[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[anonymous person]

How do you know what some anonymous author wrote about the resurrection is reliable?

I feel this question needs to be addressed directly so I will, in addition to what I have already provided in the way of a response to this post, add this:

NT scholars and historians are not unduly worried about the authorship of the gospels. They determine whether or not the gospels are reliable historical documents by utilizing what is referred to as “criteria of authenticity", not by looking to see who the authors were, for authorship is not one of the criteria.

So I can wholeheartedly and confidently tell you that you will not be guilty of being irrational if you affirm the reliability of the gospels as historical documents despite their being technically anonymous.

 

[Chriliman]

1. Which argument would that be?
2. Are you sure you are asking for an honest answer?

Again, I've made many points and have not contradicted myself and I am making sense. So the question is does this mean I'm telling the truth?

Another question is how long are you going to assume I'm lying about my beliefs and reasoning, even tho I'm not contradicting myself and I'm making sense? If you don't think I'm lying then you must think what I'm saying is true.

 

[anonymous person]

Again, I've made many points and have not contradicted myself and I am making sense. So the question is does this mean I'm telling the truth?

Another question is how long are you going to assume I'm lying about my beliefs and reasoning, even tho I'm not contradicting myself and I'm making sense? If you don't think I'm lying then you must think what I'm saying is true.

I sense a retort coming from somebody to the effect that Chriliman is guilty of making a false dichotomy.

They may say:

Chriliman you may not be lying, but you may think what you are saying is true, nevertheless it is not.

The fact remains. Chriliman and I are either right or wrong about what we are saying. Jesus either rose bodily from the grave on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion or He did not.

Either way, the tomb is empty. The search begins there.

 

[bhsmte]

I feel this question needs to be addressed directly so I will, in addition to what I have already provided in the way of a response to this post, add this:

NT scholars and historians are not unduly worried about the authorship of the gospels. They determine whether or not the gospels are reliable historical documents by utilizing what is referred to as “criteria of authenticity", not by looking to see who the authors were, for authorship is not one of the criteria.

So I can wholeheartedly and confidently tell you that you will not be guilty of being irrational if you affirm the reliability of the gospels as historical documents despite their being technically anonymous.

In essence, I agree, the gospels could still be deemed historically reliable even with unknown authors.

With that said, NT historians have for more challenges than simply not knowing who the authors were. The issue of decades passing before the gospels were penned, originals being lost, changes that have clearly happened to the gospels over time and simply applying the historical method to the writings.

As a whole, the NT is more a work of theology, than a work of reliable history.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, I've made many points and have not contradicted myself and I am making sense. So the question is does this mean I'm telling the truth?

Another question is how long are you going to assume I'm lying about my beliefs and reasoning, even tho I'm not contradicting myself and I'm making sense? If you don't think I'm lying then you must think what I'm saying is true.

There is a difference between someone lying and someone simply being wrong.

I could say the God Zeus visited me last night in my home and he told me that Christianity is false. If I truly perceived this experience as true, I wouldn't be lying.

 

[Chriliman]

There is a difference between someone lying and someone simply being wrong.

I could say the God Zeus visited me last night in my home and he told me that Christianity is false. If I truly perceived this experience as true, I wouldn't be lying.

Right, but if I am lying and it turns out to be true that there is no God to determine truth from lies, then doesn't that mean in the end truth has no meaning and lies have no meaning? Because in a universe without a God, the ultimate truth is that humans will either go extinct rendering truth meaningless or humans will become immortal and live for eternity never figuring out the truth about existence. Niether scenarios involve actually finding the truth, so what's the point of seeking truth?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Changing one's reasoning and belief is not something a person does deliberately. It happens gradually over time, as one experiences and learns new things.
Even as far as converting a world view altogether or switching religion, there is no magical instance where all former belief or perspective is abandoned for something else- this is in direct opposition to human nature itself.

 

[Chriliman]

Changing one's reasoning and belief is not something a person does deliberately. It happens gradually over time, as one experiences and learns new things.
Even as far as converting a world view altogether or switching religion, there is no magical instance where all former belief or perspective is abandoned for something else- this is in direct opposition to human nature itself.

I agree completely, just helping everyone think about life in new ways so we can all arrive at the truth.

 

[anonymous person]

In essence, I agree, the gospels could still be deemed historically reliable even with unknown authors.

Excellent.

With that said, NT historians have for more challenges than simply not knowing who the authors were. The issue of decades passing before the gospels were penned, originals being lost, changes that have clearly happened to the gospels over time and simply applying the historical method to the writings.

As a whole, the NT is more a work of theology, than a work of reliable history.

Internal evidence supports pre A.D. 70 dates for the synoptic gospels. Paul's letters are dated even earlier and the sources for Paul's works would be dated even earlier for they were in circulation already at this time, likely within the same decade that Jesus' crucifixion took place. Many of the eyewitnesses to the events recorded by these men would still be alive and would have been able to expose as liars, these men had they written anything contrary to what was actually witnessed to have happened. Hostile testimony from the Pharisees is the most telling, for they themselves give testimony that the tomb was empty on the Sunday following the crucifixion.

The fact that the original autographs are not at our disposal is simply immaterial. Had the copies of the originals shown any evidence of deviation from the autographs, those who had written them and those who had read the originals would have been all too willing and able to reveal them as having been amended.

Very little if any original ancient historical texts contemporaneous with the NT texts have survived over the centuries. Historians are not unduly worried by this.

I agree. The NT as a whole is more a work of theology than history, but where the NT acts as a conduit for historical knowledge, it has never been proven to be inaccurate.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree completely, just helping everyone think about life in new ways so we can all arrive at the truth.

Arrive at the truth about what exactly?

 

[Chriliman]

Arrive at the truth about what exactly?

The truth about existence.

 

[Davian]

So?

You asked that someone other than yourself else search for evidence to support the assertion you were making. That is what my search found. Have to lost the point that you were attempting to make?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hey @anonymous person, I'm still waiting for you to address these posts:

We are open to be convinced.

Convince us.

Go.

Shoot.

Have at it.

Why is Jesus not God incarnate?

Why are we wrong about the universe being created by God?

Why should we adopt your beliefs and abandon ours.

We are all ears.

Hang on, are you open to be convinced? As I recall, you indicated that you know your beliefs to be true primarily because of the "inner witness of the holy spirit." If you are like Craig, then you regard this "inner witness" as incontrovertible, in which case nothing I could say would ever be enough to prompt you to reconsider your religious beliefs.

Pretend I didn't say that.

Pretend you didn't say that? But you did say that. To pretend otherwise would be disingenuous. Don't tell me that you are open to be convinced when you are really hiding an "intrinsic defeater-defeater" up your sleeve. You're essentially asking me to pretend that you're not going to cheat by playing your "inner witness" card.

When should atheists change their beliefs...

The subject of the OP ties into the question above.

Each person determines what it would take to change their own beliefs.

I think that's the answer.

It's interesting how you worded the question to exclude theists. When should theists change their beliefs?

 

[Davian]

Right, but if I am lying and it turns out to be true that there is no God to determine truth from lies, then doesn't that mean in the end truth has no meaning and lies have no meaning? Because in a universe without a God, the ultimate truth is that humans will either go extinct rendering truth meaningless or humans will become immortal and live for eternity never figuring out the truth about existence. Niether scenarios involve actually finding the truth,

I do not hold the presupposition that there must be a "truth", or that one is needed; you are making a fallacious argument from consequences.

so what's the point of seeking truth?

I do not seek truth. The "truths" proffered here, such as by you, invariably turn out to be simply religious opinion.

 

[quatona]

Again, I've made many points and have not contradicted myself and I am making sense.

...or so you feel.

So the question is does this mean I'm telling the truth?

No, this wouldn´t mean your claims and your intepretation fo your accounters are accurate.

Another question is how long are you going to assume I'm lying about my beliefs and reasoning, even tho I'm not contradicting myself and I'm making sense?

Huh? Who said anything about lying?

If you don't think I'm lying then you must think what I'm saying is true.

Doesn´t follow.

 

[quatona]

Yet you asked anyway. Are you bored?

Yes.

 

[anonymous person]

You asked that someone other than yourself else search for evidence to support the assertion you were making. That is what my search found. Have to lost the point that you were attempting to make?

Not at all.

I know that Ehrman does not think that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb. He has his reasons.

If one is honest and open and is genuinely seeking the truth then they will look at the available evidence and draw conclusions from it.

He makes use of his imagination a lot in his writings and I simply find that problematic. I can imagine a lot of things. So personally I find most of his arguments very weak.

 

[anonymous person]

Hey @anonymous person, I'm still waiting for you to address these posts:

Personally I think people should change their beliefs when they realize that holding them would make them irrational, i.e. change on pain of irrationality.

 

[Freodin]

Not at all.

I know that Ehrman does not think that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb. He has his reasons.

If one is honest and open and is genuinely seeking the truth then they will look at the available evidence and draw conclusions from it.

He makes use of his imagination a lot in his writings and I simply find that problematic. I can imagine a lot of things. So personally I find most of his arguments very weak.

The "available evidence" in this case is: some people, at quite some time after the assumed events, told a certain story.
How you get from that to "it is true, Jesus rose from the dead" is beyond me. It must be one of these lots of things that you can imagine.

 

[anonymous person]

The "available evidence" in this case is: some people, at quite some time after the assumed events, told a certain story.
How you get from that to "it is true, Jesus rose from the dead" is beyond me. It must be one of these lots of things that you can imagine.

How I get "it is true that Jesus rose from the dead" is simple. After honestly looking at the evidence, the evidence pointed me to that conclusion. I accepted it and then once I did this, God confirmed to me that it indeed was true.

Ask seek and knock.