Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[HitchSlap]

I am familiar with all of them and have reasons why they are not contradictions. I could give you a link to these reasons if you would like.

I'm familiar with your reasons for not accepting these contradictions, and they're nothing more than special pleading.

For instance, the manner of Judas' death is a contradiction, plain and simple.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm familiar with your reasons for not accepting these contradictions, and they're nothing more than special pleading.

For instance, the manner of Judas' death is a contradiction, plain and simple.

Ok, well simply stating something is an instance of special pleading or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory in no way establishes that the special pleading has happened or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory.

You would need to present proof. If you would like to formally debate me on it, then we can. My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

 

[bhsmte]

Yup! And as such, our desires naturally cause us to resist truths that are in the bible. Every. Single. One. Of. Us.

Though it is not impossible to overcome (1 John 4:4).

Depends what type of desires and motivations a person has.

If one has a desire, to seek what is most likely true in the most objective way possible, they will seek means of doing so that are independently verifiable.

Since much of the bible is quite difficult to verify as credible, people have to take it on faith and faith, is only needed, when there is no objective independent verification.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, well simply stating something is an instance of special pleading or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory in no way establishes that the special pleading has happened or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory.

You would need to present proof. If you would like to formally debate me on it, then we can. My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

The folks in the peanut gallery observing your debate would disagree with you.

 

[Davian]

Ok, well simply stating something is an instance of special pleading or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory in no way establishes that the special pleading has happened or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory.

If it meets the criteria for special pleading, it can be called special pleading.

You would need to present proof.

You would hold others to a standard that you cannot meet yourself?

If you would like to formally debate me on it, then we can. My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

lol.

I recall that the Black Knight might have said something similar during his confrontation with King Arthur.

Let's call it a draw

• Davian
• Nov 5, 2015

 

[oi_antz]

Then we should talk about what we know for certain:

The Gospels weren't signed by their authors.
The Gospels are anonymous.
They were written in a language Jesus didn't speak.
They were written a generation after Jesus died.
They were written from a country Jesus never visited.
They contain discrepancies and contradictions.
Matthew & Luke copied heavily from Mark.
John is so different in style and content, that this Gospel is referred to as the "maverick" Gospel.
There are no extant originals, only copies.
The Gospels are written in third person narrative, not as if by eyewitnesses.

Given what we know then, what can really be objectively asserted by this particular passage?

We can honestly say it is plausible that it exists as a farily accurate and reliable statement of actual events, and it is plausible that someone has forged it.

I am interested to know what you think when you consider it possible and plausible that the words are given fairly accurately and reliably.

 

[oi_antz]

Incorrect. I have desired belief in an afterlife for many years, but my desire to believe it and have it be true has thus far not made me think it is. I would rather go to the hell I do not believe in than the nonexistence I do after I die.

Is there no truth in the bible that you naturally prefer to resist?

 

[oi_antz]

Depends what type of desires and motivations a person has.

If one has a desire, to seek what is most likely true in the most objective way possible, they will seek means of doing so that are independently verifiable.

Since much of the bible is quite difficult to verify as credible, people have to take it on faith and faith, is only needed, when there is no objective independent verification.

I am referring to truths though, not whether claims have held sufficient evidence to withstand the extent of scrutiny a person wants to bring upon it. Whether the implied meaning of a statement is true or not does not always depend on the ability to be fully certain that the person who is said to have said it, really did say it.

 

[HitchSlap]

We can honestly say it is plausible that it exists as a farily accurate and reliable statement of actual events, and it is plausible that someone has forged it.

I am interested to know what you think when you consider it possible and plausible that the words are given fairly accurately and reliably.

I consider Jesus' reply to Pilate to be an unsupportable assertion.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok, well simply stating something is an instance of special pleading or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory in no way establishes that the special pleading has happened or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory.

You would need to present proof. If you would like to formally debate me on it, then we can. My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

Did Judas hang himself, or fall headlong onto his sword and spill his guts?

 

[oi_antz]

I consider Jesus' reply to Pilate to be an unsupportable assertion.

Can you please explain why, so I may assess whether it is reasonable.

 

[HitchSlap]

Can you please explain why, so I may assess whether it is reasonable.

How would one objectively verify Jesus' claim?

 

[bhsmte]

I am referring to truths though, not whether claims have held sufficient evidence to withstand the extent of scrutiny a person wants to bring upon it. Whether the implied meaning of a statement is true or not does not always depend on the ability to be fully certain that the person who is said to have said it, really did say it.

Depends on how one determines truth. Just saying something is true, based on one's personal interpretation or desire or determining something is likely to be true based on relying on external objective verifiable evidence, are two different things.

If you went to your doctor for a thorough checkup, would you want him to just eyeball you and determine whether you were healthy, or would you want him or her to rely on several means of diagnostic testing (which is objective and verifiable), to confirm with a greater level of objectivity, that it is true, that you are healthy?

 

[bhsmte]

We can honestly say it is plausible that it exists as a farily accurate and reliable statement of actual events, and it is plausible that someone has forged it.

I am interested to know what you think when you consider it possible and plausible that the words are given fairly accurately and reliably.

Many NT historians disagree with you.

Very little of the NT, is considered credible history when the historical method is applied. Most NT historians have a consensus that the following are likely accurate:

-Jesus was a real person (though more scrutiny is growing in this area)
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, not much of what Jesus said or was claimed to have done, is considered credible history.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, well simply stating something is an instance of special pleading or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory in no way establishes that the special pleading has happened or that the accounts of Judas' death are contradictory.

You would need to present proof. If you would like to formally debate me on it, then we can. My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

I suspect that's because there is no one to fight.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

First you would need to establish that there are contradictions in the bible.

I am familiar with all of them and have reasons why they are not contradictions. I could give you a link to these reasons if you would like.

Familiar with mine?

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim,Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah in italics is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring toZedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiahis his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.


QED

 

[anonymous person]

I suspect that's because there is no one to fight.

Exactly.

 

[anonymous person]

Many NT historians disagree with you.

Very little of the NT, is considered credible history when the historical method is applied. Most NT historians have a consensus that the following are likely accurate:

-Jesus was a real person (though more scrutiny is growing in this area)
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, not much of what Jesus said or was claimed to have done, is considered credible history.

Ana the ist would disagree with you.

Do you mind if I quote you if he decides to respond to my question put to him in our debate? Maybe he would be more inclined to accept what you have said.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly.

As in, you aren't a worthy opponent.

 

[anonymous person]

As in, you aren't a worthy opponent.

Whether or not I am a worthy opponent is something I will leave to you to decide.