Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

Depending on when you bought Blade Runner you could have up to five (?) Different versions of that. That doesn't make it a true story because it's meant to be fiction.

I agree. Having different versions of something does not make that something true.

What I have said, and what any historian will tell you, is that one of the things you look for in determining whether a particular event is historical, is whether or not it is multiply attested.

Furthermore, likening the New Testament writings (which are the documents we are presently concerned with) with Blade runner is comparing apples and oranges. I agree Blade Runner is a fictional piece. You have however, given me no good reason to think the New Testament documents are fictional.

Do I really need to explain why history books don't contain messages about how to live your life or reasons you should follow one of the characters in them?

If it is your position that a document cannot both contain the record of historical events and instructions on how one should live and reasons why one should follow one of the persons recorded in the document, then yes, I will need for you to explain to me why you think this. Explain to me why the presence of instructions on living or the presence of reasons why one should follow a certain person precludes a document from being considered historically reliable when it comes to the historical events it records.

Why is it impossible for Paul to record the names of certain cities that existed during the time in which he lived, or the names of certain governing officials in the lands in which he sojourned, and in the same document, give reasons as to why one should follow Christ? You do not get to escape having to deal with the portions of the document which are taken to be historical just because portions of it are didactic.

We know that no tradition existed where Romans just released enemies of the state....it's absurd.

You mean to say, "no tradition outside of the New Testament", and to which I can happily agree with you. It is recorded that there indeed was such a custom by the gospel authors. Their writings are evidence of such a custom having taken place.

Now if you want to argue that because the tradition is not found outside of the New Testament, that therefore the gospel authors who mentioned it are wrong, then you would need to offer some sort of defense for this position without begging the question.

His original name is Yeshua Bar Abbas...a name that translates to Jesus son of the father, or as some say Jesus son of god. That means if you believe it's a real story, the Jews said release Jesus son of the father and execute the other Jesus son of the father. Need i explain further?

I am aware of no instance in any literature applicable to this discourse wherein the name "Barabbas" is viewed by Jews as being synonymous with "Son of God". Barabbas most likely would have been a name given to a male whose father was unknown, hence, "son of the father (non descript)". Yeshua was not an uncommon name as I am sure you know.

What exactly do you think this "cumulative case entails beyond looking at the story and say "it could've happened...so it did."?

I will be providing this in my final post in our formal debate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Scholars maintain that Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius because of the cumulative case for the historicity of the event, not just because they open the gospels, read He was, shut them and say it must have happened. Historical criticism is much more involved than that.

What exactly do you think this "cumulative case entails beyond looking at the story and say "it could've happened...so it did."?

I will be providing this in my final post in our formal debate.

Is there any particular reason you are waiting until the final round to present your case?

 

[anonymous person]

Is there any particular reason you are waiting until the final round to present your case?

Yes there is. There are several in fact.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes there is. There are several in fact.

Is the main reason a strategic one? By presenting your case at the very end, in the final round, you deprive Ana of the opportunity to respond to it within the confines of the debate. In other words, your intention is to evade criticism by squandering the first two rounds and presenting your case in the third and final round, by which time the debate will have concluded and Ana cannot respond to it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why else would you wait until the final round of a debate on the historicity of Jesus to present your case for the historicity of Jesus?

 

[anonymous person]

Is the main reason a strategic one? By presenting your case at the very end, in the final round, you deprive Ana of the opportunity to respond to it within the confines of the debate. In other words, your intention is to evade criticism by squandering the first two rounds and presenting your case in the third and final round, by which time the debate will have concluded and Ana cannot respond to it.

The presentation of my case began with my first post. My case is not limited to just the presentation of positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but includes me asking my opponent for reasons and evidence in support of the claims made by him.

I also do not consider the above as an instance of me "squandering" the first two rounds.

In addition, we cannot both have the last post. Either he will or I will. He had the opening and by virtue of that, I will have the last. He is the one claiming there is no historical evidence for Jesus. Not me.

Also, in the post I am currently editing which will be viewable sometime soon, I do present positive evidence for my position in response to but not limited to some of the points my opponent has made. Thus, my presentation of positive evidence for my position will not be limited to the last post of the debate, but will commence in my second post. This will allow for him to interact with it and address it in his last post.

From this it is clear that I was wrong when I said that I was waiting until the last post to present my case. After having thought about it, I do not think it would be accurate to say that.

 

[anonymous person]

Why else would you wait until the final round of a debate on the historicity of Jesus to present your case for the historicity of Jesus?

The question assumes I will wait until the final round to present my case.

As I mentioned earlier, I now see I was wrong to say that. Disregard it please.

 

[bhsmte]

Is the main reason a strategic one? By presenting your case at the very end, in the final round, you deprive Ana of the opportunity to respond to it within the confines of the debate. In other words, your intention is to evade criticism by squandering the first two rounds and presenting your case in the third and final round, by which time the debate will have concluded and Ana cannot respond to it.

Sounds like a Willy Craig trick.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So I get no answer to how 2 Kings 8:26 versus 2 Chronicles 22:2 is not a contradiction? I am trying to defend the premise of my one question which was not yet answered.

Here is my question:

It is generally accepted that the Bible has contradictions and/or transcriber errors.

It must be true that God either can or cannot prevent these things from occurring.

God can prevent these things from occurring.

Therefore God either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he does not care.

Which is the case, why, and what does it mean?

 

[anonymous person]

So I get no answer to how 2 Kings 8:26 versus 2 Chronicles 22:2 is not a contradiction? I am trying to defend the premise of my one question which was not yet answered.

I actually have not even looked into the matter yet. I apologize. I will give you a response soon.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I actually have not even looked into the matter yet. I apologize. I will give you a response soon.

Thank you.

 

[Davian]

Sounds like a Willy Craig trick.

Indeed. I watched a debate between Sean Carroll and WLC, and Sean turned the tables and pulled that one on WLC. WLC saw it coming (too late) and was none too pleased about it.

 

[anonymous person]

Thank you.

Seems to me it might be a copyist error. I think in light of the evidence I have reviewed, that is the most parsimonious hypothesis.

To this,

Here is my question:

It is generally accepted that the Bible has contradictions and/or transcriber errors.

It must be true that God either can or cannot prevent these things from occurring.

God can prevent these things from occurring.

Therefore God either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he does not care.

Which is the case, why, and what does it mean?

I have no misgivings with the hypothesis that 2 Chronicles 22:2 contains a copyist error.

I also have no misgivings with the proposition, "it is true that God either could or could not have prevented this from happening." That proposition seems defensible.

I also have no misgivings with the proposition, "God could have prevented the copyist error." That seems defensible to me.

However, I will need you to give me some reasons or arguments for your premise 1. in your syllogism presented below.

1. If God could have prevented the copyist error but didn't, then God either wanted there to be errors in the Bible, or He did not care.
2. God could have prevented the copyist error but didn't.
3. Therefore God either wanted there to be errors in the Bible, or He didn't care.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm still curious to know your thoughts on this, @anonymous person. Given that, according to you, truth is integral to philosophy generally, would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth?

Still waiting for the self-proclaimed Christian philosopher to respond to this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The presentation of my case began with my first post. My case is not limited to just the presentation of positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but includes me asking my opponent for reasons and evidence in support of the claims made by him.

I also do not consider the above as an instance of me "squandering" the first two rounds.

You have adopted the affirmative position, arguing that there is enough evidence to reasonably believe in the historic Jesus. You claim to have a tenable case for the historicity of Jesus, yet you wasted the first round with a three-line post asking your opponent a question they had already answered, instead of presenting that case. I don't know any word more appropriate than "squandering."

In addition, we cannot both have the last post. Either he will or I will. He had the opening and by virtue of that, I will have the last. He is the one claiming there is no historical evidence for Jesus. Not me.

You're the one claiming to possess a tenable case for the historicity of Jesus. Yet so far you have not presented it, despite having the opportunity to do so.

Also, in the post I am currently editing which will be viewable sometime soon, I do present positive evidence for my position in response to but not limited to some of the points my opponent has made. Thus, my presentation of positive evidence for my position will not be limited to the last post of the debate, but will commence in my second post. This will allow for him to interact with it and address it in his last post.

From this it is clear that I was wrong when I said that I was waiting until the last post to present my case. After having thought about it, I do not think it would be accurate to say that.

So why did you say it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Seems to me it might be a copyist error. I think in light of the evidence I have reviewed, that is the most parsimonious hypothesis.

To this,


I have no misgivings with the hypothesis that 2 Chronicles 22:2 contains a copyist error.

I also have no misgivings with the proposition, "it is true that God either could or could not have prevented this from happening." That proposition seems defensible.

I also have no misgivings with the proposition, "God could have prevented the copyist error." That seems defensible to me.

However, I will need you to give me some reasons or arguments for your premise 1. in your syllogism presented below.

1. If God could have prevented the copyist error but didn't, then God either wanted there to be errors in the Bible, or He did not care.
2. God could have prevented the copyist error but didn't.
3. Therefore God either wanted there to be errors in the Bible, or He didn't care.

So then it appears that "If God could have prevented the copyist error but didn't, then God either wanted there to be errors in the Bible, or He did not care," is in question.

Suppose it is false that God wants there to be errors in the Bible.
Suppose that God does care whether or not there are errors in the Bible.
Then it should follow that God wants there to be no errors in the Bible.

In the problem of evil, we see that God can stop evil, and also wants to, but doesn't out of respect for free will. Here, we see that God can keep errors out of the Bible, and also wants to, but yet doesn't. Out of respect for what? Free will? When a scribe is copying the Bible, isn't it his freewill choice to copy everything perfectly? How then would it be a violation of free will if God either prevented the scribe from making an error, or else somehow alerted the scribe of each error as they occur so that they do not manifest in scripture?

Ultimately, I cannot prove premise 1, but neither can anyone prove any statement that involves God. I can say, however, that there is no reasonable refutation to this premise. I think I've done enough to uphold the premise in particular, and the syllogism as a whole.

 

[anonymous person]

You have adopted the affirmative position, arguing that there is enough evidence to reasonably believe in the historic Jesus.

Indeed I have.

You claim to have a tenable case for the historicity of Jesus,

I do.

yet you wasted...

I understand you think I have wasted something. Thank you for sharing that with me.

I don't know any word more appropriate than "squandering."

Ok.

You're the one claiming to possess a tenable case for the historicity of Jesus. Yet so far you have not presented it, despite having the opportunity to do so.

Have no fear. The debate is still only in the second round.

So why did you say it?

I was a bit hasty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed I have.
I do.

Then why waste the opportunity to present that case?

Have no fear. The debate is still only in the second round.

You mean the "debate" is only in the second round.

I was a bit hasty.

By disclosing your strategy?

 

[anonymous person]

Suppose it is false that God wants there to be errors in the Bible.
Suppose that God does care whether or not there are errors in the Bible.
Then it should follow that God wants there to be no errors in the Bible.

The above is not even a formally valid argument. The first proposition i.e. "It is false that God wants there to be copyist errors in the bible" is the equivalent of your conclusion, i.e. "God wants there to be no copyist errors in the bible."

I think what you are trying to say is that if God did not want copyist errors to be in the bible, they would not be there.

But why think that? It seems your argument would rest on the premise:

If God does not want a certain state of affairs csa to obtain, then csa could not obtain.

Here it is imperative to draw a distinction between what God permits, and what He wants. God permitting csa is not necessarily an instance of God wanting or desiring or decreeing csa.

I don't think it controversial to claim that God would have desired for the scribe who wrote 42 instead of 22 to have written 22. It does not follow from this that God would not have permitted Him to write 22 though.

Why would He permit the scribe to err? I don't know exactly why and it is not something I lose one bit of sleep over.

I think it's ok to say, I don't know.

Nor does this copyist mistake, if that is what it actually is, in any way affect any of the central tenets or doctrines I hold. Heck, it does not even affect my comprehension of the passage in which the error is found!

Nor do I claim the copies we have are inerrant. I am very comfortable with the idea there may be instances like this where once in a blue moon a scibe may have misplaced a jot or tittle here and there. I have read many a modern work that underwent multiple editings that have words misspelled in them, or a comma missing here and there or an apostrophe in the wrong place. I actually think it miraculous that out of the over 800,000 words that comprise the Old and new Testaments, that there are so few of these instances which are arguably scribal errors!

 

[anonymous person]

Then why waste the opportunity to present that case?

I have reasons for doing what I am doing. You do not need to be privy to every one of them. Suffice it to say, I am doing what I want to do in the debate because I am persuaded it is best. Thanks for the advice. I will keep it in mind even though if I had done exactly what you wanted me to do in the debate, I have the funny feeling you would have taken issue with it, if not something else. I am not writing what I am to appease Archaeopteryx. Remember that. This is the last time I will be addressing this.