Bahá'í Faith - "Jesus" - Shunyadragon?

[Adrift]

I am not sure you comprehend Geza Vermes IF you have read his books.

Of course I've read his books. Unlike you, I don't pretend I'm familiar with authors I haven't read.

I will cite some interesting exerpts from his books for further comment.

Why? I have no desire to argue against Vermes' works, and its completely off topic of this thread.

You described Geza Vermes as a moderate scholar concerning the NT. I disagree.

You disagree because you're not that familiar with NT scholarship. You act like you are, but its obvious to anyone who's seriously spent any time studying this stuff that you're not. You, like a number of the other anti-Christians on this forum, have it in your mind that when talking of "conservative" Biblical scholars, one is referring to Christian apologetic inerrantists, and that a critical scholar is everyone who doesn't fall into that fold. In your mind, a moderate scholar is someone who's more or less a Christian scholar like Burridge, who believes in the literal resurrection, but who mostly ignores it in his academic works. But see, that's exactly where you folks give yourselves away, and shows a hand that tells everyone "I haven't really read any of these authors, I'm just guessing here".

What you don't understand, and probably won't get through your head until you've actually read their works is that a large number of scholars that no one would dare call anything but conservative... folks like Burridge, Evans, Worthington, etc. don't write in their more academic treatments from a pro-miracle, pro-inerrantist, pro-apologetic stance. They write from an academically secular, purely historic point of view. They are conservative, not because they're Christians, but because their treatments deal with scripture from a very traditional understanding that the Gospels as historical records of historical events. On the opposite end you have the Jesus Seminar, where they discount something like 80% of the saying of Jesus based on a goofy criteria they made up that they couldn't apply to any other historical document. Crossan believes that Jesus wasn't burried, and that his body was simply thrown into a cairn of some sort and devoured by wild dogs. They deny the authenticity of Jesus' eschatological message. Heck the Jesus Seminar even hold the late Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter on the same level (or close to it) as the synoptics and John. Then you got the far far fringe critical scholars like Doherty and Carrier who pine for the old days of the long debunked Jesus myth garbage that no scholar worth his salt even pays any mind to anymore. All things considered, Vermes is in the middle, (maybe middle left) of the conservative/critical ends of modern scholarship. He does not deny the historicity of Christ. He does not deny 80% of sayings attributed to Jesus. He does not deny that Jesus was a real life, charismatic, and Jewish teacher, who was considered a prophet, and an exorcist, and does not deny he had an eschatological message. He does not deny that he was condemned and crucified, and ultimately buried. He does not deny that the Apostles claimed to witness something after Jesus burial. He reads and writes about the NT purely as a secular (although Jewish) historian, and so of course disregards the claims of authentic miracles. and denies the inerrancy of the Gospels. But since most scholars (even very conservative ones) do not even touch the supernatural, that's not so out of the norm. He falls in the same realm of other moderate scholars like the Lutheran Pastor and Context Group head, John Elliott who denies the inerrancy of scripture, and even denies Peter wrote his Epistles, or Richard Rohrbaugh who claims to be a Christian yet denies inerrancy, denies the virgin birth, and denies the trinity as anything but a late development of the Christian church, but both of whom study the scriptures as purely socio-historical documents. There's no doubt that these scholars are not what would be considered critically liberal. Certainly they're not as far left leaning as the Jesus Seminar. Vermes seems to hold a place near to this. His most critical stances tend to be on the titles of Jesus, and that Jesus didn't consider himself the Messiah. And yes, there are a number of passages that he disregards as inauthentic, but so what? I know its shocking to you that a Christian can read the works of a non-Christian scholar and can still appreciate what that scholar brings to the table even if one doesn't agree with his conclusions, but some of us are a bit more open-minded than the anti-Christians here give us credit for. Heck, I clearly don't agree with the conclusions of folks like Bultmann, Ehrman, or Crossan, but I still recognize them as academic authorities on the subject, and occasionally they bring to light concepts and ideas that I find valid and useful.

I've explained all of this before, but you just ignored it and continued pretending to be an expert based on Google searches and Wikipedia.

It is not hard to conclude that Vermes is primarily a scholar in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish history, culture and Religion from the following. Yes is is also a scholllar in the New Testament.

Uh, no shunya, you're not dodging this. Your statement was that Vermes specialized in the Old Testament and was critical of the New Testament. That's of course, nonsense. Almost all of Vermes' books deal with Jesus or Christianity. He has a few books about the Dead Sea Scrolls, but his specialty is clearly the NT. I don't know of any books of his that are about the Old Testament specifically. Your statement that he specialized in the OT was false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes

Vermes was one of the first scholars to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls after their discovery in 1947, and is the author of the standard translation into English of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1962)[5] He is one of the leading scholars in the field of the study of the historical Jesus (see Selected Publications, below) and together with Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman, Vermes was responsible for substantially revising Emil Schurer's three-volume work, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,[6] His An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, revised edition (2000), is a study of the collection at Qumran.[7]

He is now Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford but continues to teach at the Oriental Institute in Oxford. He has edited the Journal of Jewish Studies[8] since 1971, and since 1991 he has been director of the Oxford Forum for Qumran Research at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies[9]
Vermes is a Fellow of the British Academy; a Fellow of the European Academy of Arts, Sciences and Humanities; holder of an Oxford D. Litt. (1988) and of honorary doctorates from the University of Edinburgh (1989), University of Durham (1990), University of Sheffield (1994) and the Central European University of Budapest (2008). He was awarded the Wilhelm Bacher Memorial Medal by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1996), the Memorial Medal of the city of Makó, his place of birth (2008) and the keys of the cities of Monroe LA and Natchez MI (2009). He received a vote of congratulation from the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed by the Representative of Louisiana on September 17, 2009.
In the course of a lecture tour in the United States in September 2009, Vermes spoke at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, at Duke University in Durham NC, at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore MD, and at the University of Louisiana at Monroe and at Baton Rouge.

© source where applicable

Nice Red Herring. I don't deny any of Vermes' credentials. Stop being such a fake shunya. Just stop it. I'll just call you out every time you attempt it.

[shunyadragon]

You're so obvious, you know that shuny? You barely knew who Geza Vermes was before I brought him up in the Is History Unreliable, and the Marcan Priorty thread a couple months ago.

This was your view of him last month:



All of which reflects exactly what Vermes writes. I don't believe you ever read any book by Vermes before our discussion. Your vague knowledge of Vermes was belied by your belief that his specialty is in the OT (I have no idea where you got that from other than you assumed it since he does specialize in the DSS) or that he's skeptical of the NT (what does that even mean?). It seems to me that you probably read the Wikipedia article on Vermes real quick, came back to the thread and the spewed your nonsense (your usual game). Once you realized how ridiculously wrong you were, you went to your local public library or got on Amazon, and picked up the cheapest book you could afford by Vermes... his 122 page pamphlet The Passion, and ever since you've been name dropping him in every thread you post in like you've been reading Vermes for years.

How do you know which books I am reading or read of Vermes? I have four books by Vermes on my desk, which ones am I reading?

Do disagree that Vermes believes that Jesus was a Jew teaching to only Jews and no miracles took place in his life?

Actually much of Vermes writing concerning the NT is not necessarily his view or belief, but presenting objectively what the NT writings say, comparing the gospels and putting them into the context Jewish traditions and culture of the times, comparing different perspectives of the scripture.

Furthermore, I'm pretty convinced that you haven't read hardly any of the others in your reply either. If you had, you'd have realized that JP Holding is not a NT scholar, he's an online apologist, and Plantinga is not a NT scholar, he's a philosopher. And if your posts at TWeb are any indication, you certainly haven't read any books by Ben Worthington or NT Wright.

Your poisoned arrogant sarcasm will eventually get you on my ignore list. First, I did not refer to Plantinga as a scholar on the above list. The reference was a response to Eric in an email where he urged me to read Plantinga. My only experience with JP Holding was Tweb. I will dutifully lower his status appropriately.

[shunyadragon]

Of course I've read his books. Unlike you, I don't pretend I'm familiar with authors I haven't read.

You appear pretty good at pretending now, and not able to answer the question.

Why? I have no desire to argue against Vermes' works, and its completely off topic of this thread.

I will take that as an inability to answer, and a signal you have not read his books.


You disagree because you're not that familiar with NT scholarship. You act like you are, but its obvious to anyone who's seriously spent any time studying this stuff that you're not. You, like a number of the other anti-Christians on this forum, have it in your mind that when talking of "conservative" Biblical scholars, one is referring to Christian apologetic inerrantists, and that a critical scholar is everyone who doesn't fall into that fold. In your mind, a moderate scholar is someone who's more or less a Christian scholar like Burridge, who believes in the literal resurrection, but who mostly ignores it in his academic works. But see, that's exactly where you folks give yourselves away, and shows a hand that tells everyone "I haven't really read any of these authors, I'm just guessing here".

What you don't understand, and probably won't get through your head until you've actually read their works is that a large number of scholars that no one would dare call anything but conservative... folks like Burridge, Evans, Worthington, etc. don't write in their more academic treatments from a pro-miracle, pro-inerrantist, pro-apologetic stance. They write from an academically secular, purely historic point of view. They are conservative, not because they're Christians, but because their treatments deal with scripture from a very traditional understanding that the Gospels as historical records of historical events. On the opposite end you have the Jesus Seminar, where they discount something like 80% of the saying of Jesus based on a goofy criteria they made up that they couldn't apply to any other historical document. Crossan believes that Jesus wasn't burried, and that his body was simply thrown into a cairn of some sort and devoured by wild dogs. They deny the authenticity of Jesus' eschatological message. Heck the Jesus Seminar even hold the late Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter on the same level (or close to it) as the synoptics and John. Then you got the far far fringe critical scholars like Doherty and Carrier who pine for the old days of the long debunked Jesus myth garbage that no scholar worth his salt even pays any mind to anymore. All things considered, Vermes is in the middle, (maybe middle left) of the conservative/critical ends of modern scholarship. He does not deny the historicity of Christ. He does not deny 80% of sayings attributed to Jesus. He does not deny that Jesus was a real life, charismatic, and Jewish teacher, who was considered a prophet, and an exorcist, and does not deny he had an eschatological message. He does not deny that he was condemned and crucified, and ultimately buried. He does not deny that the Apostles claimed to witness something after Jesus burial. He reads and writes about the NT purely as a secular (although Jewish) historian, and so of course disregards the claims of authentic miracles. and denies the inerrancy of the Gospels. But since most scholars (even very conservative ones) do not even touch the supernatural, that's not so out of the norm. He falls in the same realm of other moderate scholars like the Lutheran Pastor and Context Group head, John Elliott who denies the inerrancy of scripture, and even denies Peter wrote his Epistles, or Richard Rohrbaugh who claims to be a Christian yet denies inerrancy, denies the virgin birth, and denies the trinity as anything but a late development of the Christian church, but both of whom study the scriptures as purely socio-historical documents. There's no doubt that these scholars are not what would be considered critically liberal. Certainly they're not as far left leaning as the Jesus Seminar. Vermes seems to hold a place near to this. His most critical stances tend to be on the titles of Jesus, and that Jesus didn't consider himself the Messiah. And yes, there are a number of passages that he disregards as inauthentic, but so what? I know its shocking to you that a Christian can read the works of a non-Christian scholar and can still appreciate what that scholar brings to the table even if one doesn't agree with his conclusions, but some of us are a bit more open-minded than the anti-Christians here give us credit for. Heck, I clearly don't agree with the conclusions of folks like Bultmann, Ehrman, or Crossan, but I still recognize them as academic authorities on the subject, and occasionally they bring to light concepts and ideas that I find valid and useful.

I've explained all of this before, but you just ignored it and continued pretending to be an expert based on Google searches and Wikipedia.



Uh, no shunya, you're not dodging this. Your statement was that Vermes specialized in the Old Testament and was critical of the New Testament. That's of course, nonsense. Almost all of Vermes' books deal with Jesus or Christianity. He has a few books about the Dead Sea Scrolls, but his specialty is clearly the NT. I don't know of any books of his that are about the Old Testament specifically. Your statement that he specialized in the OT was false. [/quote]

Nice Red Herring. I don't deny any of Vermes' credentials. Stop being such a fake shunya. Just stop it. I'll just call you out every time you attempt it.

No red Herring here this bibliography depicts Vermes as primarily a OT and Jewish scholar. His books on the NT and Jesus are mosted general interest reading. The majority of his scholarly work is on Jewish scripture, history and culture. Please note he considered his wirtings concerning Jesus and off shoot of his other work.

He wrote . . .

Changing Faces of Jesus by Geza Vermes

My serious academic interest in Jesus came as an off shoot of this historical inquiry.* It produced in the course of twenty years (1973-93) a trilogy, Jesus the Jew, Jesus and the World of Judaism, and the Religion of Jesus the Jew.

*The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ

© source where applicable

Why do i consider Vermes a skeptical scholar concerning the NT? He does not believe in any of the miraculous claims of the NT concerning Jesus.

Stop the denigrating trash talk and trolling or I will ask Eric to exclude you from the thread. Please note the criteria he set out at the beginning of this thread.

I'm not going to interrupt your flow though it's pretty obvious that I won't be able to stop others from responding, I only ask that those who do decide to respond would please show due respect for Frank's beliefs (in much the same way as they would expect to respected when they do). Anyone who fails to maintain due respect will be dealt with by the site moderators. (I think that's not too much to ask, hey kids? )

[Adrift]

You appear pretty good at pretending now, and not able to answer the question.

Are you smoking something? What question? You haven't even asked anything.

I will take that as an inability to answer, and a signal you have not read his books.

Answer what? Again, you haven't asked anything. And yes I've read his books.

No red Herring here this bibliography depicts Vermes as primarily a OT and Jewish scholar. His books on the NT and Jesus are mosted general interest reading. The majority of his scholarly work is on Jewish scripture, history and culture. Please note he considered his wirtings concerning Jesus and off shoot of his other work.

This is so full fail I don't even know where to start. Where in any of Vermes' credentials does it state that he specializes in the OT? It doesn't, but I know why you think he does though... this is another one of your goofy faux pas where you take a concept that you're unfamiliar with (for example "skeptical scholars" and "Primary Sources") and redefine it into your own nonsense terminology based on what you think it should mean. Here you're redefining the term "Jewish studies" and associating that with Old Testament studies specifically. A specialty in Jewish Studies does not make one a specialist of the Old Testament. Jewish Studies is an interdisciplinary field that covers everything from the Old Testament to the Talmud and Midrash, medieval Jewish history through to the holocaust, and modern Hebrew and Yiddish literature and modern Jewish thought. Based on the books that Vermes has published his Jewish studies focuses primarily on the Dead Seas scrolls, Midrash, Jews right before, during, and after the time of Christ, and the Essenes. I don't know of a single book of his that deals specifically with the Old Testament, and he certainly doesn't specialise in it in the way that OT scholars like William Dever, Kenneth Kitchen, John Walton, John Van Seters, etc. do. When we talk about people who specialize in the Old Testament, these are the types of people we're referring to. The majority of Vermes' works are on the historical Jesus and the NT.

He wrote . . .

Changing Faces of Jesus by Geza Vermes

My serious academic interest in Jesus came as an off shoot of this historical inquiry.* It produced in the course of twenty years (1973-93) a trilogy, Jesus the Jew, Jesus and the World of Judaism, and the Religion of Jesus the Jew.

*The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ

© source where applicable

Thanks for clarifying in your citation Geza's specialty in Jewish Studies "The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ". Unless you think the Old Testament was written in the first century you have no reason to assume that Vermes' specialty is in the OT. I hope you don't want to say that.

Why do i consider Vermes a skeptical scholar concerning the NT? He does not believe in any of the miraculous claims of the NT concerning Jesus.

I know, and that's such a ridiculous assertion. Not believing in the miraculous claims of the NT is not a prerequisite for the label "skeptical NT scholar". The majority of NT scholars in both the critical and conservative circles write without the assuming the miraculous in their academic works. They generally write from a purely historical and textual point of view. This has been explained to you time and time again. I already offered a number of comparative historical fields that are split between critical and conservative. Concerning the historical study of the Battle of Thermopylae I gave you the skeptical scholar Jona Lendering verses the conservative scholar Victor Davis Hanson. Its not a prerequisite of Hanson to believe in the Greek and Persian gods and miraculous claims of that era to be a conservative scholar, nor is it a prerequisite for Lendering to deny those gods and claims. Their stances are based upon their interpretation of the historical events as classically understood.

Stop the denigrating trash talk and trolling or I will ask Eric to exclude you from the thread. Please note the criteria he set out at the beginning of this thread.

First of all, you're the one who started the trash talk. You brought my name into this, so don't go acting high and mighty. Second of all, I have a good feeling that Eric isn't going to be posting in this thread anymore.

[Adrift]

How do you know which books I am reading or read of Vermes? I have four books by Vermes on my desk, which ones am I reading?

Yeah, the ones you didn't have until about a month ago.

Do disagree that Vermes believes that Jesus was a Jew teaching to only Jews and no miracles took place in his life?

Vermes is a liberal Jew writing about Jesus from a Jewish perspective. Of course he doesn't believe in the miracles that took place in Jesus' life. I'd be surprised if he fully believed in the majority of the miracles that took place in the Old Testament too.

Actually much of Vermes writing concerning the NT is not necessarily his view or belief, but presenting objectively what the NT writings say, comparing the gospels and putting them into the context Jewish traditions and culture of the times, comparing different perspectives of the scripture.

As every historian writing in an academic setting is bound to do.

Your poisoned arrogant sarcasm will eventually get you on my ignore list.

That would be a blessing to me. Please do.

First, I did not refer to Plantinga as a scholar on the above list. The reference was a response to Eric in an email where he urged me to read Plantinga. My only experience with JP Holding was Tweb. I will dutifully lower his status appropriately.

I'll give you some leeway there, but frame your paragraphs better and people might not misunderstand you. How are we, on a public forum, supposed to know what your correspondence with Eric is in personal emails?

[Yogi]

Are either one of you getting to the truth, seems to me reading these minor disagreements, both are putting up roadblocks to the truth.

[headheart]

Hi Frank,

Finally.

Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.

I've twice taken the political compass test ( The Political Compass Test ) and both times came up with the same result. I'm in the same company as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama and yet most of European and Western politics is in the top half what the compass test refers to as Authoritarian left and right.
Now imagine if such a set of questions were set which uncovered the underlying assumptions of why people believe what they believe and the results were reflected along with one's alias. It would certainly save us having to go through this sort of thing. Right?

In short, I wish I hadn't probed you so directly but now that it's done I'm going to go through your answers slowly and carefully and attempt to do so with as much respect as I can muster.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

Of course this is not your first assumption.

Your first assumption is that 'Assumptions [ .... ] form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe.'

Secondly, don't you think that Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) would have adjusted his thinking if he know what we know now about ourselves and the universe? I mean we're pretty much convinced that life as we know it began with a huge bang followed by millions of years of evolution which includes he development of morals and religion.

I'm not going to go any further along with this until you've replied.

Peace,
Eric.

[shunyadragon]

Hi Frank,

Finally.



I've twice taken the political compass test ( The Political Compass Test ) and both times came up with the same result. I'm in the same company as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama and yet most of European and Western politics is in the top half what the compass test refers to as Authoritarian left and right.
Now imagine if such a set of questions were set which uncovered the underlying assumptions of why people believe what they believe and the results were reflected along with one's alias. It would certainly save us having to go through this sort of thing. Right?

I have taken this before, but I do not remember the result. I may tke it again for grins.

Of course this is not your first assumption.

It is the first assumption, the following you cite is not an assumption, but refers collectively to all my assumptions that relate to why I believe the way I believe. I also believe that how, what and why people .believe in some ways relates to how they respond to my assumptions.

Your first assumption is that 'Assumptions [ .... ] form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe.'

Secondly, don't you think that Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) would have adjusted his thinking if he know what we know now about ourselves and the universe? I mean we're pretty much convinced that life as we know it began with a huge bang followed by millions of years of evolution which includes he development of morals and religion.

No, I do not second guess what Aristotle would have thought one way or another today nor in the future. I am just going by what he said. Science has progressed well over the centuries based on that assumption. What unfortunately happens to morals or religion today is a very human thing and likely in most ways have not changed since humans have been human.

I have been working on translations of Bronze Age poetry from China (~1000 to 400 BCE) written by women for about 15 years, By this measure human nature has not changed much, and most men were jerks than and remains so today.

I'm not going to go any further along with this until you've replied.

Peace,
Eric.

OK

[shunyadragon]

Are either one of you getting to the truth, seems to me reading these minor disagreements, both are putting up roadblocks to the truth.

I am making no effort to get to specifically to the 'Truth' here. This thread is specifically about the assumptions of why I believe the way I do.

I believe that Truth' with a capital T is an illusive critter basically out of reach of human capabilities. In other word, humans have claimed to know many, many different versions of 'Truth.' and so far their batting average is 'Zero,'

[pancreasman]

By 'their batting average is zero', do you mean that no one has come close to any accuracy about the nature of ultimate reality? Are some views, religions or philosophies more accurate reflections of reality than others or are they all hopelessly inadequate? If they're all hopelessly inadequate what is the point of believing or adhering to any of them, including yours or mine?

[shunyadragon]

I've twice taken the political compass test ( The Political Compass Test ) and both times came up with the same result. I'm in the same company as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama and yet most of European and Western politics is in the top half what the compass test refers to as Authoritarian left and right.
Now imagine if such a set of questions were set which uncovered the underlying assumptions of why people believe what they believe and the results were reflected along with one's alias. It would certainly save us having to go through this sort of thing. Right?

Such a test is possible, but i did not care for this test. The test seemed stiff and awkward. I took the test and came out more libertarian than Ghandi.

A good test would have to be more carefully designed with more subtle questions.

[shunyadragon]

By 'their batting average is zero', do you mean that no one has come close to any accuracy about the nature of ultimate reality? Are some views, religions or philosophies more accurate reflections of reality than others or are they all hopelessly inadequate? If they're all hopelessly inadequate what is the point of believing or adhering to any of them, including yours or mine?

I go by the evidence of human history and our nature. What we see for those who claim to have the 'Truth' in any absolute sense is a dart board without a bull's eye target, and the darts are all over the place. The evidence of the fallibility of our human nature over time makes the view that some sort of 'Truth' can be known is not a viable option.

In the concept of 'considering the universal' considers the nature of human knowledge as an evolving, constantly changing dynamic process. This does not lead to a chaotic libertarian anything goes result as many traditional theists believe, because the result, as in science, is a more real view of our existence.

To say yes or no is to be immobile on two feet. - Bhagavad Gita

[pancreasman]

I go by the evidence of human history and our nature. What we see for those who claim to have the 'Truth' in any absolute sense is a dart board without a bull's eye target, and the darts are all over the place. The evidence of the fallibility of our human nature over time makes the view that some sort of 'Truth' can be known is not a viable option.

In the concept of 'considering the universal' considers the nature of human knowledge as an evolving, constantly changing dynamic process. This does not lead to a chaotic libertarian anything goes result as many traditional theists believe, because the result, as in science, is a more real view of our existence.

To say yes or no is to be immobile on two feet. - Bhagavad Gita

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your answers to my questions.

[Adrift]

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your answers to my questions.

That's the point.

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your answers to my questions.

By 'their batting average is zero', do you mean that no one has come close to any accuracy about the nature of ultimate reality? Are some views, religions or philosophies more accurate reflections of reality than others or are they all hopelessly inadequate? If they're all hopelessly inadequate what is the point of believing or adhering to any of them, including yours or mine?

Let's try this again. I gave an explanation why I do not think 'Truth' is a viable belief. Simply there is no evidence that anyone nor any belief system has come up what would be considered absolute Truth. Like the dart board example without a bulls eye target, the darts are all over the place without a consistent pattern concerning the human claims for 'Truth.' The answer is simply yes, no one has demonstrated anything close to absolute.

As far as 'hopelessly in adequate to believe in absolute truths, yes. Do you believe in 'absolute Truths'? When you referred to 'your's and mine,' count me out because I do not believe in 'absolute Truths' from the human perspective. Everything I believe is subject to change and in pencil. Just a brief review of history and the nature and problem of human beliefs should be enough to convince you of the problem.

Does the knowledge or nature of 'absolute Truth' exist? Likely yes. If there is a God, it resides with God. It there is not a God,than it resides with the ultimate nature of our physical existence.