And they say, "There's no Evidence ... !!!"

[Erik Nelson]

Is God Real? Is There a Way to Avoid a Universe With a Beginning? | Cold Case Christianity

How Can I Trust the Gospel Accounts When Some Are Missing Important Details? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean like how people try to use Euthypro's Dilemma? You've called it a "maladaptation" if I remember correctly. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

Yes, that, along with Epicurus' Argument from Evil and/or its more modern formulations.

The ultimate goal is to eventually destroy all evil, yes? So it naturally poses the question of why it exists in the first place if there's an omnipotent being that hates evil. My point in responding to your post was to say that I don't bother asking things like, "Why does God hate homosexuality?" or some other thing that I would subjectively find acceptable. I'd ask "Why did God create the things He hates?". I know "free will" is the refutation people throw back at that question, but I don't think God has free will, so I don't see what's so great about it.

We can ask 'why' in these cases, but at the end of the day, if we all can recognize that God just ... didn't ... give us comprehensive, systematic explanations to all that we ponder and pain about in life, then we're all left in an Existential quandry where we either decide to proceed with our philosophical investigations in light of how things 'have been' and ponder a more ideal world to come in Christ by doing the Kierkegaardian Kick, OR we instead decide to just fuss and fume about, commit deicide, and then do the Nietzsche Hustle until our knees and backs give out.

Like I said above, I'm not going to bother arguing about whether it's a sin to be gay or some SJW issue like that. I wouldn't argue from that direction. I'll say this, I'm nice to people I love. If God loves us, why isn't He nice?

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone really has a clear answer to that since none of us seems to be able to ring God up and schedule an interview. However, D. Stephen Long has a brief essay entitled, "God Is Not Nice," and we might ponder a few of the things he says in that essay. At at one place early on in the essay, Long makes a brief overture to Dostoevsky and his Grand Inquistor from his famous novel to contextualize the strangeness of this whole "God in Christ" thing, the one in which we wrestle with the idea that God is not just Savior, but Lord. This is similar in some ways to what we find to be the disposition of people in Psalm 2, where there's this bit about God's Authority is something that we human beings just can't seem to acclimate to.

I'm not talking about a general sort of "social disagreement". I mean the things they specifically predict. Take false messiahs. Isn't every founder of every religion a false messiah? Haven't there been false religions and false messiahs basically forever? Wouldn't the story of the Golden Calf be this same sort of thing? What "oncoming evil" did they predict that is unique from all the other evils that already came?

...that's a big issue to get into, so at the moment, I won't wade too far into on this one. But, I will say, that if the book of Revelation is true, along with all of the other apocalyptic sections of the Bible, then despite the fact that we can find other forms of 'premonition of evil' in other religions and/or cults doesn't fully come to bear upon whether on not we can begin to say, "Here, Finally, is an instance or two or three or four, where this kind of thing is definitively manifesting...." In the case of the Bible, I would agree with those who like to cite that what Jesus calls Evil is nothing too new, nothing that other religious figures in history haven't also called out as likewise being Evil. But regardless, we're looking for a particular recipe of Evil, not just any similar generic descriptor of Evil. Sure, we can all say we see Apple Pie when we see it--it's fairly obvious. But to say that one Apple Pie is the same as every other Apple Pie in flavor, texture, and composition would be to equivocation on the whole ...

I know I'm answering pretty broadly about all of these things. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of more than one of these subjects at a time though.

Yes, I'm feel the same. One thing at a time.

Good comments on your part, Nick!

 

[Erik Nelson]

Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right – after 2,469 years

tangentially related

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, I'm feel the same. One thing at a time.

I'll be pondering over your post while I'm supposed to be working today, I don't know if there's much more to be said without going into the nitty gritty we're both dancing around. You can let me know if there's one avenue you find particularly interesting. I think your Reason #3 might be most on topic, but I don't care if we veer off the road completely here.

 

[durangodawood]

The 3 synoptic gospels were written in the 50s and 60s AD within 30 years of the events they describe. The biographies of Alexander the Great you trust so much weren't written down for 500 years....

I dont think anyone hangs on Alexander's every single word as "diligently recorded" in his biographies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm going to disagree because I think what Marcion did was a lot different. From my understanding of his ideology, the edits he made to Paul's letters were his and his alone, with no ongoing accountability to anyone else. Of course, that kind of makes sense when you think about; when the Big Guys don't accept you, go make your own cult. So, it seems Marcion did just that.

It's tough to say, because all we have to go on is the words of his detractors. We don't have his original works.

There is a view that the epistles he was working with were earlier versions of the epistles before later edits were made to it. It's unclear how much editing Marcion may have done vs how much of the differences might be due to Orthodoxy treating their own edited epistles as originals.

Who is "he" that is doing the alluding? Do you mean the writer of 2 Thessalonians? And as far as 2 Thessalonians being a forgery, I'm going to have to abstain and say that the jury is deliberating over that one ...

The he I was referring to is "Paul", or the author in question. It's not an uncontroversial opinion among scholars that 2 Thessalonians was not actually written by Paul. In fact, that's the majority opinion.

Yeah, I'm afraid that Marcion was doing the latter--he cut things he just didn't like that Paul (or Luke) said because those items undercut Marcion's own misconstrued theology.

As for Christians of the 2nd century doing the "same thing" as Marcion, this may be true to some limited extent, more or less, since everyone was doing what they could in the social mix of people and media available at the time in order to figure out this "Jesus Guy." The caveat is that Marcion wasn't really following the typical methodology of the day when forming his 'canon' and theology. Some gnostics, for instance, didn't cut things out as much as they tended to collect and accept as many different supposedly Christian texts as they could.

What methodology are you referring to? His canon was the first Christian Canon ever assembled, so there was no previously existing methodology any other group had used....

However, editing and rewriting previously existing scriptures was rampant in those days.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But both of us are not saying: no evidence.
That is the argument.

If there is no evidence, then there's no justification to hold a belief.

 

[juvenissun]

If there is no evidence, then there's no justification to hold a belief.

There ARE a lot of evidences, in fact, for anything.
You name one, I can give you some evidences of that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is patent nonsense.

Philo is not a Roman Historian, but an Alexandrine Jewish Philosopher. He wrote a number of Torah commentaries in Greek, works on Stoicism and Hellenistic philosophy from a Jewish perspective, and two fragmentary contemporaneous pieces - The latter two is the only thing partially extant even close to perhaps 'history writing', but neither are Hellenistic histories.

These are Against Flaccus and the Embassy to Gaius (Gaius being Caligula's real name). The former is a complaint on the Roman treatment of Alexandrine Jewry; and the latter an account of the madness of Caligula as a method to complain of the bad treatment of Alexandrine Jewry by Rome. We are lucky if Philo even mentions Jerusalem therein, which he does once or twice - for instance to complain of Pilate bringing in votive shields, and juxtaposing this to Caligula wanting his statue placed in Synagogues. Philo fails to mention major events in Judaea, disturbances with Parthia, even an possible uprising in Upper Egypt! It is simply irrelevant to his narrative. There are also major discrepancies between his two accounts. You would not expect him to have mentioned Jesus, so this is absolute nonsense to try and use this as justification for discounting Gospel events. Philo mentions Therapeutae (who may be a form of Essene) and a few minor prophetic candidates - but because they were Egyptian and relevant to his narrative or his philosophy. Jesus would not be. The text is widely available in Classics archives.

So who are all these phantom historians that should have mentioned events in 1st century Judaea, but failed to? Our only real sources here are Josephus and a short summary by Tacitus. Judaea was a backwater Roman province, the only reason they cared was strategic - as it held the flank of Syria to the Parthians, and the land route to Egypt. To expect Roman writers to mention it frequently is ludicrous - now you want them to mention one prophet from there, of many, specifically? This is the equivalent of wanting 19th century British writers to have written on the internal affairs of the Mpondo tribe in Pondoland in Africa. They would only do so if relevant to their own history - as the British write on the Anglo-Zulu war for instance, or Romans write on Judaea about the First Revolt or when there was need to oppose Parthia.

So broadly, our only sources for the period in Judaea is Josephus, the Gospels and Acts, a summary of Roman intervention by Tacitus, and a few random mentions - like Pliny talking of the Dead Sea and how Essenes lived around there with their funny antics, akin to how we might write about Amish or Buddhist monks in travelogues or National Geographic.

So, you wouldn't expect Tacitus to mention Jesus here - though he does elsewhere say he was crucified under Pilate - as he is writing a short summary on military intervention prior to the Jewish War by Syrian governors.

So at heart, we only have Josephus' lack to account for. Josephus however does mention Jesus in the Testimonium Flavium, though corrupted by a redactor. The lost original form most definitely mentioned Jesus, as he goes on to mention James his brother, later. There is even a more neutral Arabic translation of Josephus that may in fact closer represent the original. Josephus was a Pharisee though, who is an opponent of Jewish Messianism in general - his whole account is Pro-Roman propaganda, trying to excuse the Flavians and simultaneously the Jews for revolting, by painting earlier Julio-Claudian governors in a bad light. Again, the Gospel narrative doesn't fit his schema; and we also know Josephus ommited inconvenient things - such as Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome.

The idea that other extent historians should have mentioned the Gospel events is simply untrue. Potentially, we do have fragmentary or quoted writings that may do so in part, but they aren't clear enough to call in isolation - such as Thalles or Phlegon as mentioned above, the Babylonian Talmud's 'Yeshu on a Tree', or Ben Serapion. Just having miracles isn't enough. Hellenistic writings were full of the stuff, from Appolonius of Tyana, to Scipio's Imagines talking to him, to the dead rising before the battle of Pharsalus in Lucan, to omens around Livia, to chasms swallowing men whole like Marcus Curtius.

This is merely a silly argument made and believed because people no longer read classics; or involves serious misrepresentation, obfuscation or being disingenuous, like when Carrier attempts to discard Josephus - literally our only real extra-biblical source, just because it agrees quite well with mentioned things in Acts and such.


No, the Gospel of Thomas as we have it now is dated to the 4th century. Certain Logia it contains have been found in the Oxyrhyncus Papyri from the 2nd century, but in a different order and certainly not all of it. These are anyway less controversial logia to boot. So the Gospel of Thomas draws on 2nd century material, perhaps even 1st century as some hypothesise an oppositional relation to the Gospel of John, but most certainly represents a later redaction and expansion of material. It is not a first century source.

You are aware both Egypt and Israel were both parts of the Roman Empire at the time..... He was born in Alexandria, which was part of the Roman Empire. I'm not arguing he had Greek or Jewish heritage, I clearly stated he had ties to the Royal House of Judea. His writings also deal with the Roman Empire, specifically in that area of the world. But sure, if you want to say he was Jewish instead of Roman, fine. It's a semantic issue though.

And yes, he was a philosopher, and had philosophical writings. He also had a number of historical writings that survive to the present day. The two you listed are the most notable.

Philo was criticized by early church fathers such as Origen or Eusebius for not mentioning Jesus in the works that he would be expected to mention him in. He wrote extensively on minor Jewish sects (such as the Essenes or Thereputae, among numerous others) There wasn't a single mention of Jesus, his followers, or anything that can be tied to any kind of proto-christianity.

The idea that Judea was some quiet backwater is nonsense as well. It's was a vital strategic area of the empire, beset by plenty of civil strife and rebellion. It was the land link between the African and European territories of the empire. They were keen to do whatever it took to keep that area under firm control.

The historians you mention like Josephus and Tacitus aren't contemporaries. Josephus is the only near-contemporary, and it's widely accepted that the two passages regarding Jesus weren't his original writings. The longer one is an outright edit, likely done by Bishop Eusebius, and the second shorter mention (the James brother of Jesus one) could either be an deliberate edit, or a margin note which was mistakenly added in by a scribe while copying it.

Tacitus was writing on the beliefs of Christians, and nobody argues that they believed he was crucified. Tacitus was writing his histories roughly 85 years after the events in question however. There were no eyewitnesses left alive at that point, and given lifespans in those days, the eyewitnesses would have been dead for decades.


As for the Gospel of Thomas, your 4th century claims are nonsense. The "early camp" of scholars date it to the mid-late first century. The "late camp" puts it in the early-mid second century. The view that it was written later than those dates is an extreme minority view that is rejected by almost all biblical scholars.

If your argument rests on that idea, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Everything that has a beginning has an external cause The universe had a beginning. So it must have had an external cause.

Why the Beginning of the Universe Cannot Be Explained from "Inside the Room" (FREE Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

Citation needed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wish you could be held to those words.

You and I both see The Big Bang.

I see evidence for a mint. I see a "transcendent" FIRST CAUSE external to the fabric of space time, which brought about the universe.

You see evidence for fantastically untestable Speculative string theories and multiverses.

Why the Beginning of the Universe Cannot Be Explained from "Inside the Room" (FREE Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

No, you make claims about some magic man that created everything. I say I don't know what made the universe come into existence, and more research is needed.

My viewpoint is the only justifiable one given the evidence we have.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There ARE a lot of evidences, in fact, for anything.
You name one, I can give you some evidences of that.

On what topic? God and Jesus, or anything? I can guarantee you there isn't evidence for anything, and I'd argue there's very little evidence for god or Jesus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

... the truth is, I don't know if I have evidence I can "show" you. Since in my mind the act of "showing evidence" is not only a complex process, but it is also one that requires bilateral interlocution rather than simply being an undertaking of a mere unilateral process where I produce some said Christian phenomenon or theological artifact or logical conclusion, or what have you.

Explain to me what you think counts as "evidence" for the Christian faith and as to why that kind of exemplary entity of evidence is indeed the only example or set of examples that anyone should count as evidence. The upshot of this is that even if you do so, you'll then need to explain why nothing other than those examples apply and what a distinct and clear "showing" of that same evidence achieves. Can you do this without evading my request for you to do so? I have to ask since, epistemically speaking, what I'm requesting should naturally come prior to your asking me for said evidence. If you can do this, then we can probably begin to actual have a conversation. Otherwise, you give me little in the way of any clearly designated target for me to even attempt any relevance; and if you can't muster this, then I might as well just shoot clay pigeons with you while blindfolded.

Surely you can do this for me, even if just to be a good sport, especially since after I've already dropped some hints along the way, spotting you a few places by which to hop along with me from epistemic lilly-pad to epistemic lilly-pad.

If you can't do this, then there's no reason for me to try to explain what will most likely continue to be deemed by you as dissonance and "Mere Christian Noise."

I would say that the execution of a miracle prayed for by a Christian would be satisfactory evidence.

Why this particular type of evidence? I think it would be sufficient to prove that the miracle is of a divine nature as specified by christianity and not some other religious deity.

With regards as to what a miracle is ....

It would need to be a phenomenon that is contrary to what is possible within the realm of science. It cannot simply be possible but rare, or possible but through unknown means.

For example, a Christian is sinking to the bottom of a lake, that Christian prays for the ability to breath....then that Christian is miraculously able to breath water.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would say that the execution of a miracle prayed for by a Christian would be satisfactory evidence.

Why this particular type of evidence? I think it would be sufficient to prove that the miracle is of a divine nature as specified by christianity and not some other religious deity.

With regards as to what a miracle is ....

It would need to be a phenomenon that is contrary to what is possible within the realm of science. It cannot simply be possible but rare, or possible but through unknown means.

For example, a Christian is sinking to the bottom of a lake, that Christian prays for the ability to breath....then that Christian is miraculously able to breath water.

Those are all great ideas regarding what you'd like the evidence to be, Ana. I think we'd all like to see a miracle performed as a response to our prayers. This question then would be: if God indeed answered our prayers in a miraculous way, are we then ready to do whatever it is He asks of us ...?

 

[Erik Nelson]

What is the Relationship Between Faith and Evidence? (Video) | Cold Case Christianity

Why doesn’t God show up if He wants us all to believe?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll be pondering over your post while I'm supposed to be working today, I don't know if there's much more to be said without going into the nitty gritty we're both dancing around. You can let me know if there's one avenue you find particularly interesting. I think your Reason #3 might be most on topic, but I don't care if we veer off the road completely here.

How about discussing what you think we're both dancing around? If we do, then I guess I need to switch gears and put on my "Hammer Time" get up.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Are the Gospels Fake News? - The Daily Apologist

Christianity Promotes Rational (and Evidential) Exploration | Cold Case Christianity

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's tough to say, because all we have to go on is the words of his detractors. We don't have his original works.

There is a view that the epistles he was working with were earlier versions of the epistles before later edits were made to it. It's unclear how much editing Marcion may have done vs how much of the differences might be due to Orthodoxy treating their own edited epistles as originals.

The he I was referring to is "Paul", or the author in question. It's not an uncontroversial opinion among scholars that 2 Thessalonians was not actually written by Paul. In fact, that's the majority opinion.

Oh please don't use that term around me. If you continue to do so, I'll make you write down every name that belongs to that supposed list.

On top of this, don't you find it strange that 2 Thessalonians is listed as a part of Marcion's 'canon'?

What methodology are you referring to? His canon was the first Christian Canon ever assembled, so there was no previously existing methodology any other group had used....

Righto! The 2nd century Christians had slightly more latitude in accepting 'this and that' writing for Scripture.

However, editing and rewriting previously existing scriptures was rampant in those days.

I'm sure it was, but that doesn't mean everyone was doing it.

I think at this point, it would behoove us both to begin citing where we're getting our info.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I would say that the execution of a miracle prayed for by a Christian would be satisfactory evidence.

Why this particular type of evidence? I think it would be sufficient to prove that the miracle is of a divine nature as specified by christianity and not some other religious deity.

With regards as to what a miracle is ....

It would need to be a phenomenon that is contrary to what is possible within the realm of science. It cannot simply be possible but rare, or possible but through unknown means.

For example, a Christian is sinking to the bottom of a lake, that Christian prays for the ability to breath....then that Christian is miraculously able to breath water.

You've really missed the party on this one.

In 65ad, Emperor Nero had Saint John thrown into a VAT of boiling oil in the middle of the Coliseum. Before 70,000 pairs of eyes. Saint John was miraculously saved. The whole Coliseum came to believe, emperor Nero was forced to part in Saint John commuting his sentence. To labor on the island of Patmos.

The book "Saint of the day" Lists. Several hundred Saints and associated miracles of EXACTLY the nature you claim to require.

hundreds of miracles, over thousands of years. Just exactly HOW MANY TIMES must God in heaven reinvent this EXACT wheel before you acknowledge that God in heaven exists, that humans on earth are not alone?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You are aware both Egypt and Israel were both parts of the Roman Empire at the time..... He was born in Alexandria, which was part of the Roman Empire. I'm not arguing he had Greek or Jewish heritage, I clearly stated he had ties to the Royal House of Judea. His writings also deal with the Roman Empire, specifically in that area of the world. But sure, if you want to say he was Jewish instead of Roman, fine. It's a semantic issue though.

All his writings are explicitly, and only, about Jewish Affairs and application of Hellenistic philosophy to it. Calling him Roman is simply obfuscation, though he was likely a Roman citizen, like Paul.

Anyway, 'Ties to the Royal family' has no relevance here. What difference do you think that makes? He still seldom mentions Jerusalem or Judaean affairs, only juxtaposing such things when required for his argument - as when placing Caligula against Herod Agrippa II.

And yes, he was a philosopher, and had philosophical writings. He also had a number of historical writings that survive to the present day. The two you listed are the most notable.

No, two 'historical writings' that only partially survive to today that I mentioned - not a number of. Neither of these are strictly speaking Hellenistic Histories, and they contradict each other on notable points. He is no historian by any stretch.

Philo was criticized by early church fathers such as Origen or Eusebius for not mentioning Jesus in the works that he would be expected to mention him in.

Citation?

He wrote extensively on minor Jewish sects (such as the Essenes or Thereputae, among numerous others) There wasn't a single mention of Jesus, his followers, or anything that can be tied to any kind of proto-christianity.

He did not write 'extensively on minor sects', but wrote an account of the Therapeutae of Maroetis as an examplar of a type asceticism he found laudable. It is a part of his ethical teaching. He wrote that they were part of the various forms of such men scattered around the world, from which we deduce the Therapeutae may be Essenes. He wrote nothing else on the Essenes specifically. So he wrote a single tract on one sect, and now he should have mentioned every little Jewish sect everywhere? He wrote nothing on the Qumran sect either, nor were there any large numbers of Christians in Philo's day - he probably died some point in the 40s AD, so long before Christians were notable for numbers. This is simply ludicrous to expect, I am sorry. Perhaps he would have, if he lived longer. He does mention an odd Egyptian religious group in passing now and then, but seldom anyone in Judaea.

The idea that Judea was some quiet backwater is nonsense as well. It's was a vital strategic area of the empire, beset by plenty of civil strife and rebellion. It was the land link between the African and European territories of the empire. They were keen to do whatever it took to keep that area under firm control.

Strategic, but a backwater. Why do you think Augustus and Claudius gave it to client kings like the Herodians, or Pompey's settlement merely established Hasmonaeans as Friends of Rome, instead of ruling directly, if it was so important? That makes little sense. Judaea is to Rome as Aden or Afghanistan was to 19th century Britain - important to hold for the sake of Empire, but otherwise useless.

The historians you mention like Josephus and Tacitus aren't contemporaries. Josephus is the only near-contemporary, and it's widely accepted that the two passages regarding Jesus weren't his original writings. The longer one is an outright edit, likely done by Bishop Eusebius, and the second shorter mention (the James brother of Jesus one) could either be an deliberate edit, or a margin note which was mistakenly added in by a scribe while copying it.

Tacitus was writing on the beliefs of Christians, and nobody argues that they believed he was crucified. Tacitus was writing his histories roughly 85 years after the events in question however. There were no eyewitnesses left alive at that point, and given lifespans in those days, the eyewitnesses would have been dead for decades.

Yes? Point being? I was merely enumerating our only sources for 1st century Judaea, that you maintain we are apparently awash in documentary evidence for, to illustrate the actual paucity thereof.

As to lifespans, Lucian wrote a book called the Macrobii - the long-lived - in which he mentions a number of contemporary people that lived to a hundred and beyond. Augustus lived into his 70s and Livia her late 80s, for instance. Even now, we see centegenarians now and then in rural areas of Africa and Asia, too. Thinking it impossible is simply nonsense. Besides 2nd hand witnesses would by any stretch be on hand.

Further, casting aspertions on things added to Josephus is a slippery slope - if you do that, you cut the branch you are sitting on for much 1st century Judaean history, so many beloved critical arguments fall apart. Anyway, I mentioned that it had been under a redactor, but the general consensus opinion is that a legitimate reference, though either neutral or negative, was there originally. The altered form in Arabic translations and the fact that early references thereof are less glowing, makes this an almost certainty. You can pry apart Josephus if you wish, complain that Fulvia and Paulina were added, etc., but none of this source criticism alters the general point made. You wouldn't expect Josephus to have much mention of Jesus, beyond a cursory one if at all; in a book trying to argue for Jews to the Romans, while staying in their good graces. We also know Josephus is a selective Propagandist, as I noted with Claudius' expelling of the Jews not mentioned, nor his convenient glossing over of much Jewish perfidy vis-a-vis Parthia.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, your 4th century claims are nonsense. The "early camp" of scholars date it to the mid-late first century. The "late camp" puts it in the early-mid second century. The view that it was written later than those dates is an extreme minority view that is rejected by almost all biblical scholars.

If your argument rests on that idea, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Citation.

Our source for the text is the 4th century Nag Hammadi dump, and slightly different logia in common with it from the 2nd century Oxyrhynchus Papyri. So our only conclusive date is therefore the 4th century, but that it has material conclusively based on that from the 2nd. Anything more is speculative, and 'scholarly consensus' has in no way decided on the dates as you propose. Where did you derive this absolute statement? From some nonsense source like Carrier?