Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

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.

I can. he can too because the Holy Spirit can

This reduces to a defense that takes the form, "we don't have to defend a claim we have accepted as true." You are, in a sense, correct. You are free to believe anything you wish with no need to defend it. But you should probably not expect to convince anyone of the truth of your beliefs. Your approach to accepting the belief is not compelling enough be convincing.

And I absolutely understand your position. It used to be mine, many, many years ago.

[metacrock]

This reduces to a defense that takes the form, "we don't have to defend a claim we have accepted as true." You are, in a sense, correct. You are free to believe anything you wish with no need to defend it. But you should probably not expect to convince anyone of the truth of your beliefs. Your approach to accepting the belief is not compelling enough be convincing.

And I absolutely understand your position. It used to be mine, many, many years ago.

First, I', jut getting warmed up.

Secondly, there's nothing unreasonable about lexical ordering claims, we don't have to defend everything Just the key issues.

[JimL]

First, I', jut getting warmed up.

Secondly, there's nothing unreasonable about lexical ordering claims, we don't have to defend everything Just the key issues.

The key issue is dependent upon everything.

[carpedm9587]

First, I', jut getting warmed up.

Secondly, there's nothing unreasonable about lexical ordering claims, we don't have to defend everything Just the key issues.

Lexical ordering claims? I have no idea what that phrase means.

And I would suggest, if your desire is to convince, your task is to defend anything you want to convey to your audience that they are dubious about. Do you have anything you wish to convince others about?

[metacrock]

The key issue is dependent upon everything.

No that is false. one can isolate key issues. Hey you have done nothing different, you claim science reduces mind to brain and yet you don;t go out and prove everything in the world you deal with that issue.

[metacrock]

Lexical ordering claims? I have no idea what that phrase means.

Is English not your first language? You know what a Lexicon is? Obviously we would be ordering sororities in order of importance.

And I would suggest, if your desire is to convince, your task is to defend anything you want to convey to your audience that they are dubious about. Do you have anything you wish to convince others about?

Yes but one never seeks to convenience ones debate opponent, Of course not. The prosecutor never seeks to convert the defense attorney.

[carpedm9587]

Is English not your first language? You know what a Lexicon is? Obviously we would be ordering sororities in order of importance.

According to my dictionary, you want to use language to sort buildings that house women into their order of importance?

Yes but one never seeks to convenience ones debate opponent, Of course not. The prosecutor never seeks to convert the defense attorney.

I think this sentence starts with a yes and ends with a no.

Meta, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but I think there is not a lot of merit in this discussion (so far). I'll hop off unless you have something you actually want to discuss.

[JimL]

No that is false. one can isolate key issues. Hey you have done nothing different, you claim science reduces mind to brain and yet you don;t go out and prove everything in the world you deal with that issue.

My argument, which I agree is a simple one, is that there is no actual evidence that consciousness, mind, is a distinct thing that exists apart from matter. I agree that it's a difficult and unresolved issue, like many philosophical/scientific issues are. For instance, what is space, what's it made of? We can't see it, but it's flexible, it warps in response to mass? I could also ask what is matter itself at a fundamental level, is it energy, and if so, what then is energy? Perhaps nothing is distinct, perhaps everything, including consciousness, is a property of one and the same fundemental substance. Perhaps there are levels of consciousness dependent upon the complexity of matter which reaches it's height in the human brain. I don't know, but there is no actual evidence that consciousness exists as a distinct substance apart from matter.

[Jim B.]

My argument, which I agree is a simple one, is that there is no actual evidence that consciousness, mind, is a distinct thing that exists apart from matter. I agree that it's a difficult and unresolved issue, like many philosophical/scientific issues are. For instance, what is space, what's it made of? We can't see it, but it's flexible, it warps in response to mass? I could also ask what is matter itself at a fundamental level, is it energy, and if so, what then is energy? Perhaps nothing is distinct, perhaps everything, including consciousness, is a property of one and the same fundemental substance. Perhaps there are levels of consciousness dependent upon the complexity of matter which reaches it's height in the human brain. I don't know, but there is no actual evidence that consciousness exists as a distinct substance apart from matter.

That's an unfair representation of the issue. It's a straw-man characterization. You, Tassman and Shunyadragon have been corrected on this many times and yet you keep representing it this way because you think this caricature is advantageous for your position.

[JimL]

That's an unfair representation of the issue. It's a straw-man characterization. You, Tassman and Shunyadragon have been corrected on this many times and yet you keep representing it this way because you think this caricature is advantageous for your position.

Please explain how my argument is unfair?

[seer]

They are missing now, Seer. If they had been missing then they wouldn't be referenced in ancient documents. So, once again...

The lost letters of Paul would be first century, do you know of any other "lost" writings that have a first century pedigree?

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?

That inaccurate/accurate was not a main consideration. Apostolic connection was, the earliest works were considered best. That is why unless you can show first century works that somehow bring into question what we presently have I'm not sure what your point is.

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

Really Carp, be honest. If we had the teachings and history of Jesus without the miracles and the divine claims (like Jefferson's Bible) you would have no problem taking that as historical.

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."

So you take certain things about Christ as historical, but not others. Why, what is your dividing line? And what assumptions Carp? I'm following the texts that we have, the texts that you accept to a degree for your historical analysis. And please offer a scenario for why the followers of Christ claimed that He was resurrected. And by the way - you not finding my argument adequate is completely meaningless. You have an inherent bias.

[carpedm9587]

The lost letters of Paul would be first century, do you know of any other "lost" writings that have a first century pedigree?

This is a sidetrack to what I have been trying to get to - so I'm letting it go. I should have recognized this as a tangent and not allowed this tangent to unfold.

That inaccurate/accurate was not a main consideration. Apostolic connection was, the earliest works were considered best. That is why unless you can show first century works that somehow bring into question what we presently have I'm not sure what your point is.

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.

Is this a correct accounting of what you believe, or is it incorrect in some way. If it is incorrect in some way, in what way is it incorrect? You are working really hard to avoid this question, and I have to wonder why. Going forward, your responses to this question and the directly associated argument that follows are the only things I will respond to.

Really Carp, be honest. If we had the teachings and history of Jesus without the miracles and the divine claims (like Jefferson's Bible) you would have no problem taking that as historical.

So you take certain things about Christ as historical, but not others. Why, what is your dividing line? And what assumptions Carp? I'm following the texts that we have, the texts that you accept to a degree for your historical analysis. And please offer a scenario for why the followers of Christ claimed that He was resurrected. And by the way - you not finding my argument adequate is completely meaningless. You have an inherent bias.

Again, these are sidelines and appear to be an attempt to skew the discussion towards me having to prove the bible is wrong. I have no interest in doing that, and have not made that claim. My statement is a simple one: "Seer does not have adequate evidence to support the claims he is making about the historical Jesus."

I have outlined why I think this is so, and am looking to demonstrate this position, but that requires me first arriving at an accurate reflection of your beliefs, so that I am not putting together a strawman. I would have thought you would welcome someone trying to accurately understand your position before engaging in a discussion. For some reason, a clear, unambiguous specification of what you believe to be true is something you are working real hard to avoid.

[seer]

This is a sidetrack to what I have been trying to get to - so I'm letting it go. I should have recognized this as a tangent and not allowed this tangent to unfold.

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.

Is this a correct accounting of what you believe, or is it incorrect in some way. If it is incorrect in some way, in what way is it incorrect? You are working really hard to avoid this question, and I have to wonder why. Going forward, your responses to this question and the directly associated argument that follows are the only things I will respond to.

Carp, are you not reading what I'm saying? I don't agree with the inaccurate/accurate thing as the main criterion for choosing New Testament books. And I know you won't answer my question because there are no other contenders for first century works, as least no contenders that dispute what we have in Canon. For instance you said: Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written. Please what are these other various texts that did not make it into canon? That are first century works?

Again, these are sidelines and appear to be an attempt to skew the discussion towards me having to prove the bible is wrong. I have no interest in doing that, and have not made that claim. My statement is a simple one: "Seer does not have adequate evidence to support the claims he is making about the historical Jesus."

Carp, what you consider adequate has no meaning, apart from your own personal beliefs.

I have outlined why I think this is so, and am looking to demonstrate this position, but that requires me first arriving at an accurate reflection of your beliefs, so that I am not putting together a strawman. I would have thought you would welcome someone trying to accurately understand your position before engaging in a discussion. For some reason, a clear, unambiguous specification of what you believe to be true is something you are working real hard to avoid.

Really, you do take some portions of Scripture as historical, but not others, and you can not offer a reason why.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, are you not reading what I'm saying? I don't agree with the inaccurate/accurate thing as the main criterion for choosing New Testament books. And I know you won't answer my question because there are no other contenders for first century works, as least no contenders that dispute what we have in Canon. For instance you said: Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written. Please what are these other various texts that did not make it into canon? That are first century works?

Carp, what you consider adequate has no meaning, apart from your own personal beliefs.

Really, you do take some portions of Scripture as historical, but not others, and you can not offer a reason why.

Here is what I posted:

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.

You appear to have an issue with "accurate." In the newly written phrasing below, I have added "historically" since you are basing your historical claims on these books.

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 historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all of the historically inaccurate ones as well as some of the historically accurate ones, incorporating only 100% historically accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.

If you still disagree with this wording, please suggest wording that makes it correct. However, if you are conceding that there are historically inaccurate texts in the NT, then I have to suggest you just made my point. Also, note that I did not say that they included the texts because they were historically accurate. I simply said that only historically accurate texts were included in the canon. It would help if you did not regularly add to my argument things I did not put there.

[seer]

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 historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all of the historically inaccurate ones as well as some of the historically accurate ones, incorporating only 100% historically accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.

If you still disagree with this wording, please suggest wording that makes it correct. However, if you are conceding that there are historically inaccurate texts in the NT, then I have to suggest you just made my point. Also, note that I did not say that they included the texts because they were historically accurate. I simply said that only historically accurate texts were included in the canon. It would help if you did not regularly add to my argument things I did not put there.

One step at a time:

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.


Who are these other 1st century non-canonical writers? Are you just speaking of the The Didache, Barnabas and Clement or do you have others?