awfully dubious to you), I am convinced that the supernatural exists because I am also convinced that naturalism cannot fully, adequately, or accurately account for the world and everything in it.
I do lack a genuine belief in the claims of Islam. I have studied Islam some, but not a lot. What historical claims do Muslims make as justification for their beliefs? I’m not aware of any off the top of my head. Islam is rooted in the teachings of Mohammed which he claimed were given to him directly from Allah in an experience that was entirely personal. No one else was there to witness it and no one else experienced anything similar. This falls to the same weakness that plagues the claims of Joseph Smith. He had a personal and private experience shared by no one else. These two claims are unfalsifiable in this sense. The claims of Christianity are different. They are very much falsifiable. That’s why guys like you spend so much time working to prove them false while there really aren’t many people who do the same for the claims of Islam.
I played trumpet for a year in grade school, but then got braces and that put an end to that. From there it was all drums all the time.
LikeLike
Some more thoughts on your rebuttals:
1. I’m glad we at least agree on this much. That’s a start 🙂
As for Jesus’ being buried, all four Gospels report this fact. By my count, that’s four independently verified sources all making the same historical claim. On what grounds do you reject the claim that He was buried?
2. I’ll be clearer: Matthew was an eye witness to the events he records regarding Jesus’ resurrection. So was John. Mark was not that we know of, but if Peter was his main source as many scholars believe, he was an eye-witness. Luke was not, but he explicitly stated that he researched carefully and interviewed people who were eye-witnesses. None of those claims are anonymous, especially Luke’s. And, what kind of substantiation do you have in mind? As I have argued before, using this same reasoning, we can’t trust most ancient historical claims. I don’t think that is your position, but it may be. I would be glad for a little more clarity on your thinking here.
3. The church came into existence in the first century and grew rapidly, fueled by the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. We know this from the credal formulas in several of Paul’s letters, all of which were written by the mid-60s. Creeds take time to develop. From Paul’s own testimony in Galatians, he likely learned at least some of those creeds from the original apostles themselves. This means they were formed in the earliest days of the church. So, the apostles clearly started proclaiming what they believed were experiences with the risen Jesus very early on and against their own self-interest.
4. You keep making reference to “Bible claims.” Allow me to make the observation that this is not the most accurate way to frame the issues. There are no such thing as “Bible claims.” I’ll confess that I have perhaps contributed to this confusion by making consistent reference to “the Gospels and Acts,” thereby treating them monolithically when I should have been more specific. There are the claims of Luke and Paul regarding James. Those are two independent, ancient historical sources.
The people who were writing about these things were the ones who were interested in telling about them. Who else do you think would have been writing about them? Rome didn’t care about the church until many years after its founding when it started to grow and they figured out it wasn’t just a Jewish sect. The Jews hated the church and everything it stood for, so they weren’t going to write about it. None of this makes the claims unsubstantiated anymore than the claims about any other ancient historical figure about whose existence we only have one or two verified sources are thus unsubstantiated and therefore unreliable. Once again: the standards you are using here applied consistently renders a great deal of our knowledge of the ancient world far less complete and reliable than we imagine it to be.
5. Explain further your assertion that the stories of Paul’s conversion and his subsequent testimonies about them don’t correspond with one another. I went back and read all three and couldn’t find what you might have been referencing.
You note that the resurrection is the least likely option in terms of explaining the facts I laid out (whose refutations on your part I do not even begin to agree with). I would be glad to hear what other options to explain them are more likely in your opinion.
LikeLike
All four gospels report a claim.
They are not independant sources
gMatt for example contains around 90% of the material found in gMark, some of it verbatim.
That is generally considered to bev plagiarism.
Similar story for gLuke.
The earliest reference to the death of the character Jesus of Nazareth comes from Saul of Tarsus. No mention of a tomb there.
No archeological evidence either to support the claim from the anonymous gospels authors.
Those crucified by the Romans were routinely left on the cross to rot.
Critical scholars generally consider the tale of the empty tomb a later addition.
So, no evidence and certainly not a fact.
Strike 1?
2. The claim that the author of gMatt was an eyewitness is a tradition held by certain branches of the Christian church.
It is neither supported by evidence and is not even generally accepted within Christianity.
I mentioned Tom Wright, a fellow Christian and erudite scholar of note. Do I take it you disagree with his highly educated assessment the gospels are strictly speaking anonymous?
So, not evidence and not a fact.
I fear this will be a Strike Out before we get past 3.
Nevertheless, to continue…
3. Belief is not dependant or reliant on evidence, truth or fact. Merely consider the idiotic nonsense preached by YEC.
4 To use the Bible and its contents to assert the veracity and independance of the Bible and its contents is circular reasoning and quite frankly I am surprised you would even try to do this.
The Qu’ran is true because it says so…. right there on the opening page.
SMH
5.The only fact we have tenuously established is that the character Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
LikeLike
1. I didn’t make reference to the Gospels generally. I was talking specifically about the historical claims that Jesus was buried in the four Gospel accounts. In those portions of the respective accounts there is almost no borrowed material. They all present the information uniquely, but consistently. I’ve already noted the lack of archaeological evidence for the empty tomb. The fact that most victims of crucifixion were left on the cross to rot is a significant part of why all four Gospel accounts go out of their way to note Jesus’ burial. This was different from the norm. You can call a strike, but I maintain my position here nonetheless.
2. If by “certain branches” you mean most of the Christian tradition since the earliest days of the church, then, yes. As I mentioned earliest, from what little I can tell, Wright’s position seems to be that while we cannot definitively prove the authorship claims, there is nonetheless good reason to assume they are accurate. Does he lay out a different case somewhere else I can see? I assume you take a similar position on John as you do on Matthew.
3. Their evidence was their own experience which was the substance of their proclamation.
4. I wasn’t trying to do this at all. Nor was I being circular. I said very specifically that Luke and Paul attest to the fact that James was Jesus’ brother. You keep talking about the Bible monolithically. It’s not. If you are not thinking about it in correct terms, then of course the arguments I’m making will seem more suspicious.
5. The church began proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead and incredibly early on in their history. This is factual. What’s more, they did this against their own self-interest. The people who made this claim and who pursued the lifestyle that they insisted must accompany it very quickly wound up with targets on their backs. What is your explanation for why they would do this?
LikeLike
Sorry. Missed this.
Re Paul.
Ehrman: “The three account differ in numerous contradictory details. Clearly we are dealing with a narrative that has been molded for literary reasons, not with some kind of disinterested historical report”
LikeLike
I’ll get to more later as I have been up all night with a sick kid. You’re going to have to spell this one out for me. I don’t agree at all. Go back and read them again and show me what you think are contradictions.
LikeLike
As mentioned before, scholars such as Ehrman do a fine job of explaining, and as I am 100% sure you are aware of the verses in Acts it would seem trite for a layman like me to try to do a better job than Ehrman.
Hope your child is feeling better soon.
LikeLike
Thanks. We’ll just say it’s been a long night. I’ve read those stories numerous times and even read them again before responding. I don’t see anything that comes off as inconsistent or contradictory. I do not agree with Ehrman’s assessment on its face, but as I have at your request laid out the basic case for the resurrection when it is presented much more thoroughly than I could do by more able scholars, please, make your case. I’m not looking for you to do a better job than Ehrman. But you have made the charge. Back it up. What is your evidence, as the saying goes 😉
LikeLike
You are a pastor, ergo a qualified religious professional. I should sincerely hope you are able to lay out a case for the resurrection otherwise you have no business preaching it!
However, that said, your case for the resurrection still refuses to acknowledge we are not dealing with evidence, ( over abd above the agreed upon crucifuxtion) any more than you would consider the assertions made in the Qu’ran as evidence but merely claims and religious beliefs.
I am wondering why you have not as yet addressed Tom Wright’s view regarding gospel anonynimity, or the fact the author of gMatthew plagiarized gMark?
As I agree with Ehrman it would be pointless and pedantic for me spend so much back and forth when my ‘case’ is the same as Bart’s.
You disagree with his case then you are more than welcome to refute it.
And bear in mind that we are dealing with
a) Unsubstantiated Bible claims and
b) Critical scholarship regards Acts as historical fiction.
LikeLike
Then what’s Bart’s case? Just lay out the basic contours for me. I kind of feel like you’re hiding behind Bart at this point. I disagree with his case on principle. I haven’t read it or interacted with it. I have, however, spent a great deal of time reading and interacting with the relevant passages in Acts, and I have not once encountered something that strikes me as an error or an inconsistency. Because I don’t know what Bart’s specific case is, and because you are unfortunately unwilling to lay it out for me, I can’t refute it. Again, you’ve made the charge, so back it up. What are the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions?
As for the case regarding the resurrection, YOU say that we are not dealing with evidence. I don’t. Our fundamental disagreement over what counts as evidence remains unchanged. And, I get the sense that neither of us is willing to budge from our positions.
Again on the question of the substantiation of the claims found in the various New Testament documents, you seem to be seeking a substantiating source that was skeptical in its origin and outlook. This is a little like presenting the fact that critical scholarship regards Acts as historical fiction (and the Gospels as well for that matter) as if that is somehow a point in your favor. Of course critical scholarship rejects the historicity of Acts. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be critical. That’s irrelevant. Skeptical observers in that day wouldn’t have cared about the claims of the disciples and so wouldn’t have given them the time of day. You’re asking for evidence that not only doesn’t exist, but wouldn’t likely have existed. But again, and as you have yet to address, if the standard you seem to be seeking were applied writ large to ancient history, we couldn’t profess to know very much about any of it.
Here’s one additional observation, though: The Jews of the first century were not fans of the church. They had a vested interest in seeing the claims of the early Christians refuted and rejected. After all, those claims were that the Jews were entirely wrong in their belief that the Messiah had not come and that the way to be faithful to God (for they believed in the same God) was not to keep the law that they had been keeping for more than a thousand years at that point, but to obey the words of Jesus. Well, we have a lot of writings from Jewish rabbis dating back to this historical period. It seems odd that none of them were discussing a refutation of the claims of the Christians. All it would have taken would have been to have a few well-known rabbis explicitly deny the claims of the disciples and circulate those around the region. With all the ancient Jewish documents we have, though, that kind of a refutation isn’t in any of them.
That is by no means an airtight case in favor of the resurrection, and I don’t intend for it to be. But it is another factual observation that must be accounted for.
As for why I haven’t addressed Wright’s views on Gospel anonymity, I’ve been writing around staying up with a sick kid and getting haircuts and putting other kids to bed…life stuff. Your suggestion that I am avoiding certain points you’ve made is a bit strange to me considering just how thorough our conversation has been so far. It strikes me as a bit of a smoke screen for the questions I have posed to you that as of yet remain unaddressed or which you’ve essentially hand waved away like the case for the inconsistencies of Paul’s testimony or the question of the application of your evidentiary standards to other ancient historical claims or what other explanations for the facts concerning the resurrection I presented you think are better. To date and to my knowledge (please correct me if I’m mistaken), but for a couple of the posts you’ve made last night that will require more time for me to give you a careful response, I can think of only one question you’ve asked that I haven’t answered and that was about the case for alternative explanations for things like the archaeopteryx. The response that I never got around to giving because the conversation zoomed off in different directions from there and I never got back to it was that Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution and Zombie Science, and Stephen Meyers’ Darwin’s Doubt present those respective cases. That point is long past, though, and I don’t think we need to go back to it.
Also, I’ve read very little of Wright’s works, so I’m unfamiliar with his views on many things. In at least this video on Mark (https://youtu.be/8rlIBZkoQjo?si=-kDD6cbC1xt_j7Se), while he does indeed acknowledge we can’t prove Mark was the author, he nonetheless traces the historical tradition on the matter and assumes Markan authorship. That doesn’t sound to me very much like an argument for anonymity. It’s a posture of humility given what we can say specifically and what we can’t. The posture seems to be that while, no, we can’t say with absolute certainty that Mark wrote the Gospel bearing his name, there are better reasons to accept that as factual than to reject it.
On the question of plagiarism (which you only made three hours ago by my counting…I’m still working on responses to points you made yesterday (for me)), you are using modern literary standards to judge an ancient manuscript. The standard and expectations of what counted as plagiarism then aren’t the same as they are now. Matthew was repeating stories that were already written down for a different audience and adding more of his own material to them. This particular charge falls flat and doesn’t affect the case I’m making at all.
I’ll get to the question of the Quran when I finally am able to reply to the post where you originally raised the issue.
Now to finally get around to writing today’s blog…
LikeLike
I am unwilling to lay out Bart’s case for you because of the reasons already stated. There are contradictions as he asserts. But no, I am not hiding behind him and I sense you merely want to draw me into another “he said, you said” thread having me dig out my KJV and spend needless time on Google merely to point score. This I won’t do.
If you are disagreeing with him on principle then this is not only un scholarly it comes across as sounding a little bit petulant to be honest.
Re: Evidence.
We are not dealing with evidence as per the dictionary definition that you provided and I agreed to, yet you continue to insert the word ‘fact’ into your replies when this simply is not so.
As I mentioned before, the ONLY thing we can say is more than likely fact was the character Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.
That’s it as far as the resurrection goes. The rest are simply unsubstantiated Bible claims
This fact tends to render moot much of your comment.
However, this also might provide an answer/ reason why there was no push back regarding so called resurrection claims.
In all probability for similar reasons the Romans didn’t go door to door looking for this recently executed criminal people were running around supposedly claiming had come back from the dead.
Remember Lazarus?
It wasn’t newsworthy enough to bother with.
I cannot imagine a response to plagiarism that doesn’t agree with the charge.
If I were to a submit a companion article to the editor of my local newspaper on the supposed life of a local hero and the editor noticed almost all of it was lifted from a piece a colleague had also submitted a few werks earlier, some of it verbatim, what do you think the editor would almost certainly accuse me of?
The details of Matthew using around 90% of Mark’s content I first came across in my trusty Britannica on the section about the gospels.
That is evidence we can see right in front of us. Years after first reading this in the Britannica I came across a talk by Ehrman where he suggested laying out the gospels side by side and noting where the texts matched.
He was right!
These things are never pointed out to the average pew warmer (as far as I am aware) and I doubt your Sunday School teacher is educated enough to know of this either.
So, we are still on the supposed evidence for the Resurrection.
No matter how many tangents this discussion goes off on it will always come back to ground zero.
Jesus was crucified.
Over and above this what evidence is there to establish as fact the claim Jesus rose from the dead.
So far no evidence has been forthcoming.
LikeLike
The principle is that I accept the historical reliability of the Gospels and Ehrman doesn’t. So, of course I disagree with him. As I said though, I’ve spent quite a lot of time with the relevant texts and have yet to encounter inconsistencies or contradictions. All I’ve asked is for you to make clear what your charge is. You say, by way of Bart, that there are contradictions. I say there aren’t. I’ve done my homework on that too. Thus, I disagree with him. I’m sorry if that comes across as petulant.
We can keep going round and round on the question of evidence, but it seems pretty clear that we are not going to come to a place of agreement on that point. I will continue to insist there is. You will continue to insist there isn’t. And we will both do so with the same working definition in mind. I think perhaps we have exhausted that point.
On the charge of plagiarism, you perfectly demonstrated my point. You are using modern literary standards as to what counts as plagiarism and assuming those on an ancient document whose author (and likely audience as well) did not similarly assume on such standards. Yes, I know a great deal of Matthew copies Mark. Luke too, but to a lesser extent. Matthew and Luke both relied on a third common source that scholars call Q, but which is totally lost to history. I tell my congregation regularly that this is all the case. In fact, as we have been studying through Matthew for almost two years now, I’ve had them jump over to relevant passages in Mark to see how the two authors present the same stories but with slightly different perspectives (since one came from Matthew himself and one came from Peter) in order to get a fully sense of what’s going on. I have a book that harmonizes all four Gospels so that you can see side by side which stories are repeated by multiple authors. It could be that Matthew and Luke got Mark’s personal permission to use large portions of his Gospel so they weren’t totally reinventing the wheel for their audiences. Even if that’s not the case, though, I fail to see how any of this is relevant at all, let alone takes away from the historicity of these accounts.
And, since you land here, I’ll come back to the point one more time: We disagree on the question of evidence, and that doesn’t seem likely to change. As I said before, we can continue our conversation for as long as you’d like and can cover as many different topics as you wish, but this one seems about exhausted. I do very much hope you’ll continue to read and share comments as you have them on future posts. As I have also said before, I really do enjoy our conversations. Happy almost Saturday for you.
LikeLike
Probably best we reel this in and stick to the original topic as there are simply too many topics to address thoroughly in this format and we are wandering evermore into the weeds with each reply.
So I will stay on this thread here and if you will forgive me, I am not going to address all the myriad of other issues that have been raised.
We agreed to move forward regarding evidence based on the dictionary definition which you provided.
Based on this and our initial agreement to try to establish facts regarding the resurrection based on evidence I reiterate, the only fact we have is Jesus was crucified.
This is nothing to do with worldviews or any other similar criteria.
Everything else pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus remains an unsubstantiated claim.
LikeLike
While I would be keenly interested in your responses on several of those points, I understand.
On the question of the resurrection, I remain stubbornly committed to the case I have made again and again. And, for better or worse, worldview has everything to do with it. Worldview lies at the heart of this whole conversation. We will have to remain respectfully unconvinced.
LikeLike
I expect you would be committed to the case you have made and stubborn is probably the right word. How could it be otherwise abd you remain a believer?
But let’s be perfectly clear once and for all, based on the dictionary devotion you provided and I agreed upon the case for the resurrection you have made is not based on evidence.
Furthermore, Wmworldview has no bearing on this.
So unless you would like to offer a different definition of evidence at least
acknowledge that your case is not evidence based.
LikeLike
I knew what you meant on the typo :~)
Stubborn in my belief, yes. But also stubborn in my insistence that I have presented evidence. I went back to that definition just for a refresher. It is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. I have presented both facts and information that indicate the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead is valid. You have disagreed with me based on your understanding of the evidence. You reject the evidence-based case. You do that by rejecting the evidence entirely, but that’s a choice you make. You have insisted that things are not facts that I have nonetheless insisted are. We disagree on whether or not the facts are genuine facts. You routinely cite critical scholars in support of your position. I can cite believing scholars in support of mine. The position of those scholars, though, has no bearing on the fact claims themselves. I remain absolutely convinced that I have presented evidence based on our agreed upon definition. Thus, on this point, there is nothing for me to acknowledge. On that question, we will have to remain divided.
LikeLike
You have presented no info or a ” body of facts” to indicate the ressurection is true of valid.
1. You have referenced the gospel claims. ( And let’s make mention here of the long ending of gMark( one of three, yes?) is an interpolation.
There is no “my understanding of the evidence” as you have yet to present any for the resurrection.
The only info is what the unsubstantiated gospel tales mention and the fact that these claims were believed by an unknown group and number of individuals, and then told and retold until Constantine and later Theodosius made the religion the ‘ law of the land.’
Again, Jesus was crucified is as close as we can get to the only fact.
Everything is else is based on what people were prepared to believe, which in this case is ultimately a faith based belief.
Of course, later there were political issues to consider and the accompanying doctrine and dogma. But initially all we have is an unsubstantiated claim and a faith based belief, not evidence.
LikeLike
And the merry-go-round continues. I stand steadfastly by the fact that I have presented both. You dispute that. Your continuing to dispute it and to insist that I have not isn’t moving the needle in terms of convincing me that I’m in error on any single point that I’ve made. Nor, it perhaps goes without saying, am I convincing you of the counterargument. The faith I hold is rooted in the evidence. And, I know, I know, you’ll now say that it isn’t evidence, but I simply don’t agree. I think you are mistaken in that continued assertion just as you believe the same about me. So, to say it again, we will have to remain divided on the point.
LikeLike
According to the dictionary definition it is not evidence, and certainly not regarded as fact.
Let’s work through what we have.
1. We have a crucified 1st century itinnerent Rabbi. Likely fact.
2. We have an unsubstantiated claim- the resurrection – in a collection of ancient anonymous texts – the gospels.
The first of which, gMark originally did not feature any resurrection appearances, the later long ending being an interpolation.
3.We have a group of people who are claimed to have believed the resurrection claim and preached this until it became the basis of a religion.
Conclusion. A faith based belief.
LikeLike
If the Gospel accounts and Acts are historical – a point on which I remain steadfast because of the evidence (yes, the evidence) I have been presented with over the years, several points of which I have shared with you, but which, of course, you rejected as evidence – then points 2 and 3 are as I have claimed. Conclusion: a belief that is grounded in faith which is rooted in the evidence. We can keep doing this, but we’re simply not going to convince one another that the other is in error…or maybe I have that backwards. Either way, neither of us is moving the needle on the other.
Let me ask this to get your thoughts: Why would these people have begun proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus? What could have possibly motivated that on their part? From Paul’s letters, we have evidence of the existence of creeds proclaiming the resurrection. Creeds take time to develop. These are more pieces of evidence that the church began proclaiming the resurrection very soon after the purported event. What made them start to claim and proclaim this?
LikeLike
Why are there over a billion Muslims who believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged beast?
Why does Tom Cruise believe the mind numbing claims as expounded by a former science fiction writer?
Why do Mormons believe the claims surrounding an angel called Moroni and some gold plates?
Why are there people who believe the earth is a stationary disc and the moon landings were faked by NASA with the collusion of Walt Disney?
And yes, this is real. I have blogged with a chap for years who goes by the Blog name Colorstorm who believes these things. And he is a staunch fundamentalist Christian. With the emphasis on mental I wouldn’t be surprised.
Why are there many people who believe that the character Jesus of Nazareth travelled to India and died there. I presume you know of this tale and the burial place, yes?
Why are there Christians who follow the ludicrous utterances of Ken Ham and contributed millions of dollars to create a theme park called the Ark experience?
Why do people accept the word of the Catholic Church that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of the character Jesus of Nazareth as purchased by good old Joe of Arimethea or that Constantine’s mum, Helena returned from her little jaunt to Jerusalem with bits of the original cross.
Apparently there were once enough original pieces they could have likely been used to rebuild Noah’s ark!
You see, people will believe anything, no matter how wild, how outlandish how so obviously false if they are convinced it is true.
Every single person who holds these beliefs will swear by them and are convinced there is evidence that shows beyond a shadow of doubt these things happened and are real.
And this is why you believe a crucified 1st century itinerent rabbi rose from the dead after a weekend in a tomb owned by a member of the Sanheddrin who had a walk on bit part in the tale, never to be heard of again.
So you see, if you assert your beliefs are facts based on evidence then every other religious individual can do exactly the same… and in the main, they do!
You make clever arguments. You have a devout faith. That’s okay, you can believe whatever you like.
But, as with all the supernatural claims of other religions, believed by their millions of followers, you have no evidence.
LikeLike
You are indeed correct that people will believe all kinds of wild things. And their claims should be evaluated and accepted or rejected based on how well they cohere with reality. I remain convinced by the available evidence that my conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence. And, I know, you and I will continue to disagree about what counts as evidence. But, your continued insistence is worldview dependent as much as you very much don’t want to believe that (and I’m starting to think that you don’t understand the concept of worldview very well which would explain your continued insistence that it doesn’t matter), and says very little about the evidence. But then, we just keep running in circles on these same points. You are confident in your position as I am in mine. It is your worldview commitments that result in your seeing mine as so hopelessly mistaken. Again, I’m happy for us to keep spinning in circles for as long as you’d like, but we keep not advancing anywhere. It may be time for a fun, new direction.
LikeLike
I fully understand the concept of worldview and your worldview includes the belief in the supernatural / miracles and all this entails.
But this has nothing to do with the evidence pertaining to the claim that the bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
rose from the dead.
Your conclusion is based on arguments tied to the claims of unknown and unverifiable individuals from 2000 years ago which are in turn apparently linked to the claims made in an anonymous text of dubious provenance.
Your belief in the physical resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth is faith based. Not evidence based.
LikeLike
Your worldview, from what I can tell, explicitly discounts the supernatural. Thus, the claim that someone rose from the dead is unacceptable on its face and there cannot be any evidence for such a thing. And, and evidence that might be presented must be discounted.
My conclusion is based on the evidence from a set of ancient documents whose claims to historical reliability are at least as credible as any other ancient document, and arguably much more so. I’m feeling like a broken record, but I suspect you are too. It is evidence based. You simply reject the evidence.
LikeLike
I currently do not accept the supernatural as, much like the claims of the existence of your god, Yahweh, no evidence has ever been produced to demonstrate the veracity of said claim.
I have said before, I am open to the idea the supernatural exists. Simply present evidence.
The resurrection is based on an unsubstantiated claim. That you believe the claim is immaterial to its veracity or any basis in fact.
Furthermore the original claim from gMark doesn’t even contain any resurrection encounters, the long ending is an interpolation!
How on earth is this evidence supporting any claim of veracity?
I cannot, therefore reject evidence when to date it has not been presented.
LikeLike
You’ve already indicated that you don’t know what would count as evidence of the supernatural for so, and you never answered the question I asked about that, so how could I present evidence that would be meaningful? But until you are willing to accept the existence of the supernatural, claims that are supernatural on their face (i.e., raising someone from the dead) must be rejected by definition. That’s a worldview issue, not an evidentiary one. I’ve presented the evidence. You’ve rejected it not only as convincing, but as evidence in the first place. There’s nothing else I can do. The claim is substantiated. You reject the substantiation.
Mark’s resurrection claim is important not because he makes a claim for a post-rejection appearance like the other three guys do, but because it is women who reported the empty tomb and the news that Jesus was raised from the dead. The testimony of women in that culture was considered unreliable. For Mark to present this claim as being presented by women would not have been considered reliable by anyone. If he was making up a tale he hoped would convince his audience of something that hadn’t really happened, he would have had men making the discovery. The only reason he presented things as he does is that it was what actually happened. (By the way, I agree with you on the longer ending of Mark.)
LikeLike
Sigh. Sorry my friend your continued assertion you have presented evidence of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth is simply false.
Go back to the dictionary definition you introduced.
What facts via the presentation of evidence have you established?
Name one.
I do not have a specific worldview and am open to any number of things.
I do operate from the position that evidence for any claim is crucial.
“The world is flat.” plenty people believe this. And yet, no evidence.
“Dinosaurs roamed the earth with human beings.” Plenty of people believe this also. And yet,
no evidence.
In fact, for these two particular examples we have oodles upon oodles of evidence that refute such nutjob claims. And yet…. People continue to believe.
Once again merely referencing aspects of the resurrection tale in an attempt to suggest this will make the claim carry more weight is nonsense.
Did you never consider that those who wrote the tale would not have thought that using women would be a great way of establishing more credibility?
“It has to he true ‘ cos women were never believed etc etc…”
The criteria of embarrassment, right? Besides, what tomb are you talking about?
Where is it?
What archeological evidence can you present to demonstrate the veracity of the “buried in a tomb” claim?
Crucified criminals were left on the cross to rot.
I AM prepared to accept the existence of the supernatural. I have said as much several times. Simply present the evidence to demonstrate the veracity of a single supernatural claim and I will concede that the supernatural exists.
Seriously, I do not know how to make myself any more clear.
LikeLike
I feel the same.
My continuing to present evidence won’t make any difference because you will only continue to assert that I haven’t presented any as you have here once again. You are supremely confident in your position and maintain that I am in error. I’m just like you, but on the opposite side of the matter.
On the question of worldview, everyone has a specific worldview. That’s the nature of worldview. Most people don’t understand what theirs is. Your reflection some time ago that you never thought about yourself as having a worldview is an indication that you don’t know what yours is.
Culturally speaking, using women would not have been a great way of establishing credibility. The prevailing worldview of the day wouldn’t have allowed for that. You’re thinking about things from the standpoint of a modern skeptic, not as a contemporary of Mark.
I’ve already noted the lack of archaeological evidence for the empty tomb. I’m not sure why you’ve brought that back up again.
As for the supernatural, my persistent question remains: what would you consider evidence?
Our being at loggerheads continues…
LikeLike
And my persistent reply.
I have no idea… Present some evidence of the suowrnatural.
I have to ask, specifically what about the tale of the resurrection do you actually consider is evidence of the supernatural?
LikeLike
I haven’t said it is evidence of the supernatural by itself. Rather, if the historical case for the resurrection is true (and, I think it is), then that was a supernatural event. It is not natural for people to rise from the dead. Jesus’ being raised from the dead, if it happened, was a supernatural event.
LikeLike
And ‘if’ being the operative word, of course.
So in essence you are asserting that as the gospels are reliable history therefore the resurrection is fact.
Is this your position / assertion?
LikeLike
That is the debate 🙂
Yes, if the Gospels are indeed historically reliable (which was why I raised this point early on in our conversation and shared the video of Dr. Blomberg with you), then the case for the resurrection becomes overwhelming indeed. The best understanding of those facts is that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.
LikeLike
Okay! Now we may be getting somewhere.
If the gospels were shown to be historically unreliable would you reconsider your position about the (supposed) evidence for the resurrection claim?
LikeLike
Yes, I would indeed. But I’ve studied that particular question pretty thoroughly including interacting with the arguments of guys like Ehrman. You’ll find me pretty hard to convince on that score. By all means, though, make your case! (Now, it seems, the shoe has been switched to the other foot!)
LikeLike
And how many demonstrably non historical points about the gospels would you consider enough to reconsider the claims of evidence for the resurrection?
1, 10, 50?
LikeLike
I’ll respond to this later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, something new-ish to which I’d love to get your reaction because I find this very informative and I genuinely can’t imagine what the Darwinian response would be. Just listened to this podcast from DI on a scientific argument for ID based on some of Douglas Axe’s research. The point is simply to argue that the currently evolutionary mechanism for the development of life is not sufficient to explain it based on cutting edge research into protein development. How do you respond to this from a staunchly evolutionary perspective?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligent-design-the-future/id132125271?i=1000647421827
LikeLike
Not interested in pseudo-Creationism.
When mainstream evolutionary biologists give it the nod, I’ll reconsider.
Until then….
BTW, using the term “Darwinian response” comes across as a pejorative so don’t be surprised if you get an earful from more militant types.
LikeLike
How interesting. Well, I certainly didn’t intend anything pejorative in using that phrase. I meant just what I said: I am interested in what the response from the mainstream, Darwinian establishment would be to this research. That being said, it’s not less pejorative than the phrase “pseudo-Creationism.”
For what it’s worth, the podcast was a discussion of the work on protein synthesis by Douglas Axe whose work has been published in multiple mainstream academic, peer-reviewed journals. If they are willing to allow “pseudo-Creationism” into their journals, is that not to be considered “giving it the nod”? If you want to dismiss scientists like Axe where even mainstream academic journals won’t, do it on the basis of his scientific arguments and not his worldview beliefs.
The kind of dismissal you make here of vetted scientific research whose findings suggest that the current Darwinian explanation for the development of life as we know it may not be the most accurate isn’t really a good look. Ironically, it comes off as the same kind of arrogance of which you accuse various apologists of displaying.
I would challenge you to be a bit more open-minded. When you dismiss straw man versions of your ideological opponents rather than engaging meaningfully with their best arguments, it doesn’t add to the strength of your side. Just some food for thought.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute
My use of the term pseudo-science was meant to be a pejorative.
I might well be inclined to use other, more colourful terms but in deference to possible sensitivities you may have I will refrain.
And while we are in the subject of dismissing nonsense, why have you not openly come out and fully condemned the crap espoused by the likes of Ken Ham?
Until proper scientists with no religious/ goddidit agenda come out and wholly endorse these people and their work best we not pursue these topics in future.
Sorry, but it makes my blood boil.
At least Templeton are more or less upfront when they are dishing out the dollars to fund their goddidit style research (sic) projects.
So, have you had chance to consider my previous question, yet?
Looking forward to
LikeLike
So, your response is to cite yet another Wikipedia page with an obviously negative bias which thus brings its objectivity and reliability into question. This would be like my pointing you to a Wiki page on Darwinism written by an ID proponent. Would you be convinced or even remotely persuaded by anything you found there? At the same time, you didn’t engage with the scientific arguments at all. Your response was a pretty classic red herring. Is Axe’s science bad? Are his conclusions wrong? Have the academic journals that have published his work been wrong to do so? Is their peer review process somehow flawed?
On Ham finally, no, I don’t agree with his take on many things. I also try not to attack character or pejoratively dismiss people with whom I disagree, even when I disagree with them vigorously. You called me out once when it appeared I might have done so with Carrier. I would encourage you to hold to the standards you have set.
Refusing to engage with scientific arguments because you disagree with the worldview of a particular scientist seems unwise to me. If a particular scientist has carefully followed the scientific method in pursuit of a valid question, then his hypotheses are either correct or incorrect. His worldview has absolutely no impact on that part of his work. It may have everything to do with the kind of questions he’s asking in the first place and the kinds of hypotheses he formulates, but again, his scientific method makes those either right or wrong, valid or invalid. That’s what the peer review process is for.
Ironically, the kind of approach for which you seem to be advocating has throughout history been used time and time again by those in positions of power to silence critical voices who disagreed with them, often leading those same people to later wind up with egg on their face when the critics were finally proven true because their data was the most correct. Even if the implications they suggested because of it were incorrect, the data is still the data. If Axe has found that the odds of the creation of a novel protein by chance are impossibly small, either he is correct or he is incorrect. His religious beliefs are irrelevant to that particular question. The kind of arrogant, dismissive response that often comes from the Darwinist community in the face of valid scientific challenges begins to draw questions as to the weakness of the position. It is also why more and more folks who give their arguments a fair minded hearing are coming away convinced not necessarily that their religious views are correct, but that their scientific challenges are legitimate.
I’m curious why this makes your blood boil so much?
I have indeed considered your latest question. I’m hoping to have the time tomorrow (for me) to be able to give it the time it needs.
LikeLike
I asked that we not pursue this.
Please respect my wishes.
LikeLike
I was merely curious about your response to that particular podcast in light of our recent conversations. Your strong response piqued more curiosity, so I asked. Out of respect, we can indeed step back from this point again.
I’ll confess, your particularly strong resistance to this range of topics is especially interesting to me and suggests there’s a story behind it that I would love to hear more about someday, but I’ll do my best to stay away from it. If I draw near that line again, I assure you it won’t be intentional. Please gently remind me we’re treading on ground you’d rather avoid for now (or ever), and we’ll steer away from it again.
I’ll spend some more time laying out the challenges you have in attempting to convince me the Gospels are not historically reliable tomorrow if I am able. Tuesday at the latest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laying out the challenges?
I already thought you had suggested if the Bible were to demonstrated to be historically unreliable you would reconsider your position on the resurrection tale?
I asked how many instances of historical unreliability it would take before you reconsidered:1,10, 50?
LikeLike
I did indeed. And I stand by that. But your challenge in that regard is far higher than you imagine. I’ll explain either later today or tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it?
Simply consider Adam and Eve.
LikeLike
That’s a separate issue for reasons we’ve talked about before. No red herrings here, please. We’re talking about the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts. I’ll lay out a fuller response as I promised.
LikeLike
No problem. However red herring it is not.
The character Jesus of Nazareth is considered to come directly from Adam.
And of course there is original sin to consider.
But sure, we can stay directly focussed on the Gospels and Acts, though I am a little baffled why you consider a fuller response is needed?
After all, the onus is on me to provide the evidence / examples of historical unreliability.
All I was asking is how many examples would suffice?
LikeLike
Per the witness of the Scriptures, everyone comes from Adam. The question of the historical existence of Adam has no bearing on the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts. That’s a separate matter.
And, I’ll explain in that fuller response :-). (The waiting builds suspense…and I have work to do that I’m actually getting paid for.)
LikeLike
Well, Yahweh does require his pound worth of flesh. Or dollar’s worth in your case. Lots and lots of dollars in actual fact.
*shrug*
LikeLike
That’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax 🙂
LikeLike
Well, the Church and the Pope… your god, Yahweh’s premier rep. here on earth is/was regarded as infallible, getting the nod of succession from Peter who was given the seal of approval from JC himself, do the story goes, right?
I can’t believe I managed to type that without collapsing in laughter.
🤦
So, examples of historical unreliability? Have you decided on the number that would represent the threshold of credibility for you to serious question the reliability of the resurrection tale?
Wouldn’t half a dozen be ample?
LikeLike
There you go painting with too broad a brush again. That particular tradition may be close to the one you started out in, but not me. I think it’s almost as silly as you do. As for a number, I’m not going to give you a number. I’ll explain why when I have time (hopefully tomorrow at this point) to sit down and engage with you on it. I’ve neither forgotten about you nor am I avoiding it. I just have real life matters to attend to in the meantime. Stay patient. I’ll get back with you soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem. Life happens.
How’s your boy? For any parent, sick children so often make us feel helpless. Feeling better I hope?
LikeLike
Much better, thanks. Yes, sick kids are no fun. We’ve had plenty of it over the years, but thankfully nothing too terribly serious.
LikeLike
I’m sure most parents have their fair share of tales. Fortunately we live in a society where in most cases adequate nutrition, medical knowledge and facilities are a phone call away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen to that. And for that, we have the Christian worldview to thank 😉
LikeLike
Really? So they still use blood letting, leeches and exorcisms? Oh, and intercessory prayer works wonders too, no doubt?
LikeLike
Well, that last one does, yes, but in fairness, I wouldn’t at all expect you to agree or understand. Not because you’re not capable, of course, but because you don’t have the belief framework in place for such a category to make any sense. That’s a whole other theological conversation we can pursue another time if you’d like.
On the others, those first two were widely used medical practices in their day and not something the Christian worldview hastened or necessarily protected. Raising those kinds of issues in response to my comment is yet another red herring.
Historically speaking, it was men (and a few women, happily, but mostly men because of the nature of the culture) of science who were uniformly driven by their deeply held belief in an orderly God who created a world that could be rigorously and exhaustively studied in order to better understand how it worked and to make it better that resulted in pretty much every scientific advancement that came out of the scientific revolution. That is, they were driven to do Abe create the things they did because of their faith, not in spite of it. No other religious worldview ever produced the kinds of technological advancements, and more than that, the kind of systematic approach to science that generated them that came out of the Christian worldview. Nor could they have. They were (and mostly are) operating on philosophical assumptions that couldn’t support it. They produced some grand inventions and ideas, no doubt about it, but in terms of systematizing things to produce more than a handful of impactful one-offs, no. But now we’re talking about entirely more recent history for which the evidence is abundantly clear. We can go there next if you’d like.
As for exorcisms, those are still practiced today, but mostly by the Catholic Church, and my familiarity with the practice is decidedly small such that conversation here won’t be able to be very productive. I heard a fascinating interview with a priest who is an exorcist the other day, though. I learned a lot from that.
LikeLike
An orderly God?
Do you include those who consider Allah to this supposed God?
You are aware of the abject failure of the largest intercessory prayer experiment conducted by the Templeton Foundation, I presume, yes?
You don’t really believe humans are possessed by demons and bad ju-ju?
On tenter hooks waiting for your unhistorical gospel/ Acts list….
I really don’t need a tome or a treatise just a figure and I’ll take it from there.
Or are you struggling to define the terms surrounding historically unreliable?
Seriously, how hard can it be to come up with a number you will accept for the historically unreliability of the Gopels/Acts?
LikeLike
Absolutely an orderly God. But don’t just take my word for it. Take the word of Isaac Newton. Or Robert Boyle. Or pretty much any of the founders of any modern scientific discipline. They were almost uniformly Christian. Their theology was not monolithic, and I don’t agree with all of their positions on every matter, but it was unquestionably their belief in an orderly God who created a world that can (and should) be explored in a systematic, rigorous way, that led them in pursuit of their various disciplines which have transformed the world many times over.
As for Allah, I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up. That’s totally irrelevant to the question at hand. The God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same God. Anyone you’ve ever heard say otherwise either doesn’t know what they are talking about or else are trying to be intentionally deceptive for some reason. To speak to what I think might be your reason for bringing this up, no, Muslims do not believe Allah is an orderly God who created a world that can and should be explored in a systematic and rigorous way like Christians historically have. That’s why although there were some great mathematical and scientific discoveries that came out of the Arab world, nothing like the scientific revolution ever happened there. Their religious worldview didn’t allow for something like that happening. The Christian worldview rather explicitly does.
As for the Templeton Foundation’s experiment with prayer, yes, I’ve heard of it. That the experiment was a failure on the grounds they were using to define success doesn’t surprise me in the least. The whole premise of that experiment was to treat God like a kind of vending machine. He’s not beholden to us. And that’s not the main purpose of prayer anyway (to build a relationship with God). That experiment has absolutely zero bearing on my own view of prayer. But again, I told you that I didn’t expect you to understand any of this. You’re coming at it from the standpoint of skepticism. What a Christian would quickly and confidently attribute to prayer, you will be definition attribute to literally any other means. That doesn’t make you more right on the question. (Nor does it automatically make the Christian more right.) It simply means you are coming at things from a paradigmatically opposite perspective.
I’m not sure about “bad ju-ju,” but, yes, I believe demon possession is a real thing. But then I share the perspective of the various New Testament authors, not to mention Jesus, that there is an unseen spiritual world that includes both angels and demons. Most of the modern cultural beliefs about demon possession and the like are nonsense, I try to stick pretty closely with what can be understood from the Scriptures on this question. That results in a pretty quick willingness to wave the mystery banner, but that it exists is something I’m very comfortable accepting.
I’ll confess, I’m finding some humor in how anxiously you seem to be waiting to pounce on my forthcoming response on the matter of the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts.
Speaking of that…
LikeLike
You believe demon possession is a real thing?
Oh, dear. Should we be burning witches as well, then?
LikeLike
Yes, I do, to the first, but then I’ve already made clear that I accept the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts, so that really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to you.
As for the second, of course not. Witches (to use the title practitioners of the Wiccan religion give themselves) don’t pose any threat to the church or believers, and there is nothing in the New Testament that would justify such a horrible punishment. Where that kind of practice existed historical, it was largely fueled not by the teaching of the orthodox church, but by a combination of superstitious beliefs that existed before the church arrived and a corrupted theology from the church itself. Where the church had a strong cultural presence, those kinds of things tended not to happen at all. It was where the church was weak and where people leaned more into their pre-Christian superstitions that things tended to get out of hand. Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t historical examples of the church running off the rails and where people claiming the mantle of church authority were disastrously, sinfully not like Jesus in their pursuit of theological purity within their spheres of influence. But for perhaps a few high profile cases, though, most of the time when a “witch” got burned, it was in places where the power and authority of the church were the weakest and people were ruled more by older superstitions than dedication to the Scriptures and the way of Jesus. When the church got involved, it tended to put a stop to that kind of thing.
But then, you still haven’t touched on the worldview of the founders of modern science. You keep going after the far too commonly raised straw men attacks on Christianity. That one in particular didn’t exist until Voltaire popularized it based on what were overwhelmingly historical fabrications by the well-known critic of the church. I’ve been pretty consistent in responding to all of your charges while you continue to pick and choose the ones I offer up. I’m intrigued by which you choose and which you don’t.
LikeLike
The reason these issues are pertinant is illustrated by the fact you admit to believing in demon possession.
Under such circumstances any criticism of my position as a skeptic comes across as not only hypocritical but somewhat farcical.
While you continue to post ream after ream dissecting every comment, often to the nth degree I prefer to hone in on specifics.
Rather stick to one or two topics and try to make them as succinct as possible. It isn’t that I have ADHD or anything. When believers insist I must read Strobel, Wallace or WLC..etc , I have heard pretty much all apologetic arguments and thus I sometimes tune out… You know, been there heard that etc etc
LikeLike
I understand that. I lean a bit more in the direction of verbosity and thoroughness as you have perhaps already surmised. But, you raise most of the topics. I simply respond. To be fair, I’ve heard pretty much all the apologetic arguments for atheism and found them similarly wanting.
I’m curious how my belief (or that of any Christian operating from the standpoint of an historically orthodox theology) in demon possession being a real thing renders any criticism of your position hypocritical.
That being said, I’m willing to accept the charge of its seeming farcical. Your worldview doesn’t allow for the existence of such a thing, and so any such beliefs stemming from an inherently supernatural worldview will seem disconnected from reality on their face. If you have any interest in the matter from the standpoint of honest engagement, stay away from popular media and do some looking into the reports of Catholic exorcists simply talking about the kinds of things they have seen an experienced. The interview I mentioned before is a good example of a sober-minded, non-sensationalist priest simply telling the stories of what he has seen and heard.
LikeLike
There are no apologetic arguments for atheism. That is either a statement borne of ignorance or disingenuity.
Atheism is solely the lack of belief in gods. PERIOD!
My lack of belief in the supernatural is based solely on the complete lack of evidence.
Which brings us right back to the gospel claims of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
When I have stressed over and over I will respond positively to evidence of the supernatural, in all honesty, why do you truly think I would not believe the resurrection tales as presented in the gospels?
LikeLike
I meant exactly what I said. Of course there are apologetic arguments for atheism. You’ve been making them over and over as our conversation has progressed. To offer an apology for something is to offer a reasoned argument in favor of a particular position. There are both positive apologetic arguments which offer positive reasons why adopting a certain position is good and right to do. There are also negative apologetic arguments which offer reasons why accepting a different viewpoint is mistaken or unreasonable. Nearly all of the apologetic arguments for atheism are of this second kind, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are apologetic arguments.
My confidence in your willingness to believe Jesus rose from the dead is low because thus far you’ve rejected every argument I’ve made for it and the evidence I have provided. You’ve done that mostly by insisting it can’t be considered evidence, but the outcome has been the same either way.
As for the supernatural, I offered up the evidence of experience, but you never indicated any interest in that. You are operating – from what I can tell – from a position of a pretty strict empiricism. That limits the kinds of evidence you will be willing to accept and the set of things you will be willing to count as knowledge. That’s the result of the philosophical choices you seem to have made. You have suggested you are more open than that, but I have yet to see any evidence in any of your comments or arguments for that greater openness. And, you haven’t been able (or willing, but I think able is the right word from how you phrased it before) to even tell me what kind of evidence for the supernatural you would find convincing. So, how can you say there is a complete lack of evidence when you don’t even know what kind of evidence would be compelling?
LikeLike
Wrong again. Atheism is simply the lack of belief of God’s, your god, Yahweh and every other humans have so far come up with. There is no doctrine, signs, worldview or anything else.
As of yet you have not provided any evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth, only unsupported claims.
The same applies for the supernatural, which would include such things as the resurrection.
Compelling evidence?
Once more, I refer you to the dictionary definition you provided.
LikeLike
Philosophically speaking, your assertion that there is no worldview that accompanies atheism is simply mistaken. There are a handful of different worldviews that create a philosophical justification for atheistic truth claims. I’m not sure what you mean by signs, but as far as doctrine goes, doctrine is simply a set of beliefs. Atheism isn’t merely the lack of belief. It is the active belief that there is no God or god or gods or divine beings or supernatural creatures and etc. Those are different things. In fact, given that belief in some sort of divine presence has been pretty much a part of every human culture that has ever existed, the choice to not believe is quite a bit more of an active affair than it seems. It is to actively go against the grain of the mass of humanity through human history. And, the decision to reject a belief in anything divine carries with it implications. That is, there are other things you believe because of that belief. That’s doctrine. It may not be formalized or very organized, but that’s what it is.
And, I don’t think we need to go back to our running debate about evidence. We’ve covered that one pretty thoroughly.
LikeLike
Again, you are mistaken and the dictionary definition should suffice.
A-Theism. The lack of belief in gods.
The definition is in the word.
Again. A-Theism.
What other agendas or views individual atheists may wish to introduce is their business.
It is not a worldview and never aspires to be.
It has no doctrine, no dogma, no ‘holy texts’, no charters, no special handshakes or silly walks or rituals. No high priests or priestesses, no commandments, no special hats no golden tablets, no official temples, no idols, no chants or invocations, no sacred verse, no special holy days,no special food or drink.
Just a lack of belief in gods, your god, the Canaanite deity, Yahweh and all others so far mentioned by humans. Period.
Why this is such a problem for theists is somewhat baffling.
I have thought in the past that maybe this behaviour is an attempt to shift the burden of proof by muddying the waters regarding supposed claims and what have you?
To my mind it suggests a lack of confidence in one’s position when those whose theist worldview, which in turn is based largely on unsubstantiated faith based claims, deem it crucial to their position to try to define those who do not hold with such beliefs on their terms rather than qualify their own position with evidence that vindicates their Theism.
In fairness the evidence debate is still very much alive and kicking.
I am only applying the dictionary definition you offered and I accepted.
To date you have not provided evidence that meets the criteria you laid out as per Bing
If you wish to offer a different definition then I am more than willing to consider it.
LikeLike
I’m simply offering observation on the philosophical foundations of our conversation. I’m not trying to distract or shift the burden of proof or qualify atheism on theist terms. I’m just stating things that are philosophically true about atheism. Atheism is a philosophical claim that divine beings of any kind don’t exist. As such, it carries with it a burden of proof in the same way that a philosophical claim of theism (and in my case, an explicitly Christian theism) carries with it a burden of proof. I haven’t asked you to actually prove much of anything beyond seeking justification for certain claims you have made. Some you have offered; some you have not. That’s your choice. None of that changes the fact, though, that atheism is a worldview claim.
As for our evidence debate, I have offered facts and information pointing to the reasonableness of my position. You have rejected those facts and information as facts and therefore evidence. I disagree. At this point, there’s not really so much of a debate as our simply repeating the same things back and forth to each other, with neither of us doing much in the way of convincing the other. I’m not sure what else we can add. If you think there is more to be added still, by all means, add away.
LikeLike
Wrong yet again.
I reiterate. The definition is in the word A-Theism. Simply a lack of belief in gods.
There are millions of atheists and many have highly diverse lifestyles.
The only thing we have uncommon is our lack of belief in gods.
No worldview
.
But if you can find something that specifically and officially outlines an atheist worldview ( something comparable to the Christian worldview) I would be very interested in reading it.
I have acknowledged facts and info when you have presented them, and will continue to do so.
But evidence you have not presented, and nothing that even comes close to concluding the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth is an historical fact.
Belief, without evidence to support it, no matter how fervant, is not going to cut it Ever.
What remains is faith.
LikeLike
Well, we will again have to agree to disagree on the philosophical question. And we will have to continue to disagree on the question of which things count as facts and which don’t. For what it’s worth, I very much agree with your last statement. Belief without evidence to support should not cut it.
LikeLike
Again, if you are able to present something official regarding your views on atheism to demonstrate your assertion it is a worldview I would love to read it.
Are you aware of some sort of official declaration/ worldview?
I too am glad you accept the statement on belief.
Now all we have to do is get you to acknowledge what is evidence and why the tales of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth do not cut it.
But I suspect such an admission would mean you were on the brink of deconverting.
Out of interest, I wonder have you ever heard of/ read any of the testimonials of former professional clergy over at the clergyproject.com
As these people have been on both sides of the fence their deconversion stories might carry a lot more weight than a lowly amateur such as myself?
LikeLike
There are plenty of descriptions of the relevant worldview available for you without too much investigating on your part. I’ll let you look those up and read them when you have the time.
I’ll be ready to acknowledge what evidence is in a way that satisfies you about the same time you are willing to acknowledge what evidence is in a way that satisfies me ;~)
I have not heard of the Clergy Project. I’m well aware of the testimonies of folks who have deconverted. I have found most of them to be pretty tragic, and they are generally rooted in pain of some kind that never got meaningfully addressed.
LikeLike
I am sure there are plenty of descriptions of worldviews of atheists. Mine include, but not limited to, caring and respect for other animals, including not eating them, being vegetarian and the importance of growing one’s own food, but I am unaware of anything remotely official or even official sounding concerning atheism.
Have you any specific links you could direct me to?
In actual fact it is the conversion tales that are more often than not have a background steeped in pain: believing one is a sinner, confessing such sins, begging forgiveness etc.
Those who deconvert and especially those former professionals over at the clergyproject.com seem to do so because they have realized there is no evidence to support the claims that first led them into seminary etc.
Any trauma I have encountered on the clergyproject would be down to pastors having to maintain the charade of belief, especially where their livelihood was on the line. That I can well imagine is a tough and bitter pill to swallow.
I have never read Ehrman’s deconversion testimony, for example, but he doesn’t strike me as one whose background is pockmarked by the type of emotional trauma that is so often the hallmark of those who convert and more so the born again type.
Francis Collins comes to mind here.
LikeLike
I don’t immediately off hand.
There are unfortunately many stories of people who played make believe with Christianity in order to appease parents or a church community that most definitely failed in acting out of the love of Christ toward them. That is unwillingly a tragedy. Unfortunately, people are manipulated into believing all kinds of things. The results of that are often terrible. It is not uncommon for people to turn their back entirely on whatever it was they had felt made to believe but never really did. The thing is: you can’t force genuine belief. If you try, you’ll fail, and you’ll make a mess while you do it. And, yes, maintaining a charade for some of those folks was likely agonizing.
On Collins, I wasn’t aware that he had renounced his faith.
Still, for the number of those stories that are available, they are still a minority report. A tragic one, but they are greatly outnumbered by positive stories of dramatic life change.
LikeLike
Collins has not renounced his faith. I was referring to the emotional issues that caused him to eventually convert.
LikeLike
I’ve not heard or read his particular conversion story.
LikeLike
Google is your friend!
LikeLike
I’ll have to look it up :~)
LikeLike
Typo: the only thing we have IN common…
LikeLike
This will be more than you are asking for, but you deserve to have the full picture of where I’m coming from, and why I have said your challenge is so big.
Here’s your challenge…
There’s not some finite number of supposed historical inaccuracies that is finally going to bring me to the point of saying, “You know what? This really is all a bunch of mythical nonsense.” For me to say, “If you can find 10 examples, you’ll convince me,” would be dishonest.
Now, I know some of this may not make any sense to you. It may strike you as wildly unreasonable. It might even justify to you all of your presumptions that Christians are a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking weirdos. I hope not. I hope that our conversation this far has left you thinking that while we don’t agree on very much, I’m not a wildly unreasonable guy or a head-case of some sort. But, it might, so I want to at least throw at out there.
I’ve spent quite a lot of time over the years studying this particular question. I’ve read lots of books. I’ve interacted with the work of believing scholars as well as unbelieving scholars. I’ve sifted through numerous objections to the historicity of the Gospels and Acts. I’ve worked through the responses of Christian scholars as well. From all of that, I have come away with the firm conclusion that they are absolutely historically reliable. I am thoroughly convinced that when one of those four authors make an historical claim, that claim is accurate and true.
Now, this does not mean I think there is hard, archaeological evidence to back up every single historical claim the authors make. On the contrary, I know very well there is not. But the pattern and trajectory of the evidence that has been discovered (yes, I chose that word intentionally) I find to be sufficiently compelling that I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to those places that do not have such evidence yet. Over the last couple hundred years as skeptics have questioned the historical claims of the Gospels and Acts and as archaeologists have started systematically digging up the Middle East, there have been numerous instances in which this or that person or this or that place the authors have described in specific terms that skeptical scholars previously pronounced as obviously mistaken have been subsequently proven accurate. A quick search of biblical archaeological finds demonstrating the truthfulness of the historical claims in the Gospels and Acts will turn up many examples. Because this has been the clear trajectory of the evidence, your simply pointing out a handful of examples of places where no evidence has been found for this or that claim isn’t going to be at all convincing. You are going to have to be able to demonstrate a clear pattern of historical inaccuracies before I’m going to even consider your charge. And, given that I’ve spent the better part of 25 years studying the matter, including interacting with some of the work of the scholars you may cite (and, no, I will not accept a Wiki entry as evidence), you’ll have to forgive me for being exceptionally skeptical (see what I did there?) of your ability to do that. That doesn’t have anything to do with you specifically, but with the tools available to make your case. Now, does that mean I think I’m going to have a quick answer for every possible example you might cite for me? No, I’m not an expert. But even where I don’t know the quick or immediate response, I’m still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt because of the larger trajectory.
Here’s the second part of your challenge, and this part you will likely understand even less than the first. I believe that God reveals Himself in His word to those who are genuinely seeking Him. That doesn’t mean He’s going to do it on our timetable, but He does it all the same. Guys like Paul and John and the author of Hebrews talk about how God’s Spirit is active in His words, helping believers come to understand them better and to experience the truthfulness of them. Personally, I’ve experienced the truthfulness of these words. This is something that exists in me alongside the evidence we have previously discussed (I know, I know, we don’t agree on what counts as what, but I’m going to keep approaching the matter from out of my perspective). I can say that I have experienced God through His word. I have lived out some of the ways what He inspired these authors to write is true. There’s something about all of this that until you are willing to let the preponderance of evidence lead you to the place of accepting on faith that Jesus really did rise from the dead, that He really is God, and that His word really is true, you aren’t going to be able to experience or know. And because I have this in addition to the historical evidence for the reliability, your task is tall indeed.
The truth is, I have experienced the hope and joy and peace the Christian worldview provides, whose equal is hard to find. I have experienced the love of God. I’ve been made aware of the depths of my own brokenness, and felt the affirming love of God anyway. His love for not just me, but of you and everyone else in the world is so great that He was willing for His Son’s life to be sacrificed for ours so that we can have freedom from the sin that drags us down and eternal life in His kingdom when this life is over. The confidence that I have in Him because of what He’s done for me in Jesus is pretty unshakable. That kind of transformative love is something anyone can have if they’re willing to stop trying to be the god of their own little world and live in the much grander world He created for everyone to enjoy.
LikeLike
That is quite a nice piece of prose which explains in a round the burning bush sort of way why you believe what you believe yet it doesn’t address my question, to which you agreed that if the gospels could be shown to be historically unreliable, and by extension, Acts you would reconsider your position regarding the claim of the historicity of the resurrection.
Or perhaps it does and I simply got lost in the flowery somewhat apologetic sounding language?
In actual fact, I get the feeling you are not really being serious about this and should I go through the whole laborious process – and it can and HAS been done- you will simply come back and tell me that no matter what the evidence points out your faith guides you in another direction.
After all, you didn’t convert because of evidence, did you?
So, while your final extended paragraph is full of feel good personal stuff about how Yahweh makes you feel and how he sacrificed his kid ( which makes Christianity a cult of human sacrifice) you really must be upfront and honest in this regard.
Will evidence of historical unreliability truly make you reconsider the veracity of the resurrection claim?
LikeLike
No, I mean quite seriously that if evidence could be produced demonstrating the historical unreliability of the Gospels, I would indeed reconsider. I simply don’t think you can do that. I’ve interacted with multiple attempts to do just that over the years and found all of them lacking. I shared all of that to say that if you don’t want to expend the effort, I understand. Belief absolutely plays a role in my position, but so does the evidence. My initial conversion was not rooted in an exhaustive examination of the evidence, no. As I have done that in the many years since, I have found my initial conclusion proven valid over and over and over again. You would have to show not merely some finite number of supposed historical inaccuracies, but also that I am unreasonable in giving the benefit of the doubt to those historical claims where there is not obvious historical or archaeological evidence. You would also have to be able to explain why I should trust that supposed historical inaccuracies won’t yet be proven accurate by subsequently discovered evidence as many, many others have been. If you can indeed do all of that (and though there have been many attempts to do so over the years, I disagree with you that it has been done), I will reconsider my position. So again, if you are interested in the effort, you are welcome. If you are not, that’s fine too.
By the way, the charge that Jesus’ sacrifice makes Christianity a “cult of human sacrifice” is the kind of caricaturization rooted in ridicule that an adolescent would raise. It stems from a profound misunderstanding of the whole thing and is a tip off to any Christian who has really studied the matter with any kind of serious effort that you aren’t a serious critic. I don’t think any of those things are true of you from how our conversation has gone so far, so I would encourage you to not try to use that particular line of attack if you genuinely interested in having substantive conversations about this kind of stuff with serious-minded ideological opponents.
LikeLike
The Christian belief in atonement demands blood. Ergo, it is a cult of human sacrifice albeit one human, the character Jesus of Nazareth. John 3:16, yes?
You could start by popping over to my blog and read the extensive post by Professor Taboo. That covers a fair amount of material to be going on with.
By the way, do you believe in Bible inerrancy?
LikeLike
Perhaps…but calling it a cult of human sacrifice conveys something about it generally that is not even remotely true. In cults of human sacrifice, there are typically ongoing sacrifices made to appease the gods and those sacrifices are generally (but not entirely) of unwilling participants. Jesus, on the other hand, willingly gave up His life when He did not have to do such a thing, in order to make a way for the rest of us to get to God. That is fundamentally different and not a serious critique of Christianity.
Send me the link to Professor Taboo’s post and I’ll give it a read.
And, yes, I do accept the doctrine of inerrancy.
LikeLike
Well, Yahweh sent his kid, as as Abraham would have done with his.
Blood is demanded. No matter the motivation behind it the whole idea is barbaric and revolting.
Yahweh, reckoned sacrificing his kid would cancel out the need for future sacrifices. So yes, a cult of human sacrifice.
And Christians once buried kids in post holes to ward off evil spirits. You know… demons and what have you?
Prof’s comment is on my blog. Just pop over.
LikeLike
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t suspect I’m going to move you from it, and I think you are guilty of a rather dramatic category error as well as profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. I’m not totally certain if the error is on purpose to try to get a rise out of me or any other believer you might engage with, or because you genuinely don’t understand the matter well enough to grasp the difference, but either way, debating this point isn’t worth either of our time.
I don’t deny that people claiming Christ have done some weird things over time, but these weren’t things that found traction in the Gospel. They were pretty consistently cultural practices that wound up getting a veneer of Christian theology wrapped around them. Whenever that happens, it doesn’t tend to go well for anyone involved.
I took a look at Prof’s comments and even checked out the Bible contradictions website he linked. I’m curious: do you find the arguments he presented there or the material in the contradictions website (which was pretty impressive, by the way, just in terms of the amount of labor it took to put that together) strong or compelling at all?
LikeLike
In case you’re interested.
I put up a post on my blog and posed the question whether the gospel account of the resurrection can be regarded as evidence ( to the veracity of the claim) you are more than welcome to pop over and join in.
Or simply read along.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Among a few of my regular visitors, you might have a slightly more receptive audience. Beverly for one. Maybe Arnold as well. Both Christian.
Beverly taught me about growing sweet potatoes! ( via her dad).
Her advice helped me get the best crop after a couple of failed attempts.
You will like her.
Not making any promises about all my blog pals, some can be quite tough. Take no prisoners and all that. I am upfront on this so you don’t think I am trying to pull a Gotcha.
Professor Taboo is well read. Even attended seminary if memory serves?
His knowledge of the bible and its history etc makes my head spin at times.
He is usually very respectful when engaging believers.
His only major flaw is being an Arsenal supporter. I try to forgive him but it is really so hard.
But at least you will get the chance to hone your apologist skills!
It might give you some interesting material for a post or two?
If you visit and want to jump in I will take a back seat and follow along.
Someone might offer a different perspective I can relate to. Not holding my breath on that score, but you never know?
Have fun!
😊
LikeLike
Yes, it looks like a fun group, though not one from which I suspect I’d find much reception for the position I’ve been arguing to you. I’ll watch and for now and jump in when something really catches my eye. Until then…go Arsenal? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arsenal? You’re just a mean person!
LikeLike
Typo: Dictionary definition.
LikeLike
I almost forgot… How’s your kid?
LikeLike
Thanks for that. He’s sleeping it off. Hopefully (prayerfully?) he wakes up bug free and able to starting getting some nutrients back into him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol… Just realised which post you were responding to.
I am busy reading your Exodus series and thought I would leave a comment here.
In truth the Exodus can be regarded a separate tale to the resurrection so I guess it doesn’t necessarily compromise the single thread request.
If you want to skip back to our original discussion and provide the resurrection evidence over there that will be fine.
Probably better in fact.
I guess you did sort of address the issue of whether Jesus accepted Moses was a genuine historical character.
LikeLike
I just saw the comment and didn’t even pay attention to what post you had attached it! Shame on me for not paying better attention! I’ve been inviting folks in my congregation here to read through our conversation to see how a convicted but civil conversation about matters of faith with someone who falls on the opposite of the issue can look like. Now I’m going to have to point them to a different post to keep up with the discussion if they so desire. Oh well. They’ll figure it out :~)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seeing as we have strayed far from our original topic regarding evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth, and as I had recommended Matt Dilahunty I came across this video of him responding to a caller who phoned in to demonstrate that the Bible claims of the resurrection are reliable and historically sound.
Just a warning in case you are sensitive. Toward the end Dilahunty vents some frustration with a smattering of bad language.
I am very interested to read your response as I reckon Dilahunty presents a similar argument as what I tried to get across only he does it a lot better!
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll give it a look sometime tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oof. That was painful to listen to. I’ll give the caller credit for courage, but he was not at all prepared for what he encountered.
The trouble he was facing (and didn’t realize it) is that while there are some skeptics who are as uninformed about both their position and the Christianity they have rejected as so many believers are who have just accepted what they’ve been told, haven’t examined the evidence, and are relying mostly on emotion and experience, there are some who are generally much better informed. If you go in to challenge somebody who has his own skeptical call in show, you’d better be ready for a challenge. This guy very clearly wasn’t.
He was only prepared to parrot a pared down version of Habermas’ least facts approach and thought that would be enough to win the point. He was not anticipating anything like the resistance he found. Along the way, he conceded way too much ground without a fight and wound up looking pretty foolish. I felt badly for him. I imagine you only almost did 😉
I thought there were several problems with the host’s arguments. I would have to go back and listen again slowly to highlight what I heard. I wish I had time to do that, but I do not right now. I also think he actually was guilty of some special pleading in spite of his bluster to the contrary. As we have talked about some, he was assuming on a standard for evaluating the historicity of the Gospels (and Acts as well, but they didn’t touch on that one) that either he likely wouldn’t apply to other ancient documents or else he would have to concede that we know far less about the ancient past than most historians would agree.
He comes across with much confidence, but I don’t find him convincing at all. He’s raising points that have long since been addressed in ways I find a great deal more compelling.
LikeLike
Dilahunty addressed the issue of Gospel anonynimity,( it says so right there in the bible) the complete absence of eyewitness testimony, those prepared to die for their beliefs and most importantly the total lack of evidence for the resurrection.
Dilahunty asked repeatedly what evidence the caller could provide to verify the gospel claims.
The caller was unaware of any or, as it seemed, knew there isn’t any.
What do you consider Dilahunty was wrong about, and why?
LikeLike
It also said in that introduction he quoted from that the early church fathers were uniform in their assuming on the authorship of the Gospels. While there are indeed no specific authorship claims found within any of the four Gospels themselves, it would seem to me that if the early church fathers accepted that the authorship claimed by the respective titles, and if they were willing to accept that on the basis of the tradition they inherited (as is almost certainly the case), then beyond simply taking up a position of skepticism, there’s not good reason to reject the authorship claims.
No one was an eye-witness to the event of the resurrection itself. None of the Gospels claims that. Instead, the various eye-witness claims are of encounters with the risen Jesus. What the caller rather clumsily argued for is that if all of these different people claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus, and if the church started proclaiming Jesus rose from the dead as its central theological claim within a generation of its supposed happening (well before legendary material would likely have entered into the creedal statements they formed), the best explanation of those historical facts is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
As for a full description of where I disagreed with his arguments, again, I’ll have to go back through and listen again when I’m at my desk and have time to jot them down. The short version, though, is that I don’t think he’s right that the Gospels can’t be relied upon as historical documents. We’ve already spent a lot of time talking about that. I shared the video of Dr. Blomberg making the basic case with you as well.
LikeLike
1. Evidence or lack thereof trumps tradition or personal opinion. That includes yours I’m afraid. Anonymity it is. As it says in the bible.
2. Wrong. There are no eyewitnesses as was pointed out and again lack of evidence trumps unsubstantiated claims/ beliefs, as Dillahunty pointed out, again and again.
Of course you don’t think Dilahunty is correct otherwise you would deconvert.
Therefore you will do/say aImost anything to defend your faith based position.
In conclusion, there is no evidence outside of the tales in the anonymous gospels to support the claims of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
Faith it is…
LikeLike
Or it could be that they had access to evidence to support their belief that has been lost to history. Your assumption seems to be that we have all the possible evidence there could ever be on the matter. As I have argued before, that was believed to be true in the past about a number of historical claims in the Gospels and Acts until subsequent discoveries proved otherwise. I remain convinced that the comprehensive case for the historicity of the Gospels and Acts is compelling and correct. I have yet to see evidence to justify rejecting that conclusion.
Matthew and John were both eye-witnesses to the events they wrote about. Mark wrote on behalf of Peter’s eye-witness account. Luke interviewed various eye-witnesses. I’ve made the case for historicity; you’ve rejected it. I find the evidence in favor of the conclusion compelling and convincing. You reject it as evidence.
I’ve said before and I absolutely maintain this: If I were convinced by the evidence that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, I would reject my faith. I won’t say/do nearly anything to defend it. I’m merely convinced of the truthfulness of the position based on the comprehensive evidence for it. And, I know, you’re going to say there isn’t any evidence, but I simply don’t agree. On the other side of things here, you are pretty committed to your position of unbelief. Therefore, you are going to interpret everything through that lens. It would be equally unnerving for you to be shown to be in error as it would be for me I suspect. As a result, you have defined such a narrow band of what you are willing to count as evidence that you are comfortable and safe in your position. You are able to comfortably assert what you believe to be true without fear of being wrong. Our positions aren’t so dissimilar as you would like to imagine.
I’ve long since acknowledged that the resurrection isn’t mentioned outside of the Gospels. Because the Gospels are historical documents, though, that really doesn’t matter all that much. If you are going to adopt the standard that it does, apply it evenly across the ancient historical board. How many other events do we need to reject as surely historical based on the standard you insist must be used when evaluating the truth claims of the Gospels and Acts?
LikeLike
Something as crucial as evidence that would ultimately be the key to eternal life, and you suggest they lost it? 🤣
Again, if what you are convinced about and what you assert and believe cannot be substantiated with evidence then all one can do if one wants to extend a modicum of kindness is admire your faith. And only if you do not try to take it into the market place and demand it be taken seriously.
LikeLike
But that’s not the key to eternal life and they never believed as much. They knew who wrote them and didn’t feel the need to preserve the proof of that. They couldn’t have imagined people would be questioning something as obvious to them as that several hundreds of years later. That much is hypothetical, of course, but my point is that you are assuming on a completeness of knowledge here that we don’t necessarily have, and when such an assumption has been made in the past, has been demonstrated to be wrong. So, you could be wrong. You are assuming on this knowledge because of your broader belief in your position leads you to that assumption.
LikeLike
Isn’t belief in the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth the key to eternal life?
As this is the claim then surely preserving the integrity of the claim would be paramount and being able to point to eyewitnesses and have confirmation of who wrote the gospels would have been crucial.
But they did not know, and to paraphrase Life of Brian:
“They made it up as they went along”
And this is why there is no evidence to verify the claims, and why the caller to Dilahunty’s show had his metaphorical backside handed to him on a plate.
Faith yes, sure. If you like. Evidence? No.
LikeLike
Of course it is, but whether or not we’re 100% certain that, say, Matthew wrote Matthew isn’t. I think there’s good reason to believe that he did, but his document can stand on its own two feet without that total assurance. They were likely concerned most with preserving the text itself, which they did in enormously successful ways. Hanging on to a document that said, “Matthew for sure wrote this,” wasn’t as important. If it was something they all knew without question to be true and figured the title made it pretty obvious anyway, they wouldn’t have seen the need for that.
LikeLike
But there isn’t good reason and that is why the Bible says this gospel is anonymous, not to mention largely plagiarized.
It is a nice touch that the nod to tradition was included, helps keep the Mike Liconas of the world in a job, but tradition means…
“Weeell, you never know right? Wink, wink. Evidence, you say?
Hmm. Robin Hood is a nice tradition. And Nottingham is a real place as is Sherwood Forest. And they had Friars and Sheriffs and archers. So… “
LikeLike
There isn’t good reason that you are willing to imagine. From the comprehensive case I have seen made both positively and negatively, I’m convinced there is.
LikeLike
You made a case based on your beliefs .
Mike Licona and evangelical believers like him also believe as you do.
And like you he has not produced any evidence; as Ehrman pointed out to him during one of their debated.
Dilahunty did a similar thing with his caller.
Again, it stares right there in the forward to gMatthew. The gospels are anonymous.
Out of interest, being I the trade, as it were, you will likely know a lot more about this than I.
When scholars come together to put out a Bible what criteria do/ did they use to decide with enough conviction to put their decision in print at the beginning of each gospel that they are anonymous?
They are not based on evidence and the scholarly consensus acknowledges the gopelsd are anonymous
LikeLike
I’m honestly not sure what their approach there is. I’ve never been a part of that particular process.
And, once again, there’s plenty of evidence. You’ve simply chosen to reject it as evidence.
LikeLike
Ostensibly then, all those ( hundreds? ) of highly qualified bible scholars with many hundreds of thousands of hours of intense study behind them, including their ability to read and write Greek and probably Hebrew and maybe even Aramaic have all recognized there
is rock solid evidence for the named authorship of the gospels but just to piss off Mike Licona and every other evangelical, fundamentalist and firm believer that tradition is equivalent to evidence they decided to put their reputations and personal integrity on the line and assert in print, the gospels are anonymous?
My question: If you were in this position would you ever be party to such a scam if you knew this not to be the case?
LikeLike
If I did, sure, I wouldn’t be interested in being part of a scam.
You’ve brought him up several times now to the point my curiosity is up. Why do you have such hard feelings against Mike Licona? Did he do something to hurt or offend you personally?
LikeLike
So, by extension every scholar involved in that particular Bible project is wrong or a fraud, or both?
What’s your view?
One of his Licona’s debates with Ehrman is a classic example of a Bible believing inerenatist having his proverbial backside handed to him on a plate over claims of Gospel authorship and reliability.
Ehrman was courteous, yet firm and would not allow Licona to wheedle his way out of answering how exactly he established his claims were fact as they were unsupported by evidence.
It got to the point where I thought Licona was going to walk off or cry.
To Ehrman’s credit, and generosity, he eventually backed off. Maybe he was worried he might not get paid if he reduced his opponent to a blubbering wreck?
I would not have been so generous, that I can tell you.
But then, much to my enduring delight, it was once pointed out by a very irate internet Christian on another forum, I am the spawn of Satan!
I always smile when I think of it.
LikeLike
I didn’t make that argument at all. Most published Bibles don’t include discussions of authorship at all. Study Bibles generally do, and where those touch on authorship claims, the team of scholars who assemble them present the matter as honestly as they are able given the available scholarship. All my study Bibles are at the office. I’ll have to look at how some of them address the question of authorship.
That’s an example of a debate with Licona you think went badly for him. That doesn’t explain why you have such strong negative feelings toward him (and for apologists generally). So his debate seemed to go badly, why have such hard feelings for him personally over it?
And I’m sorry you had to have that particular interaction with that last guy. What a stupid thing of him to say! I’m glad you were able to laugh at it. Character assassination as a substitute for reasoned arguments isn’t ever a good look. It’s amazing how easily playground tactics come back to us when we feel cornered and exasperated.
LikeLike