FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

[jpholding]

As far as I can tell, the only reason a person has for making a public DENIAL of something, is if what they are denying has gained sufficient momentum, that the denier feels his audience would benefit from such denial.

That's because you, Bud, are too ignorant to understand how ancient people communicated.

An oath like Peter's was what would be expected of an HONORABLE person of his day if they were telling the TRUTH.

So your silly experiment in mirror-reading is nothing but a product of your own delusional miseducation....even if it did make logical sense as it is...which it does not.

If you want your can kicked a little more by me, just keep showing up as usual. Two debates and two walkouts before completion by you so far, isn't it?

[Gojiberry]

This is an AWESOME post. I loved the back and forth discussion it demonstrates, and it raises many of the same objections I have. There are so many LEAPs made to substantiate the scriptural claims, I think sometimes folks forget why it is called "faith."

If those are the same objections you have sir, then it's time to accept Messiah.

[skepticbud]

That's because you, Bud, are too ignorant to understand how ancient people communicated.

yeah, how stupid of me, I should have realized that there were no 1st century accusations that Christians followed clever tales instead of truth, eh?

An oath like Peter's was what would be expected of an HONORABLE person of his day if they were telling the TRUTH.

Irrelevant, because this doesn't exclude my interpretation. If Peter was doing something honorable, that doesn't automatically require that there was nothing more to it. I made specific arguments to support my interpretation, you have not refuted that.

So your silly experiment in mirror-reading is nothing but a product of your own delusional miseducation

I actually still have hope for you, believe it or not.

....even if it did make logical sense as it is...which it does not.

Aren't you supposed to provide argument to support your view against mine? Oh I forgot, Holding has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be dumb.

If you want your can kicked a little more by me, just keep showing up as usual. Two debates and two walkouts before completion by you so far, isn't it?

Yes. I actually ran out of things to say in our debate about Hume because you keep relying on your past uniform experience while writing in the debate that you weren't doing that, and I just got tired of reminding you to stop being so hypocritical.

By the way, is your cocky confident attitude toward me merely based on this single latest post of mine? Or are you relying on your uniform past experience of me to justify your over-the-top confidence?

Let me give you a clue...."so far...."

Wow, uniform past experience is a wonderful thing, you use it quite regularly in your day-to-day thinking, right?

Make that every OTHER day

[jpholding]

yeah, how stupid of me, I should have realized that there were no 1st century accusations that Christians followed clever tales instead of truth, eh?

Yeah, how stupid of you for not knowing what form a response to that sort of thing would take, dum dum.

Irrelevant, because this doesn't exclude my interpretation.

No, it just makes it a wild fantasy created by your own desperate presuppositions aside from any presented evidence. IOW your usual spin job resulting in dizziness and vomiting.

I made specific arguments to support my interpretation, you have not refuted that.

Yeah, I did. The genre issue kills your argument 100%. Now it's time to provide evidence for malfeasance rather than spinning tales as you usually do.

I actually still have hope for you, believe it or not.

Plenty of delusions about me too, it seems,

Aren't you supposed to provide argument to support your view against mine?

Like what? If you mean re the use of denials like Peter's and Paul's in an agonistic setting, it comes from Witherington's commentary on Galatians primarily. Of course we know that you're much smarter than either of them.

Yes. I actually ran out of things to say in our debate about Hume because you keep relying on your past uniform experience while writing in the debate that you weren't doing that, and I just got tired of reminding you to stop being so hypocritical.

Basically, you realized that Hume was a dead duck and that you could only defend him by making him say what he didn't.

By the way, is your cocky confident attitude toward me merely based on this single latest post of mine?

Yeah. I take posts one at a time, as it happens. If you ever show brilliance I'll gladly say so but right now you need a good soak in some vinegar for about 500 years.

Let me give you a clue...."so far...."

Your brain's distance from being connected?

Wow, uniform past experience is a wonderful thing, you use it quite regularly in your day-to-day thinking, right?

I made no such appeal. I was shaming you publicly for your performance, dum dum.

Y'know, Bud, stupid people like you are dull.

How do you like my new avatars? I draw 'em myself. On the other hand, you really need to do away with the one you have now. We don't need to see what you look like before your coffee and Listerine.

[Babaloo]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

by Frank Turek

Chapter 10

Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?

Hi Trout,

Ed Babinski here. I ran across your review at tweb of Not Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. I'm not an atheist (but I was a born again Christian and edited Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists).

I noticed you wrote something to the effect that the number of fish caught in a miracle only found in the last written Gospel ("Gospel of John") helped demonstrate the historical accuracy of that Gospel, since it was a specific number. However "153" was held to be a sacred number by Hellenistic mathematicians long before Jesus was even born. Just google: 153 Jesus Pythagoras, and read the articles on the web, like this one that states:

Because the author of John’s gospel has chosen to give the exact number of fish, 153, which is irrelevant to the rest of the story, scholars trace the source of the story to a section from the Life of Pythagoras. Those of you who have studied geometry and algebra may remember that Pythagoras was a Greek mathematician who lived between five and six hundred years earlier than Jesus, from 580 to 500 BCE.

One hundred fifty-three "happens" to be what the Pythagoreans called a "triangular number." Try it yourself, and you’ll find that 153 is the sum of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17.

But that’s not all that makes the number special. 153 is also what you get if you add 1+(1x2x3)+(1x2x3x4)+(1x2x3x4x5). And finally, if you add together the cubes of the three digits in 153, you get 153. Try it!

The section of the Life of Pythagoras that informs the gospel story goes like this:

Pythagoras was going from Sybaris to Krotona. At the shore, he stood with men fishing with nets; they were still hauling the nets weighed down with fish from the depths. He said he knew the number of fish they had hauled in: 153. The men agreed to do what he ordered if the number of fish was as he said. He ordered the fish to be set free, alive, after they were counted accurately to total 153. What is more astonishing, in the time they were out of the water being counted, none of the fish died while he stood there. He paid them the price of the fish and went to Krotona. They announced the deed everywhere, having learned his name from some children.

In the story of Pythagoras, declaring the correct number was the miracle. The whole thing was done for the sake of freeing the fish since Pythagoreans were strict vegetarians. Christians were not vegetarians, so the miracle shifted from freeing the fish to Jesus’ providing the catch.

Other questions that raise a red flag concerning the historicity of the Gospel of John can be found here and here.

Also, Check out Bart Ehrman's college textbook on the New Testament that addresses questions pro and con concerning how much we know or don't know about the authors of each Gospel. Even the writings attributed to Luke could be based on some other person's usage of some Lukan material rather than directly by Luke. And early Christian letters in the N.T. like those attributed to Peter and Jude and Paul's later letters are also dubiously attributed to them. As are the letters and Christian writings that soon followed the N.T. like 1st and 2nd Clement and the Didache with its unknown author.

In all, such questions are not easily answered. Church tradition gives varying answers. Most scholars in fact do not believe that any of the Gospels were written by people who were eyewitnesses themselves of any of the stories told within them.

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . . .

‘Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

‘Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

‘Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

‘John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’"

--cited by Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506


There is also a new series on the web that you can sign up for that is beginning an examination of the Gospel of Mark and the other Gospels. See here and scroll down to Religion.

Also, over 90% of Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke, all written in Greek, including incidental Greek connecting phrases from Mark that show up in Matthew and Luke. So since Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek, there was most likely a literary borrowing going on from one early Greek Gospel to the latter two, and so we are not dealing with different eyewitness testimonials, just the same written story of one earlier Gospel that was copped and edited differently and added to by two later Gospel writers, "redacted." Look up "Markan Priority" on the internet. Or see here and here.

Nearly the only things that Matthew and Luke did not repeat from Mark are the nativity and resurrection stories about Jesus, both of which Mark lacked, and as expected, those are the two parts of Matthew and Luke that differ most from each another, probably because neither Matthew nor Luke could follow Mark's lead in those places--since Mark begins with Jesus's baptism, not his birth, and Mark ends before anyone gets to see the resurrected Jesus.

Cheers,
Ed

[jpholding]

Excuse me, Edski, I was just rousting around looking for silly comments to address, and I found yours:

Because the author of John’s gospel has chosen to give the exact number of fish, 153, which is irrelevant to the rest of the story, scholars trace the source of the story to a section from the Life of Pythagoras. Those of you who have studied geometry and algebra may remember that Pythagoras was a Greek mathematician who lived between five and six hundred years earlier than Jesus, from 580 to 500 BCE.

Gee, Edski -- WHICH "Life of Pythagoras"?

The one by Iamblichus of Chalcis, who lived 250-325 AD -- LONG AFTER John was written, even as late as you'd like to date it?

Or the one by Porphyry, who lived 234–305 A.D -- also LONG AFTER John was written?

Or some other Life of Pythagoras you keep in your mango tree that you swing from every day in the backyard?

Informs the gospel story, my kiester. You just showed once again what a gullible stooge you are for anything that confirms your view of the world. And when you're done, try explaining why the heck a Palestinian fisherman would give a flying carp about Pythagorean mathematics, and show me that Pythy had an interest in 153 before the first century.

UH OH! Look at this!

Hey........i am 10 years old and have an IQ of 153.

The kid musta been reading Iambichus!

Funny too how this cite:

Pythagoras was going from Sybaris to Krotona. At the shore, he stood with men fishing with nets; they were still hauling the nets weighed down with fish

Appears ONLY on that one page. So how's about you put down that book stamp and give us a reputable bibliographic citation, huh? Maybe your boss will let you use OCLC.

Also, Check out Bart Ehrman's college textbook on the New Testament

I trust Chicken Little Bart, all right.

In all, such questions are not easily answered.

Certainly not by the likes of you who won't do any serious homework and has to resort to answers like, "Well so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees with you" when you're cornered and can't answer actual arguments! I kicked the likes of you to the curb on Gospel authorship and Q/Marcan priority, and what do you do? You go hide on someone else's blog and talk behind my back about me. Typical.

[Babaloo]

Excuse me, Edski, I was just rousting around looking for silly comments to address, and I found yours:

Gee, Edski -- WHICH "Life of Pythagoras"?

The one by Iamblichus of Chalcis, who lived 250-325 AD -- LONG AFTER John was written, even as late as you'd like to date it?

Or the one by Porphyry, who lived 234–305 A.D -- also LONG AFTER John was written?

Or some other Life of Pythagoras you keep in your mango tree that you swing from every day in the backyard?

Informs the gospel story, my kiester. You just showed once again what a gullible stooge you are for anything that confirms your view of the world. And when you're done, try explaining why the heck a Palestinian fisherman would give a flying carp about Pythagorean mathematics, and show me that Pythy had an interest in 153 before the first century.

UH OH! Look at this!


The kid musta been reading Iambichus!

Funny too how this cite:

Appears ONLY on that one page. So how's about you put down that book stamp and give us a reputable bibliographic citation, huh? Maybe your boss will let you use OCLC.

I trust Chicken Little Bart, all right.

Certainly not by the likes of you who won't do any serious homework and has to resort to answers like, "Well so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees with you" when you're cornered and can't answer actual arguments! I kicked the likes of you to the curb on Gospel authorship and Q/Marcan priority, and what do you do? You go hide on someone else's blog and talk behind my back about me. Typical.

Hi J.P. Scoldy ,
Please see the Wikipedia article,
Catch of 153 fish

And if the information it supplies is correct (which in historic terms means we may not know for certain), then Plato (circa 300+ B.C.) may have been the first one to tell the story about Pythag. catching those fish.


Also, if Wiki's correct, "in the time of Pythagoras [pre-Jesus] 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction known, at the time, to the true value of the square root of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). This number frequently cropped up in geometry, most notably in a simple shape known as the vesica piscis, Greek for the body of the fish (because the shape looks like the body of a stereotyped fish), and the ratio of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the hellenic world as the measure of the fish." So the "measure of the fish" appears to have preceded the appearance of the Gospels. Or Wiki could be wrong. Let me know what you find out.


Wiki adds that, "The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars, with some suggesting that the number of fish in the New Testament episode was possibly a familiar large number to the writer, or even a deliberate reference to the geometric nomenclature and "measure of the fish" that was known at that time. It is significant that as I said above, a story was told of Pythagoras, and later reported by Plato, that is very similar, even in some wording, to the Biblical story told in the appendix to the fourth Gospel."


As to when the Gospel tale of catching the 153 fish was written, that tale appears in the Gospel of John, the last written of all the canonical Gospels, and neither does it appear in the body of that work but in the final chapter, a seeming appendix to that Gospel, chapter 21, a chapter that follows chapter 20 which had its own perfectly fine ending verses that you can read quite clearly for yourself:


"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

Sounds like an ending to me.


But then AFTER the above ending, chapter 21 picks up with the words, After these things...[see the Wiki article for the Greek] and nonchalantly recounts another appearance of Jesus, as if the concluding sentences at the end of the prior chapter weren't even there--as if the text was flowing "...and they all lived happily ever after. The end. Anyway, back in Galilee they...". Therefore, most scholars of textual criticism hold that John 21 is a later addition to the work, normally called the Appendix to the Gospel by scholars.


As to the exact age of the appendix to the Gospel of John, I don't know, but I find some of the things it says funny if that is the way an inspired work is to end, indeed the inspired capstone ending of the entire Gospel section in the Bible. I won't go into the "I want him to remain until I come" idea found in the appendix. But I would like to mention a bit about the second ending found in John, chapter 21, which goes:


"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."


This second ending repeats the "many other signs, not written in this book" idea of the first ending in chapter 20. But what's funny is what it says, once you think about it.

The “world” could not contain the books? The author of the Fourth Gospel was not displaying much prophetic ability when he wrote that line, I guess he wasn’t inspired enough to foresee that we can now store whole libraries in a single suped-up laptop computer.


Moreover, the books we do have that tell of “things Jesus did,” consist of only four slim “Gospels,” not one of them over forty pages in length. Two of them, Matthew and Luke, even repeat over 90% of what appears in Mark. So the four Gospels minus the overlapping portions would be even slimmer. Not a lot of "books" about what Jesus did I'm afraid. To reiterate the silly last sentence in the fourth Gospel:


"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."


Is there a less convincing way for an allegedly “inspired” book to end than with the faltering phrase, “I suppose?”


“I suppose” such a last verse made sense to believers back then, who were being regaled and entertained by ever new and fabulous tales of Jesus’s infancy, youth and adulthood churned out by their fellows and incorporated into additional “Gospels” many of which we only know the titles of today. But ending an inspired book with such a silly exaggeration, followed by the faltering words, “I suppose,” does not make much of an impression, not even strictly literarily speaking.


But hey, J.P.Scoldy, if you want to believe in the existence of inerrant original Biblical manuscripts (conveniently lost) , go right ahead. And by the way for all of your faults, at least neither of us today are end times mania Christians, thinking we could blast off at any moment into the sky like a rocket.


Big hug to my favorite female bunny impersonator.

[jpholding]

Oh yeah, he's back at it again....

Please see the Wikipedia article,

Wikipedia? Do you ever plan to get out of third grade, Edski?

I accept nothing from Wikipedia. Present it in terms of an original source and then we'll talk about it. Not before. Wikipedia has no editing controls worth their salt so that, for example, the article on Mithraism is full of nonsense

153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest known, at the time, to the true value of the

Now that's just plain stupid, Edski. What purpose would that serve for John, to connect the number of fish caught to some obscure mathematical happenstance?

Have you ever thought of thinking for yourself rather than letting Bob Price do your thinking for you?

Hey, you know what? Maybe you're right! Check this out:

http://archive.wn.com/2004/08/16/140...f3dbee32f.html

Ooo! Ooo! Obviously the terrorists who killed these people were trying to get across some secret message about Pythagoras! Ya think so?

http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsa...php?newsid=956

Dang! The people who made that diet pill must be members of some secret order of Pythagoreans...

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2006/06/

DAGNAB! Look at the June 6 entry. Must be a Pythagorean conspiracy in Congress.

Edski, you're such a maroon sometimes, it's PITIFUL.

chapter 21], a chapter that follows chapter 20 which had its own perfectly fine ending verses that you can read quite clearly for yourself:

I have no issue with it being an appendix added by John himself. Even as dumb as you are, you know about books having prefaces written by their authors in later editions, right??

As to the exact age of the appendix to the Gospel of John, I don't know, but I find some of the things it says funny if that is the way an inspired work is to end,

Based on what? Your fundy understanding of what "inspiration" constitutes? No thank....we're grown up past that sort of childish thinking here...inspiration doesn't bar later editions.

The “world” could not contain the books? The author of the Fourth Gospel was not displaying much prophetic ability when he wrote that line, I guess he wasn’t inspired enough to foresee that we can now store whole libraries in a single suped-up laptop computer.

Good night, you are fundamentalist-stupid. As if those words were meant to be read beyond the context of the first century to begin with, and as if they were even meant as some sort of page-tally count in the first place.

Ever hear of "dramatic orientation," there, Edski? You might want to learn about how some of these backwards cultures you look down your nose at express themselves.

Is there a less convincing way for an allegedly “inspired” book to end than with the faltering phrase, “I suppose?”

Only if your mind is so rotted by fundy literalism that you can't read it any other way....I suppose.

Big hug to my favorite female bunny impersonator.

That's fine. Flemming deserved that sort of response. Sheila is over 6 feet tall and five times stronger than the average human, so we'll send her over to knock some sense into you, eh? Time Turkey is sure gonna take care of you in Atheist Survivor, though, so maybe we won't have to send Sheila....

Big kick in the butt to my favorite fundy atheist who lives in a library basement and never backs up his research when challenged. Thankfully I know one person who fits that description.

[Kyle Williams]

Not long ago, I got an email asking why I had not responded to Sheila's critique. I had not responded because I didn't know who Sheila was, and because she had resorted to belittling me. When an opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks, I take it as an admission that she has nothing of value to say. I thought it was obvious to every discerning reader that I had the better arguments. Then someone told me that Sheila was a mask behind which J.P. Holding was hiding. I won't charge Holding with cowardice, but I would like to know why he/she used an alias.

At any rate, here is my belated response:

Sheila: Now we'll see if we can determine that the NT documents contain eyewitness testimony. Peter, Paul and John all claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke and the writer of Hebrews claim to be informed by eyewitnesses.

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It's one thing to claim that you're an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it's another thing to prove it.

Sheila: So, what's your epistemic test to determine this for a writer?

Kyle: I don't know what you mean by epistemic, but such assertions must be tested on a case-by-case basis.

Sheila: Usually confirmation of details is a sign used by historians, and you were told how accurate Acts was...

Kyle: For the sake of the argument, I accept that the book of Acts accurately describes the historical background of its narrative.

Sheila: Good. Now since Luke has proven accurate with so many details, why is it not anything but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records?

Kyle: What's wrong with an anti-supernatural bias?

Sheila: If God exists, we should expect him to perform miracles.

Kyle: Well, you have failed to prove that God exists.

Sheila: No, you postulated some rather lame arguments against the arguments that God exists.

Kyle: I disagree. Your arguments for the existence of God are based on logical fallacies. Shall we go back and discuss this some more?

Sheila: Maybe later. But why don't you take the gospel writers' word for it?
Kyle: When a person reads about miracles, he reasonably presumes that he's reading fiction. If a writer wants to overcome that reasonable presumption, he has the burden of proof. The more extraordinary the assertion, the stronger the proof required to establish it as fact. The gospel writers failed to provide sufficient evidence that their miracles are anything but fiction.

Sheila: Come on, Kyle. Hume tried that silly argument years ago and he was made a fool of with the "ice analogy". That kind of logic means that a tropical prince could never believe in ice.

Kyle: No, Sheila, I'm not saying that I will never believe in miracles. I'm saying that a reasonable person would require good evidence before believing in such an extraordinary thing as a miracle.

Sheila: Who are you decide what is "extraordinary" and in what way? If God exists, then a miracle is not "extraordinary" to do. If you mean "extraordinary" in terms of how often it is done, then you create a contrived means of judgment that doesn't jibe with real life. How often do you see a total eclipse? Or have you seen the Earth's core? Obviously mere experience doesn't mean dip.

Kyle: Who's talking about personal experience? We have access to the common experience of mankind through books, magazines, film, Internet and all kinds of media. Therefore, we expect some things, like eclipses, that are unusual, but natural. According to current knowledge, it would be extraordinary to see a dead person crawling out of his grave, or a virgin giving birth, or a small loaf of bread satisfying hundreds of hungry people with enough left over to fill the trash bin. If you think such things are ordinary, I'd like to know what drugs you're taking.

Sheila: But if the Book of Luke is accurate about so much detail, what makes you think its miracle claims are fictitious?

Kyle: Many fictitious stories have historically and geographically accurate settings. If you'd like an example, I can introduce you to The Pearl of Great Price.

Sheila: We've met, thanks. I know what kind of silliness you're trying to pull, Kyle.

Kyle: Apparently not. And you might want to watch your attitude. It's not at all appealing. If my arguments are weak, expose the weakness. But don't charge me with trying to be silly. It smacks of an ad hominem attack.

Sheila: I know the Pearl has many accurate points of history. But I don't reject what it says about Joseph Smith having visions and such because of a supernatural bias. I reject it because, for example, New World archaeology doesn't help one bit to verify Smith's claims.

Kyle: Wait a minute. You already acknowledged that the Pearl "has many accurate points of history." Are you talking about the Book of Mormon now?

Sheila: Yes.

Kyle: I agree. Archaeology has failed to substantiate the Book of Mormon. And if Joseph Smith produced false scripture with the Book of Mormon, his Pearl of Great Price starts out with a presumption that it, too, is false. I might add that the same goes for the gospels. If one gospel is false, the others are tainted with a presumption that they, too, are false. Of course, such presumptions are rebuttable.

Sheila: Also because, Mormon claims about the meaning of the Old and New Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence.

Kyle: I'm glad you brought that up, because the New testament claims about the meaning of the Old Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence. This is a very good reason for doubting the miracle claims in the New Testament.

Sheila: So, sorry, Geisler and Turek didn't make a weak argument; you just didn't do your homework.

Kyle: Au contraire. I admit I don't know everything, and perhaps more homework is in order. But I think you unduly dismiss my arguments. I have exposed serious weaknesses in Geisler & Turek. Your comments have not convinced me otherwise.

Sheila: But a book that has accurate details should tell true stories.

Kyle: How about a non-religious example: Allow me to introduce Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris. In his novel, Hugo describes the buildings and streets of Paris in painstaking detail...

Sheila: Kyle, that's another silly argument. Have you forgotten what you said about genre? Did Hugo market his book as non-fiction?

Kyle: I doubt it.

Sheila: Whereas, Luke "marketed" his work as a biography of Jesus. Therefore your comparison is false.

Kyle: So we're talking about two bits of evidence: (1) The author claims to be telling the truth, and (2) The setting is accurate. What you're telling me is that an accurate setting, by itself, is not sufficient evidence that a book is true.

Sheila: Right.

Kyle: But an accurate setting combined with the author's claim is sufficient? Well, look at the Author's Preface to The Life & Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe...

Sheila: Which was marketed as what, now?
Kyle: As non-fiction. The author said in the preface, "The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it...."

Sheila: But how many details in Robinson Crusoe are accurate?

Kyle: That would be something to look into. How about The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas? It satisfies both conditions nicely. Its setting is accurate, and the author claimed that it was a true story.

Sheila: Kyle, I don't care how many examples like this you bring up. For one thing, you're ignoring your own objection about genre and intent.

Kyle: Please explain.

Sheila: Maybe later. For another, historians always have and always will use confirmation of details as a reason to trust a work. You're trying to pretend to know better than historians how these things work.

Kyle: That's only one factor. As you admitted when talking about Joseph Smith, there are weightier factors. All else being equal, the confirmation of detail may tip the scales, but it is not the strongest factor.

Sheila: It puts the burden on you to explain why a work should not be trusted.

Kyle: The general burden of proof is on the person who claims that the Bible is true. You are correct in saying that when an apologist makes an argument, the burden to refute that particular argument shifts to the opponent. I have clearly refuted the argument that because some details are accurate, Luke's story must be true. I have given you several examples to the contrary. You have avoided the issue by bringing up other claims.

Sheila: Now can you explain why the New Testament should not be trusted?

Kyle: Absolutely. (1) The miracle claims create a reasonable presumption that the New Testament is fictitious. The presumption may be rebutted, but the evidence to do so must be strong enough to overcome the presumption. I have yet to see such evidence. (2) The New Testament routinely takes Old Testament passages out of context and misinterprets them. (3) The New Testament is full of errors, some of which appear to be intentional. (4) Texts similar to the New Testament are generally considered fictitious. (No, I have not forgotten about genre.) (5) There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within the New Testament and between the New and Old Testaments. (6) Apologists, trying to support the New Testament, typically come up with the same old tired arguments, which are easily refuted, as I have demonstrated.

Sheila: But the New Testament can't be fiction, because novelists usually don't use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

Kyle: Name one main character in the New Testament who is cited by non-Christian writers or confirmed through archaeology.

Sheila: What's your point here again, Kyle? You're demanding confirmation by archaeology for average, everyday people.

Kyle: No, you offered it. I'm only asking you to back up your assertion.

Sheila: Are you going to tell me that you need "archaeological confirmation" for someone before they could have existed?

Kyle: No.

Sheila: Are you saying, "My point is more that you can't argue that these people were real when you want to argue that people don't make up main characters?"

Kyle: Uh, you might want to rephrase that question. It doesn't make much sense. It certainly doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

Sheila: Let's skip to the next point. Geisler and Turke said that if the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

Kyle: That's a pretty weak argument. For one thing, by the time the New Testament books were written, most of the real people mentioned in them were dead.

Sheila: I'd say that's not likely the case for all of them.

Kyle: Did I say all of them?

Sheila: No, but you also don't seem to know that the families of those named would also be interested in such things. Very much so -- it would be a matter of family honor and reputation. For example, the family of Nicodemus would have had something to say if the story about him in John were made up.

Kyle: What would motivate them to correct a few insignificant cults? There were many, many cults in the Roman empire. Only a few of them were Christian.

Sheila: I can see you know little about what would motivate ancient people. There are a large number of factors that would motivate them to disprove Christian claims -- and they wouldn't apply to cults like Mithraism and Neoplatonism, which were socially acceptable whereas Christianity was not. Do you even understand what the difference is between our world and an honor and shame society?

Kyle: Was first century Jerusalem an honor and shame society? How exactly did that work?

Sheila: Maybe we'll talk about that later.

Kyle: Isn't it a relatively minor point? Do you really want to pursue this line of argument? It doesn't seem to be your highest card.

Sheila: Well, the gospels don't appear to be novels. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

Kyle: I'm inclined to agree that they aren't mere novels. The gospel stories developed as oral legend first, and then they were written down.

Sheila: That's very easy to say, but do you mind proving it for one of these doctrines? It doesn't make a lot of sense, you see. For example, crucifixion was a shameful death that would never have been "developed" for the "necessity of the times." If anything it would the first thing dropped.

Kyle: Not necessarily. The "suffering servant" theme had been popular since the sixth century BC, when it was written by Deutero-Isaiah. Maybe even before then.

Sheila: You can read about it from the link just above.

Kyle: Could you repeat that link, please? It doesn't seem to have transferred to the forum.

Sheila: Why are there similarities and differences among the gospels?

Kyle: The stories were embellished and exaggerated as they were passed around from mouth to mouth. The apostle Paul preached and wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. By the time the gospels were written, the stories had spread and developed in different directions. Among the early Christians were such divergent cults as Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics and others. The various scribes who set the oral traditions to writing did not just make everything up like a novel. Each set down the tradition as it had developed in his particular congregation. That's why you have some similarity among the gospels and some differences.

Sheila: That's an interesting theory, but you're just following Ehrman uncritically.

Kyle: Is there any reason to doubt his statement?

Sheila: He doesn't give any reason to say that the Gospels "did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses," he just says so. He does not explain why we should think they were anonymous; that was an issue you refused to discuss.

Kyle: When did I refuse to discuss it? Actually, Ehrman does expound on that. In lecture 3 of "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity" (Available from the Teaching Company, www.teach12.com), Professor Bart D. Ehrman says:

... When you read the books, you'll see that, in fact, the authors are anonymous. They don't give us their names. We continue to call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply by way of convenience. When you read Matthew, you will never read a passage where Matthew says, "Then Jesus and I, one time, went up to Capernaum," or anything like that. They are written in the third person about the things that Jesus said.

These books, in fact, did not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses. They are written about Jesus and his followers. They are anonymous. They're written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic. They're written decades after the facts that they narrate....

Sheila: And he doesn't even compare their attestion to other ancient documents.

Kyle: Their what?

Sheila: I don't know why he thinks their being written in Greek was an issue; many ancient people were bilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire.

Kyle: Maybe it's not an issue.

Sheila: He also doesn't explain why he dates them late, and you even granted for the sake of argument that they were written early. So do you want to defend those points now?

Kyle: No, I'll still say, for the sake of the argument, that the gospels were written as early as G&T suggests – a 15- to 40- year gap between the death of Jesus and writing of the gospels. That's still plenty of time for the legend to develop.

Sheila: Ehrman's tales of stories just being made up is so lacking in evidence that there's really not much to say.

Kyle: I don't think that's his position, that Jesus was made up out of whole cloth. It isn't necessarily mine either. There could have been a man after whom the legends of Jesus were patterned. He might have been a faith healer. He might have been crucified. The gospel stories might be partially true. But where do you draw the line between the history and the legend? That's a good question, and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. I do know that the gospels cannot be entirely historical. The contradictions destroy that notion.

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have provided more convincing evidence. Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead.

Sheila: Why? You're just begging the question of what is "reasonable."

Kyle: You've got to be kidding. Is it reasonable for you to believe me if I tell you that Elvis was dead, but he crawled out of his grave? The reasonableness of skepticism is self-evident here. Anyone who believes such a tale without evidence is unreasonable.

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories.

Sheila: Kyle, don't be so spoiled and provincial. The way they told their stories was normal for their period. Just look at the series of items in the link above.

Kyle: What link? And how am I being "spoiled and provincial"? Is that an ad hominem attack? If a writer wants to be credible, he can take measures to write as accurately as possible. The gospel writers were careless with their "facts." Is such carelessness "normal for their period"? If so, how can anyone trust the gospels?

Sheila: What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

Kyle: They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen.

Sheila: Well, there you go again, demanding extra evidence above what is needed, and for what? To suit yourself. Not because of any objective standards of epistemology.

Kyle: Hold on a minute. I was only responding to your question (G&T's question, but you have adopted it). I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm only suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Sheila: And you still need to learn what "hearsay" is and explain why it is a problem.

Kyle: According to my dictionary, hearsay is "rumor," or "something heard from another." (I also know what hearsay evidence is, but we're not in a courtroom, so we're not talking about legal definitions.) Did I say it was a problem? I'm only responding to your question, and suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Sheila: As it is, sicne you accept junk like Remsberg's list without question, I'm not so sure you really care about reason and evidence.

Kyle : I have not heard of Remsberg or his list. I do care about reason and evidence. Do you?

CONCLUSION: G&T argued that Luke told the truth about geographic and historic details, and therefore he must have told the truth about miracles. I exposed the logical fallacy in his argument. Sheila's response missed the mark. Instead of addressing the issue, she changed the subject. She came up with some good points, though.

G&T argued that people would have objected to the use of their relatives' names in the gospels if the stories were not true. I gave some reasons that they might not. Sheila gave some reasons that they might have. I think the entire argument is too speculative, and pretty lame. I've got bigger fish to fry. How about the false prophecies and phony fulfillments? Now there's something you can sink your teeth into.

G&T argued that the gospels are unlike novels. I agreed, and I pointed out a false dichotomy. As an alternative, I suggested that the gospels are most likely records of legends that had developed orally. Sheila's response skirted around some details, but didn't really strike at the main issue.

G&T asked what more the gospel writers could have done to show that they were telling the truth. I made some suggestions. Sheila must have been getting tired because her response was not at all reasonable.

[jpholding]

because she had resorted to belittling me.

Hello, Kyle, this is Sheila. So you want to know why I'm doing the honors rather than JP, dearie? It's very simple. 1) You apparently think books talk, so why not a talking rabbit too? Or is your imagination limited to inanimate objects on your world talking? 2) Oh, do stop crying about "ad hominem" -- you who insult Geisler and Turek by trying to make them look like they'd have no answer for your arguments, and then having their book burn itself at the end. If you can't take the heat, don't start any fires. Got it, sweetie? I'll give you fire when you spit fire. Fair enough?

Kyle: But are these claims true? After all, why should we trust that those writers told us the truth? It's one thing to claim that you're an eyewitness or have eyewitness testimony, and it's another thing to prove it.

Sheila: So, what's your epistemic test to determine this for a writer?

Kyle: I don't know what you mean by epistemic, but such assertions must be tested on a case-by-case basis.

If you don't know what "epistemic" means then you might wish to invest in a decent dictionary, Kyle, dear.

The point is that asking questions like "why should we trust them" is a sham. The same questions could be asked of any document (Tacitus' Annals, Josephus' Antiquities) and it's no more an argument there, so you're just showing off.

If you want to impress us, show how you'd determine the authorship of, say, the Annals, then apply the same tests to the Gospels, for example, and treat them consistently. Simple, really.

Next point requiring comment... really, dear, you need to be more considerate and learn to use the quote function here so tyhe good people can know when you're saying something new. Why don't you?

Kyle: I disagree. Your arguments for the existence of God are based on logical fallacies. Shall we go back and discuss this some more?

Go ahead. I didn't say later; you put that in my mouth.

Kyle: When a person reads about miracles, he reasonably presumes that he's reading fiction.

No, Kyle, dear, YOU presume that and then call it "reasonable" based on your presumption of what is reasonable.

Kyle: Who's talking about personal experience?

The real problem is that we have no idea what you're talking about at all because you never tell us a thing about your epistemology. But you clearly are talking about personal experience:

We have access to the common experience of mankind through books, magazines, film, Internet and all kinds of media. Therefore, we expect some things, like eclipses, that are unusual, but natural. According to current knowledge, it would be extraordinary to see a dead person crawling out of his grave, or a virgin giving birth, or a small loaf of bread satisfying hundreds of hungry people with enough left over to fill the trash bin.

And the disciples had access to people coming back from the dead, and a loaf of bread satisfying hundrreds, and so on. So once again, it's the same old Hume canard, isn't it? You cluster validation subjectively around YOUR experience -- just as the prince did with ice.

If you think such things are ordinary, I'd like to know what drugs you're taking.

What I think is that what you call "ordinary" is utterly subjective and beside the point of whether an event was historical.

Kyle: Apparently not. And you might want to watch your attitude. It's not at all appealing. If my arguments are weak, expose the weakness.

I did...repeatedly. But like I said, dear, if you can't take the heat, don't start a fire.

Kyle: Wait a minute. You already acknowledged that the Pearl "has many accurate points of history." Are you talking about the Book of Mormon now?

I'm talking about the Mormon canon as a whole, dear, including the Pearl. Joseph Smith was the reputed prophetic authority behind all of it, no? So it's fair to talk about all of it in one breath.

might add that the same goes for the gospels. If one gospel is false, the others are tainted with a presumption that they, too, are false. Of course, such presumptions are rebuttable.

Actually, dear, THAT *is* false because different authors were behind each Gospel. If Luke is false, that does not prove Matthew is, unless you're a fundamentalist, which it seems you were at one time and still are. An error in Tacitus does not taint Livy, now, does it?

Kyle: I'm glad you brought that up, because the New testament claims about the meaning of the Old Testament don't jibe with sound exegesis or the evidence.

What, THAT old canard? I canned you in Chapter 13 on that, dear.

Your comments have not convinced me otherwise.

It's doubtful that with the bar set this high, that a 2 by 4 would convince you that wood exists, come to that.

Kyle: So we're talking about two bits of evidence: (1) The author claims to be telling the truth, and (2) The setting is accurate. What you're telling me is that an accurate setting, by itself, is not sufficient evidence that a book is true.

No, I said that it puts the burden on you to explain why a work should not be trusted.

Sheila: Which was marketed as what, now?
Kyle: As non-fiction. The author said in the preface, "The Editor believes the thing to be a just history of fact; neither is there any appearance of fiction in it...."

No, dear, that's your mistake again. What you're unaware of is that this is itself a literary technique. Look:

http://www.primapublishing.com/catal...757327&view=rg

Defoe's novel is also thought to be one of the earliest examples of the use of psychological realism. Defoe posits himself as "editor" and Crusoe as the author. How does his use of voice and point of view differ from that of his contemporaries? How much of his fiction might be influenced by his background in journalism and nonfiction?

So, I'm sorry, dear, but Crusoe was never actually meant to be understood as non-fiction. What you're quoting is simply a technique for helping suspend disbelief. I understand your Umberto Eco is fond of this sort of thing too. As for Dumas, I need a quote from him.

Sheila: Kyle, I don't care how many examples like this you bring up. For one thing, you're ignoring your own objection about genre and intent.

Kyle: Please explain.

Explain what? There's nothing to explain. Get busy.

Kyle: The general burden of proof is on the person who claims that the Bible is true.

Kyle, dear, that old game doesn't work here. Each side in a debate is claiming something is "true" and therefore has a burden. Your claim is that you think it is true that the Bible is fabricated. So don't use that canard as an excuse for your own laziness.

Kyle: Absolutely. (1) The miracle claims create a reasonable presumption that the New Testament is fictitious. The presumption may be rebutted, but the evidence to do so must be strong enough to overcome the presumption. I have yet to see such evidence.

Since you set the bar arbitrarily high based on your own experiences, that will never be satisfied.

(2) The New Testament routinely takes Old Testament passages out of context and misinterprets them.

Killed this is Ch. 13. Do your homework, dear.

(3) The New Testament is full of errors, some of which appear to be intentional.

No specifics? Bring them on....I'm sure JP has killed each of them...or rather, set them on fire, that pyro!

(4) Texts similar to the New Testament are generally considered fictitious. (No, I have not forgotten about genre.)

Forgotten, no. Ignorant, perhaps. Greco-Roman bioi and epistles you can name then?

(5) There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within the New Testament and between the New and Old Testaments. (6) Apologists, trying to support the New Testament, typically come up with the same old tired arguments, which are easily refuted, as I have demonstrated.

Don't hurt yourself beating your chest, Kyle, dear. See 3 above.

Sheila: But the New Testament can't be fiction, because novelists usually don't use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories.

I never said this, dear, and wouldn't. But what can we expect, since you have a proclivity to put straw men in the mouths of others?

Kyle: No, you offered it. I'm only asking you to back up your assertion.

And I'm asking what the point of your demand is. What is it? Do you even know, or do you just make up demands on the fly?

Kyle: Uh, you might want to rephrase that question. It doesn't make much sense. It certainly doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

That's sort of the problem! You never really "said" anything substantive to explain yourself!

Sheila: Let's skip to the next point. Geisler and Turke said that if the New Testament writers had used real people in fictitious stories, those real people would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them.

No, dear, YOU repeated that argument of theirs to me,. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Kyle: Was first century Jerusalem an honor and shame society? How exactly did that work?

We don't need to talk about that later. The answer is yes it was; so was the whole the ancient Roman Empire. I'd recommend that you read some basic works like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity; Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, and Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. And no, it's not a "minor point" -- it's very critical to understanding the world of the Bible (as well as history in general, but that's a tangent).

Sheila: Well, the gospels don't appear to be novels. The historical novel theory would require an implausible grand conspiracy among these writers.

I never said this either, dear. The Gospels are ancient biographies; this isn't open to question. As for "oral legend" I doubt if you have any idea how oral transmission works, do you?

Kyle: Not necessarily. The "suffering servant" theme had been popular since the sixth century BC, when it was written by Deutero-Isaiah. Maybe even before then.

Crucifixion, dear. Crucifixion. Not "suffering". Here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

... When you read the books, you'll see that, in fact, the authors are anonymous. They don't give us their names.

Baloney, dear. Their names are at the beginning of each Gospel. Just the same as for Tacitus' Annals.

When you read Matthew, you will never read a passage where Matthew says, "Then Jesus and I, one time, went up to Capernaum," or anything like that. They are written in the third person about the things that Jesus said.

What of it? Writing in the third person was a standard convention; Josephus did it, and besides that, the Gospels, again, are BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, which means there's nothing that should require us to expect any of the authors to make first person references.

They're written in Greek. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic.

I suppose Ehrman forgot that Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire, hm? Has he ever heard of a "translation" do you think, too?

Sheila: And he doesn't even compare their attestion to other ancient documents.

Kyle: Their what?

Attestation of their authorship.

Sheila: I don't know why he thinks their being written in Greek was an issue; many ancient people were bilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire.

Kyle: Maybe it's not an issue.

Maybe Ehrman isn't as reliable as you suppose, either. You might want to check this review of his latest work:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

But where do you draw the line between the history and the legend? That's a good question, and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. I do know that the gospels cannot be entirely historical. The contradictions destroy that notion.

Why, please?

Kyle: You've got to be kidding. Is it reasonable for you to believe me if I tell you that Elvis was dead, but he crawled out of his grave?

That's hardly as simple as it is, dear. Follow the link I gave you to JP's article and you'll see what I mean.

Kyle: What link? And how am I being "spoiled and provincial"? Is that an ad hominem attack?

No, it's a fact. http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html is the link. All you're telling me is that you have no objective measure and have made no effort to study these things in depth.

Kyle: Hold on a minute. I was only responding to your question (G&T's question, but you have adopted it). I'm not "demanding" anything.

Yes...you are.

Kyle: According to my dictionary, hearsay is "rumor," or "something heard from another." (I also know what hearsay evidence is, but we're not in a courtroom, so we're not talking about legal definitions.) Did I say it was a problem?

Don't play games, dear. You brought up hearsay as an objection, so clearly you consider it a problem. I'll give you a link you may not have been given in the transfer: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hearsay.html The fact is you believe hearsay every day.

I'm only responding to your question, and suggesting ways that the gospel writers could have made their stories more credible.

Kyle : I have not heard of Remsberg or his list.

Then it appears you accepted it second-hand when you said, "Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in sources that probably would have mentioned Jesus, had they ever heard of him: Jewish sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Juvenal, Epictetus, Seneca, Plutarch and Quintilian. From such sources we get only silence. They didn’t know Jesus or his apostles." That's a distilled version of the Remsberg's list argument. He threw together a list of writers who did not mention Jesus and acted like this was some sort of argument. It isn't. Here's an example why: Do you know who Quintilian is? Probably not. He was a writer on rhetoric, or how to speak and write effectively. Now tell me dear....why would such a person mention Jesus? Hmm?

How about the false prophecies and phony fulfillments? Now there's something you can sink your teeth into.

Dear, did someone pass on only pieces of what I wrote to you?

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/faithatheist.html

[Kyle Williams]

We seem to be veering from the issues. That's partially my fault. In order to focus our energy, I am summarizing the arguments and ignoring irrelevant comments. First, I repeat G&T's own summary:

a. The New Testament contains at least four to six lines of early, independent eyewitness written testimony. We conclude this because:

i. The major New Testament writers record the same basic events with diverging details and some unique material.

ii. They cite at least thirty real historical figures who have been confirmed by ancient non-Christian writers and various archaeological discoveries.

iii. Luke peppers the second half of Acts with at least 84 historically confirmed eyewitness details and includes several others in his Gospel.

iv. Luke's proven trustworthiness affirms that of Matthew and Mark because they record the same basic story.

v. John includes at least 59 historically confirmed or historically probable eyewitness details in his Gospel.

vi. Paul and Peter provide the fifth and sixth written testimonies to the Resurrection.

b. Since this early, independent eyewitness testimony is within one generation of the events, the New Testament events cannot be considered legendary.

So there's no question that real historical events are at the core of the New Testament.

G&T relies on the following arguments, which I have lettered for convenience. G&T's arguments are indented. My comments are not:

ARGUMENT A

1. Luke told the truth about his journeys (in Luke and Acts).
2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.
3. Therefore, Luke told the truth about miracles.

I stipulate the first premise, for the sake of the argument. I submitted several examples to demonstrate that the second premise is false. If the second premise is false, the conclusion is unsupported. (G&T applies same argument to John, so John is equally unsupported.)

ARGUMENT B

1. Luke told a true story.
2. Mark and Matthew told the same basic story.
3. The basic story of Mark and Matthew must be true.

I show above that G&T fails to support the first premise. Therefore this conclusion is unsupported.

ARGUMENT C

1. At least thirty characters in the New Testament have been confirmed as historical by archaeology or non-Christian sources.
2. A story that uses real people as characters must be true.
3. Therefore, the New Testament story must be true.

I stipulate the first premise. I gave examples to demonstrate that the second premise is false. The conclusion, therefore, is unsupported by the argument.

ARGUMENT D

1. The New Testament is either a historical novel or the truth.
2. It isn't a historical novel.
3. Therefore, it's the truth.

I stipulate the second premise, for the sake of the argument. I assert that the first premise is a false dichotomy, and I provide an alternative – that the gospels are records of legends.

Question: Do G&T's objections to the historical novel hypothesis apply to the legend hypothesis? Here are his objections and my comments:

ARGUMENT D-1

Independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the New Testament.

These references come decades after the gospels were written. Therefore, they are as likely to be based on legend as on historical reality. (But this topic is covered in another chapter, and probably should be discussed on a different thread.)

ARGUMENT D-2

It can't explain why the New Testament writers endured persecution, torture, and death. Why would they have done so for a fictional story?

People often suffer and die on behalf of their pet legends. (This, too, is the topic of another chapter, and probably should be discussed on another thread.)

ARGUMENT D-3

Historical novelists usually do not use the names of real people for the main characters in their stories. If they did, those real people: especially powerful government and religious officials: would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them for doing so.

(1) By the time the New Testament was written, most people involved were dead. (2) This is speculative. Objecting to such a thing is only one of several options. The easiest option is to ignore it. (3) It is possible that someone objected, but the objection has not been preserved as a written document.

ARGUMENT D-4

Since the New Testament contains multiple independent accounts of these events by nine different authors, the historical novel theory would require a grand conspiracy over a 20- to 50-year period between those nine authors, who were spread all over the ancient world. This is not plausible either.

The legend hypothesis explains the discrepancies (or "divergent details") better than the truth hypothesis.

ARGUMENT E

What else could the New Testament writers have done to prove that they were eyewitnesses who were not making up a story?

The implication is that the New Testament writers did everything they could to prove their point. I disagree. If they really wanted to convince others that they were telling the truth, they could have taken other measures:

Surely they realized that reasonable people would be skeptical about healing, multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and resurrecting from the dead. They could have taken measures to ensure that their stories were accurate. Instead we have conflicting versions of the same stories. They could have collected legal affidavits from witnesses. Instead, we have hearsay assertions that other people had seen these things happen. They could have proven their case to the courts, the media of their time, or the non-Christian world in general. Instead, the first century world is silent, as if Jesus never existed at all. From all appearances, the New Testament writers were not the least bit worried about convincing future skeptics that their stories were true. The reasonable conclusion is that the stories were legendary. There were no eyewitnesses, because the miraculous stories about Jesus never happened in reality.

Now for a summary of Holding's relevant arguments:

In ARGUMENT A, I argued that "A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles." is false. Holding attempts to weaken my examples. Holding says that Robinson Crusoe (and by implication The Three Musketeers and Notre Dame de Paris) were marketed as fiction.

My response: I agree that the modern novels are marketed as fiction. I was talking about internal truth claims. Holding is talking about external truth claims. The modern novels are like the New Testament in that they contain internal truth claims, even though they differ in their external truth claims. One of my examples survives Holding's argument. The Pearl of Great Price contains both internal and external truth claims, just like the New Testament. Therefore, Argument A remains debunked.

Holding says nothing about ARGUMENT B. Because Argument A is false, Argument B is also false.

Holding supports ARGUMENT C with Argument D-3. He strengthens Argument D-3 by explaining the honor and shame society, which would make people more likely to object to the use of their relatives' names in fictitious stories.

My response: This may marginally strengthen the case for D-3 (and therefore C). However, I think my comments are still valid. Arguments C and D-3 are speculative and weak. Even considering the honor society, it is not apparent that people would have objected, or even could have objected, or that their objections should be expected to survive in written form.

ARGUMENT D: Holding does nothing to dispel my assertion that "historical novel versus truth" is a false dichotomy.

ARGUMENT D-1 is best left to another thread.

ARGUMENT D-2 is best left to another thread.

ARGUMENT D-3: I admit that Holding has strengthened Argument D-3. But even with his added support, I think the argument is weak.

ARGUMENT D-4 remains untouched by Holding.

ARGUMENT E: Holding seems to agree that the New Testament writers did all they could to prove their case. Holding even says that people should not be skeptical about miracle claims. I disagree. I think a reasonable person would not believe in any miracle without strong evidence. Holding thinks my standards are too high. I think Holding's standards are too low. I ask Holding: What keeps you from believing in weeping statues, or miraculous images of Jesus on pancakes, or the child Jesus bringing clay birds to life? Surely you have some level of skepticism in you.

I think I have summarized all our relevant arguments. If I've missed something, let me know. Otherwise, I think I've effectively rebutted G&T's arguments. This chapter fails to establish that the New Testament stories are historical.

When we're done with this chapter, I suggest we start a new thread on Chapter 13. I believe that chapter involves the strongest case against the veracity of the New Testament.

[jpholding]

We seem to be veering from the issues. That's partially my fault.

[attachment=1]

Seemed we were doing fine to me, Kyle, dear.

2. A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles.

I doubt if you could ever directly quote them to that effect, which is why you assume to argue on their behalf. No, it is more like, "a writer who is proven reliable places a burden on the critic to dispute historicity." You're trying to wrap this into another issue of materialism, which is bogus. If you want to play that game, it's on a different board.

As for the rest of your summations...I really don't care, dear. Either get with the program of what *I* offer, which responds to your arguments already, or do us the courtesy of getting off the pot so that someone else can use it. We don't need to re-read these plates of reheated hash.

In ARGUMENT A, I argued that "A writer who tells the truth about his journeys always tells the truth about miracles." is false. Holding attempts to weaken my examples. Holding says that Robinson Crusoe (and by implication The Three Musketeers and Notre Dame de Paris) were marketed as fiction.

My response: I agree that the modern novels are marketed as fiction. I was talking about internal truth claims. Holding is talking about external truth claims. The modern novels are like the New Testament in that they contain internal truth claims, even though they differ in their external truth claims. One of my examples survives Holding's argument. The Pearl of Great Price contains both internal and external truth claims, just like the New Testament. Therefore, Argument A remains debunked.

Land sakes, Kyle, this is a contrivance to beat the band! You've just plain lost the argument here, dearie; your parallels of Dumas and Hugo flopped, and that shows that the challenge to you is an entirely different one. There's no "extarnal" or "internal" here to speak of. And I showed you why POGP fails: Because it (unlike the NT) fails the test.

Even considering the honor society, it is not apparent that people would have objected, or even could have objected, or that their objections should be expected to survive in written form.

"It is not apparent" that you appreciate what an honor society is all about, I'd say. It is VERY apparent that people would have objected, because honor to them was THE most important thing there was. Dear, did you ever read any of James Clavell's novels? Do you know about people who commit suicide over a loss of honor? Come now. Do some homework, please. This is most embarrassing to have to correct you on such basic matters.

As to surviving in written form, it doesn't matter; the nature of the world they lived in was such that they WOULD occur as required. Period.

ARGUMENT D: Holding does nothing to dispel my assertion that "historical novel versus truth" is a false dichotomy.

I expect not even a 2 by 4 would dispel anything you believe when it comes to that.

ARGUMENT D-4 remains untouched by Holding.

What's to touch? You make a bare assertion and expect us to dance?

I ask Holding: What keeps you from believing in weeping statues, or miraculous images of Jesus on pancakes, or the child Jesus bringing clay birds to life?

Evidence, dear, evidence. That last one for example comes from a source hundreds of years late and filled with other improbabilities (eg, teachings that Jesus would never have offered in first-century Jewish Palestine). Will you please do some real research before you address these issues again?

I've not looked into the others, sorry...not of any significance to make them worth a look even if they are true.

I think I have summarized all our relevant arguments. If I've missed something, let me know.

Read my last post. Now you know.

[Kyle Williams]

I doubt if you could ever directly quote them to that effect,

You are correct. That is not a direct quote. It is, however, the missing premise required for G&T's argument.

No, it is more like, "a writer who is proven reliable places a burden on the critic to dispute historicity."

Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

You're trying to wrap this into another issue of materialism, which is bogus. If you want to play that game, it's on a different board.

What?

As for the rest of your summations...I really don't care, dear. Either get with the program of what *I* offer, which responds to your arguments already, or do us the courtesy of getting off the pot so that someone else can use it. We don't need to re-read these plates of reheated hash.

Summation and review are good tools for getting derailed arguments back on track. In my judgment, we were due for it.

Well, Holding, I gave you an opportunity for reasonable discourse, and you "really don't care." Nor do I care for conducting a discussion on *your* terms if you insist on obscuring the issues. If you don't want to be reasonable, let's call the whole thing off.

It's possible that I'm being unreasonable (but I don't think so). If any third party is eyeing this discussion, how about a judgment? Which of us is trying to illuminate the issues, and which of us is trying to obscure them?

[jpholding]

[attachment=1]

You are correct. That is not a direct quote. It is, however, the missing premise required for G&T's argument.

It's the premise you installed to create circularity.

Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

No, it is not -- it's standard historiography. You don't presume yourself to be right.

What?

I speak English here, dear.

Well, Holding, I gave you an opportunity for reasonable discourse, and you "really don't care." Nor do I care for conducting a discussion on *your* terms if you insist on obscuring the issues. If you don't want to be reasonable, let's call the whole thing off.

It's too hard for you, even against a toon. I understand.

[Soundsurfr]

Wouldn't that be a circular argument? The reliability of the New Testament is the very issue in question.

It is entirely circular.

Summation and review are good tools for getting derailed arguments back on track. In my judgment, we were due for it.

And you've done a fine job of it.

It's possible that I'm being unreasonable (but I don't think so). If any third party is eyeing this discussion, how about a judgment?

OK.

Which of us is trying to illuminate the issues,

You are.

and which of us is trying to obscure them?

He is.