Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    There is no moving of the goal posts. Many texts were written about the life of Jesus by many Christian communities in that same era. You have claimed "I take them on face value," but you only selectively "take them on face value." Specifically, you only accept the books of the NT on face value, a canon that was never formally established...it evolved over a period of almost 500 years, with different books being added at different times. That makes my question perfectly on target and you are dodging it. So, again, adjusted for a bit of history I just dug out...
    Then present other possible books that have a first century pedigree. With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas I know of none. And it doesn't matter when the canon of the NT was finalized or if it is even today what matters is which books are the oldest and closer to the events.

    Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones, and incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


    Is this an accurate reflection of your beliefs? If not, which part is inaccurate?
    Again we agree with the 20-70 year time span. And I don't what you mean by this: they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. Who the 'they' you speaking of? First century writers?



    Because taking any text I pick up at "face value" exposes me to the possibility (indeed, the probability) that I will accept nonsense as truth. So before I read any text, I check out the author to see what is known about them and what else they have written. If I can find nothing, my confidence in the text I am reading is weakened. If they have a reputation for writing slanted things, my confidence is weakened and I will work harder to verify the various claims made. As I read, I look for alignment with what I already know and understand. If there is misalignment, I look for the reasons why there is misalignment. I would consider that to be pretty basic for anyone reading anything. If this is not done, we get the world we have today, where misinformation can propagate quickly and be adopted as "truth."
    Well I see no evidence to believe that the NT writers were not honest. And there are a lot of things in history that can only be confirmed by a primary source. And I see no nonsense in the New Testament. The fact is we all take things or face value unless we have good reason not to.

    I have not made that argument or claim, so I have no answer for you. If you want to have a discussion about the accuracy of the NT, we can have that separately, but right now I am interested in THIS discussion and claim: "you have not adequately defended the claims you are making about the historical life of Jesus."
    Not adequately defended to whom? You? You already agreed that these were historical facts:

    A man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the every first century
    He was Jewish, a teacher, and preached a radical philosophy (for that age)
    He was killed in the early-mid first century, almost certainly by crucifixion
    In the following years, his followers continued to spread the message and a new Judaic cult arose.
    Paul of Tarsus had a significant conversion experience and became one of the most significant voices of this new cult.
    Little by little, this cult separated from Judaism and became its own religion, rooted in but differing from Judaism
    This new cult believed Jesus was the messiah, was resurrected form the dead, and was divine in nature
    A wide variety of writings about Jesus occurred within the various sects of the cult, and these were eventually culled to the current canonical canon in the 4th century.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Then present other possible books that have a first century pedigree. With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas I know of none. And it doesn't matter when the canon of the NT was finalized or if it is even today what matters is which books are the oldest and closer to the events.

      Again we agree with the 20-70 year time span. And I don't what you mean by this: they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. Who the 'they' you speaking of? First century writers?
      Yes, I am referring to all of the first century writers who documented either the life or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth but were NOT included in the NT canon. Some have been lost, and some we only have fragments of. But not all of the first century works concerning Jesus have been included in the NT canon. So again (and slightly adjusted to reflect your question):

      Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it right and some of them getting it wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones, and incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


      Is this now an accurate reflection of your views?

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Well I see no evidence to believe that the NT writers were not honest. And there are a lot of things in history that can only be confirmed by a primary source. And I see no nonsense in the New Testament. The fact is we all take things or face value unless we have good reason not to.
      No - that is apparently what YOU do, but not what all of us do. Ergo, my claim that "you have not adequately supported your claims about the historical life of Jesus." Basically, your only defense is "it's in the bible and I accept the bible at face value." Congratulations. That may be an adequate argument for you, but it still does not adequately support your claims about the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Not adequately defended to whom? You? You already agreed that these were historical facts:
      Yes, I am in agreement with you about that list of facts because I find the evidence supporting those claims is adequate to hold those beliefs. The rest of the claims about Jesus have not been adequately supported. And while it is true they are not adequately support for me, I suggest they are not adequately supported for anyone who follows reasonable historical verification methodologies. The average historian will not accept "I take the texts on face value" as a credible argument.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 11:36 AM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Yes, I am referring to all of the first century writers who documented either the life or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth but were NOT included in the NT canon. Some have been lost, and some we only have fragments of. But not all of the first century works concerning Jesus have been included in the NT canon. So again (and slightly adjusted to reflect your question):
        OK please reference these first century works. Which fragments?

        Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it right and some of them getting it wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones, and incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


        Is this now an accurate reflection of your views?
        Generally agree, except for the some got it right and wrong thing and the discarded thing. I'm not sure what you are basing those on.


        No - that is apparently what YOU do, but not what all of us do. Ergo, my claim that "you have not adequately supported your claims about the historical life of Jesus." Basically, your only defense is "it's in the bible and I accept the bible at face value." Congratulations. That may be an adequate argument for you, but it still does not adequately support your claims about the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

        Yes, I am in agreement with you about that list of facts because I find the evidence supporting those claims is adequate to hold those beliefs. The rest of the claims about Jesus have not been adequately supported. And while it is true they are not adequately support for me, I suggest they are not adequately supported for anyone who follows reasonable historical verification methodologies. The average historian will not accept "I take the texts on face value" as a credible argument.

        So you agree with the listed historical facts about what early Christians believed. And that those writing came out of communities that were populated by original followers of Christ. So why did they believe those things? The Apostles and early disciples lied to them?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          OK please reference these first century works. Which fragments?

          Generally agree, except for the some got it right and wrong thing and the discarded thing. I'm not sure what you are basing those on.
          I don't have an exhaustive list, but I can give you examples. The Epistle of Barnabas is dated to between 70 and 130 AD. It is not in the canon. First Clement dates to the 90s. It is not in the canon. The Didache is now attributed to the first century by most scholars. It is not in the canon. So clearly, writings from the first century were excluded. There is also a (long?) list of lost writings that we only know about because of their references in other writings, and they are not in the canon, so they were clearly not considered worth preserving, yet they were written in that all important (presumably to you) first century.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          So you agree with the listed historical facts about what early Christians believed.
          I do.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And that those writing came out of communities that were populated by original followers of Christ.
          They do - but more importantly, they are all affirmed by secondary sources, which increases my confidence in their truth. And they align with what we generally know of the world, which further increases my confidence in their truth. I am not certain of their truth - but I am highly confident that they are true.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          So why did they believe those things?
          That information is lost to history, AFAICT. We would be guessing. You are now asking me to read the minds of people dead 2,000 years, and motivations are one of the hardest things for a historian to nail down. What happened is difficult. Why it happened, what the individuals involved were thinking, and what influenced what is far more difficult and highly subject to interpretation. That is true for all of history, even modern history.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          The Apostles and early disciples lied to them?
          I would be speculating if I attempted to answer this question. The bottom line is, we don't know.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 12:51 PM.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I don't have an exhaustive list, but I can give you examples. The Epistle of Barnabas is dated to between 70 and 130 AD. It is not in the canon. First Clement dates to the 90s. It is not in the canon. The Didache is now attributed to the first century by most scholars. It is not in the canon. So clearly, writings from the first century were excluded. There is also a (long?) list of lost writings that we only know about because of their references in other writings, and they are not in the canon, so they were clearly not considered worth preserving, yet they were written in that all important (presumably to you) first century.
            Very good, now have you read any of those? I have, they all agree with the New Testament books that we have and even quote them. And personally I would not have a problem with First Clement or the The Didache being included. The bottom line is that they are consistent with the Books that we have and reinforce them. And again, I'm not sure what these other lost books are, or even if they are first century works. Do you have one example? Most of what I have seen are late Second Century Gnostic works.



            They do - but more importantly, they are all affirmed by secondary sources, which increases my confidence in their truth. And they align with what we generally know of the world, which further increases my confidence in their truth. I am not certain of their truth - but I am highly confident that they are true.
            Align with what we generally know of the world? You mean nothing supernatural?



            That information is lost to history, AFAICT. We would be guessing. You are now asking me to read the minds of people dead 2,000 years, and motivations are one of the hardest things for a historian to nail down. What happened is difficult. Why it happened, what the individuals involved were thinking, and what influenced what is far more difficult and highly subject to interpretation. That is true for all of history, even modern history.
            Well I see two options: one they lied, two they told the truth.
            Last edited by seer; 04-08-2020, 01:49 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Very good, now have you read any of those? I have, they all agree with the New Testament books that we have and even quote them. And personally I would not have a problem with First Clement or the The Didache being included. The bottom line is that they are consistent with the Books that we have and reinforce them. And again, I'm not sure what these other lost books are, or even if they are first century works. Do you have one example? Most of what I have seen are late Second Century Gnostic works.
              There are many. Examples would include the missing epistles of Paul (Laodiceans, Seneca, etc.). So you would therefore adjust the description as follows?

              Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all right and some of them got it at least partially wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all the inaccurate ones and some of the accurate ones, incorporating only 100% accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.


              Have we arrived at an accurate description of your beliefs?

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Align with what we generally know of the world? You mean nothing supernatural?
              You really, really, really want to go into a discussion about natural vs. supernatural, don't you. Sorry Seer, I'm not going there. It's takes us back to my defending the claim that "some of the things in the bible are untrue" and I have not made that claim in this discussion (though you and I both know I believe it to be true). My statements about historical analysis were more general. When one piece of historical evidence aligns with other independently-sourced pieces of historical evidence, our confidence is enhanced. This is one of many ways in which we check historical claims to increase our confidence that they are accurate. We also check them against our personal experience, and our understanding of "how things work."

              And we look for parallelism and consistency. If Document X claims "men were 15 feet tall in that age," and we know from biology that this is well past the upper limit men grow to and it is inconsistent with artifacts found in that age, we are justified in either rejecting the claim or at least putting it in the "highly unlikely" bucket. When Document Y comes along and makes a similar claim in a different context, the same reasoning can be applied. That is how historical analysis proceeds. It never makes statements of certainty - only degrees of confidence. And it is inconsistent to accept a claim in one context that we reject in another context if the two claims and contexts are highly aligned.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Well I see two options: one they lied, two they told the truth.
              No - if you are going to be binary, it would be "what they believed was true" and "what they believed was false." "Lied" implies you know intent, and you cannot know this. But there is nothing binary about this. The history of Jesus of Nazareth is not a single claim - it is a collection of thousands of claims ranging from words said, events that occurred, and even thoughts and feelings that were had. So what we have is a continuum of possibilities from "all of the claims are true" to "none of the claims are true" with every possible combination in the middle. I have already given you several claims about Jesus that I accept as "most likely true" and perhaps even "almost certainly true." You will note that the list does not include ALL of the claims made about Jesus, because I evaluate some of them as "most likely untrue" or "almost certainly untrue" and some as "could be true or untrue." You appear to be arguing "all of the claims documented in the NT are true." I am telling you that you cannot substantiate that claim.

              And I predict you are going to try to get me to identify one claim that I find to be untrue...and I will tell you right now I am not going to do that. It has nothing to do with my argument. I am arguing that "YOU cannot substantiate many of the claims you assert are true." I am not asserting any particular thing to be untrue and do not seek to get into that discussion in this series.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 02:49 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well I see two options: one they lied, two they told the truth.
                Or three, they did a little bit of both.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  There are many. Examples would include the missing epistles of Paul (Laodiceans, Seneca, etc.). So you would therefore adjust the description as follows?

                  Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all right and some of them got it at least partially wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all the inaccurate ones and some of the accurate ones, incorporating only 100% accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.


                  Have we arrived at an accurate description of your beliefs?
                  Carp if they are missing then they couldn't be added to or rejected from Canon. My bottom line here is do we have any first century writings that contradict or undermine the corpus that we presently have? I have not seen such.


                  You really, really, really want to go into a discussion about natural vs. supernatural, don't you. Sorry Seer, I'm not going there. It's takes us back to my defending the claim that "some of the things in the bible are untrue" and I have not made that claim in this discussion (though you and I both know I believe it to be true). My statements about historical analysis were more general. When one piece of historical evidence aligns with other independently-sourced pieces of historical evidence, our confidence is enhanced. This is one of many ways in which we check historical claims to increase our confidence that they are accurate. We also check them against our personal experience, and our understanding of "how things work."

                  And we look for parallelism and consistency. If Document X claims "men were 15 feet tall in that age," and we know from biology that this is well past the upper limit men grow to and it is inconsistent with artifacts found in that age, we are justified in either rejecting the claim or at least putting it in the "highly unlikely" bucket. When Document Y comes along and makes a similar claim in a different context, the same reasoning can be applied. That is how historical analysis proceeds. It never makes statements of certainty - only degrees of confidence. And it is inconsistent to accept a claim in one context that we reject in another context if the two claims and contexts are highly aligned.
                  Right, how things work. What that means if it is outside our limited experiences or general understanding it is suspect. But of course the miraculous would by nature be unusual and not generally open to standard historical investigation. It would necessarily involve first person testimony. And if one is an atheist that door has to be closed.


                  No - if you are going to be binary, it would be "what they believed was true" and "what they believed was false." "Lied" implies you know intent, and you cannot know this. But there is nothing binary about this. The history of Jesus of Nazareth is not a single claim - it is a collection of thousands of claims ranging from words said, events that occurred, and even thoughts and feelings that were had. So what we have is a continuum of possibilities from "all of the claims are true" to "none of the claims are true" with every possible combination in the middle. I have already given you several claims about Jesus that I accept as "most likely true" and perhaps even "almost certainly true." You will note that the list does not include ALL of the claims made about Jesus, because I evaluate some of them as "most likely untrue" or "almost certainly untrue" and some as "could be true or untrue." You appear to be arguing "all of the claims documented in the NT are true." I am telling you that you cannot substantiate that claim.

                  And I predict you are going to try to get me to identify one claim that I find to be untrue...and I will tell you right now I am not going to do that. It has nothing to do with my argument. I am arguing that "YOU cannot substantiate many of the claims you assert are true." I am not asserting any particular thing to be untrue and do not seek to get into that discussion in this series.
                  It is hard to believe that the Apostles and early disciples were simply mistaken about the death and resurrection of Christ for instance. One may misremember who got to the empty tomb first, and such, but a friend dying and coming back to life - that would be etched in our memories. So I don't think an honest mistake is possible...
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp if they are missing then they couldn't be added to or rejected from Canon. My bottom line here is do we have any first century writings that contradict or undermine the corpus that we presently have? I have not seen such.
                    They are missing now, Seer. If they had been missing then they wouldn't be referenced in ancient documents. So, once again...

                    Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all right and some of them got it at least partially wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all the inaccurate ones and some of the accurate ones, incorporating only 100% accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.


                    Have we arrived at an accurate account of your beliefs? If not, what is still incorrect?

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Right, how things work. What that means if it is outside our limited experiences or general understanding it is suspect. But of course the miraculous would by nature be unusual and not generally open to standard historical investigation. It would necessarily involve first person testimony. And if one is an atheist that door has to be closed.
                    We are not discussing what I believe, Seer, we are discussing the proposition: "Seer, has not adequately defended his claims about the historical Jesus."

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    It is hard to believe that the Apostles and early disciples were simply mistaken about the death and resurrection of Christ for instance. One may misremember who got to the empty tomb first, and such, but a friend dying and coming back to life - that would be etched in our memories. So I don't think an honest mistake is possible...
                    You don't actually know what is and is not possible, Seer. You only know what is documented in the texts of the NT and a handful of other texts from within the Christian community. Your evidence fails to meet the basic requirements of historical analysis for many (most?) of the claims you make about Jesus of Nazareth. There is adequate evidence for the list I gave you, IMO. Those claims CAN be defended using traditional tools of historical analysis. But you cannot rule out any of dozens of scenarios that would account for the rest of the claims made in the NT documents and fit the available evidence, and you are piling assumption on top of assumption to limit the scenario to one: that everything in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth is 100% true.

                    That is why I submit "Seer cannot adequately defend the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth."
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      That is false, these traditions were based directly on the followers of Christ. First Thessalonians was the earliest NT book. Even Bart Ehrman dates that to 49AD. Twenty years after the death of Christ. And Paul knew and traveled with the Apostles and early disciples. And in that book you have the Sonship of Christ, His death and resurrection, and it referenced His return. So Paul had direct access to those who knew Christ.
                      Paul specifically states that his knowledge of the Jesus story came from no man or from witnessing historical events. (Galatians 1:12 “I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ”.) in fact, he was adamantly opposed to the early followers of Jesus and seems utterly unaware of the extraordinary events supposedly surrounding the crucifixion.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post



                        It is hard to believe that the Apostles and early disciples were simply mistaken about the death and resurrection of Christ for instance. One may misremember who got to the empty tomb first, and such, but a friend dying and coming back to life - that would be etched in our memories. So I don't think an honest mistake is possible...
                        Of course, it is. It is actually highly likely in a gullible society, where signs and wonders were commonplace, that the early disciples were “simply mistaken about the death and resurrection of Christ.” Especially given that the gospels are not eyewitness testimonies but embellished traditions that had been passed down by intervening generations.

                        And it's not as if Jesus was the only miracle worker floating around at the time there were many. E.g. Apollonius of Tyana was an exact contemporary of Jesus and a “charismatic teacher and miracle worker “who was and is frequently compared to the Jewish sage and miracle worker Jesus of Nazareth”

                        https://www.livius.org/articles/pers...nius-of-tyana/
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Of course, it is. It is actually highly likely in a gullible society, where signs and wonders were commonplace, that the early disciples were “simply mistaken about the death and resurrection of Christ.” Especially given that the gospels are not eyewitness testimonies but embellished traditions that had been passed down by intervening generations.
                          You are just created a double bind for the believer, if we have witnesses they don't count but we don't have any so that counts against it either way. No matter what,evidence or not Christianity must be wrong.

                          And it's not as if Jesus was the only miracle worker floating around at the time there were many. E.g. Apollonius of Tyana was an exact contemporary of Jesus and a “charismatic teacher and miracle worker “who was and is frequently compared to the Jewish sage and miracle worker Jesus of Nazareth”

                          https://www.livius.org/articles/pers...nius-of-tyana/
                          That proves nothing. WE know next to nothing about Apollonius of Tyana he is not Jesus,He did not get his own major world region. You have basically made two arguments here,both illogical.

                          Your logic:

                          If any miracle claims are wrong all morale claims are wrong.

                          Apollonius of Tyana 's miracle claims were wrong

                          therefore Jesus' miracle claims were wrong.
                          Last edited by metacrock; 04-09-2020, 01:47 PM.
                          Metacrock's Blog


                          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Paul specifically states that his knowledge of the Jesus story came from no man or from witnessing historical events. (Galatians 1:12 “I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ”.) in fact, he was adamantly opposed to the early followers of Jesus and seems utterly unaware of the extraordinary events supposedly surrounding the crucifixion.
                            The assertion you voice in your last sentence is totally without foundation. You have no evidence Paul was opposed to anyone he constantly sought to make peace with church leaders.He was skeptical of some their views but that doesn't mean he didn;t know or appreciate their witness. You are exaggerating.
                            Metacrock's Blog


                            The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                            The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              So too was resurrection, no? Osiris, Dionysis, Tammuz, Attis, Persephone. You actually find that belief in many different cultures. For instance - Odin, Ganesha, Lemminkainen, Krishna, Quetzalcoat.
                              none of those were resurrections in the senes of Jesus, Not historical figures, no reputation of human life
                              Metacrock's Blog


                              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                They are missing now, Seer. If they had been missing then they wouldn't be referenced in ancient documents. So, once again...

                                Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all right and some of them got it at least partially wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all the inaccurate ones and some of the accurate ones, incorporating only 100% accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.


                                Have we arrived at an accurate account of your beliefs? If not, what is still incorrect?



                                We are not discussing what I believe, Seer, we are discussing the proposition: "Seer, has not adequately defended his claims about the historical Jesus."



                                You don't actually know what is and is not possible, Seer. You only know what is documented in the texts of the NT and a handful of other texts from within the Christian community. Your evidence fails to meet the basic requirements of historical analysis for many (most?) of the claims you make about Jesus of Nazareth. There is adequate evidence for the list I gave you, IMO. Those claims CAN be defended using traditional tools of historical analysis. But you cannot rule out any of dozens of scenarios that would account for the rest of the claims made in the NT documents and fit the available evidence, and you are piling assumption on top of assumption to limit the scenario to one: that everything in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth is 100% true.
                                We don't have to defend every claim once you accept the basic propitiation that Jesus is the son of God and that he Holy Spirit had safeguarded the text to give us that fact, the rest is obviously a package deal.

                                Nor do we have to be right about everything.

                                That is why I submit "Seer cannot adequately defend the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth."
                                I can. he can too because the Holy Spirit can
                                Metacrock's Blog


                                The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                                The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                50 responses
                                209 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X