Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Ana the Ist]

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.




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.




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.




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.



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

The events in the gospels are largely fictional...from Herods fictional killing of babies, to a fictional census, to a fictional trip with pit-stop in a fictional manger for a fictional birth for a fictional character....who does lots of fictional stuff before his fictional death.

If there was a real Jesus...he was a carpenter. It's about the only realistic part of his story....and it's also the one we know least about. Why? Probably because when you think about it, it sounds kinda dumb to think god came to earth, did carpentry most of his life, then a little before his death started spreading the message he came to spread. If your plumber told you he was god...or the guy who built the deck in your backyard...what would you say?

When a history book declares an agenda about the way you should live, your beliefs, etc...it ceases being useful as a history book. It has stopped giving an impartial telling of facts and declared it's bias. Let me say that again....it declares its bias. In doing so, it causes all information related to that bias to become suspect...it's not trustworthy.

The tradition of releasing prisoners is recorded by no jews nor any Romans. If you think two guys named Jesus son of the father were being sentenced at the same time...one freed and one crucified...then your own bias has blinded you to reality. It's clearly allegory. No credible scholar believes this happened.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Who asked you to appease me? You claimed to have a case. You wasted an opportunity to present it. I am merely pointing that out.

 

[oi_antz]

Are you simply saying Jesus had some good teachings, whether he said those things or not? If so, I would agree, Jesus is portrayed to have some good teachings in the NT.

It is not what I am saying. I am asking for your reason to disagree that those who love the truth recognise that what He says is true. I would understand fine if you have meant to not say this, but instead have meant to say that you doubt that Jesus really did make that claim.

Now, one does not need a divine being, to come up with those same teachings, which is why man was able to write them.

John 14:6 does at least need a divine being, in order to make it a true claim.

 

[oi_antz]

Do you believe the bible is divinely inspired by God?

It is my view that the writers of the bible were inspired by God. Although, I have read English translations that contain parts that do not convey the Word of God.

If so, wouldn't God divinely inspire something that reflects his desires?

If the writers were totally faithful to Him when they wrote it, I do believe this would be the case.

 

[oi_antz]

Or at least comports with reality.

It was interesting, what was said in church today, that even two thousand years ago they were describing the same personal problems as we observe today. There is observable truths about reality in the bible. There also is claims in the bible for which no present evidence exists.

 

[anonymous person]

The events in the gospels are largely fictional...from Herods fictional killing of babies, to a fictional census, to a fictional trip with pit-stop in a fictional manger for a fictional birth for a fictional character....who does lots of fictional stuff before his fictional death.

If I were to take the above and substitute every instance where the word "fictional" is used with the word "non-fictional", would you object to it and ask me for reasons or proof or evidence to support the assertions?

If so, then maybe you will understand why I ask for you to actually substantiate your claims? I do not share your views. If you are attempting to get me to abandon mine in favor of yours, then you need to do more than just state your views.

If there was a real Jesus...he was a carpenter. It's about the only realistic part of his story....and it's also the one we know least about. Why? Probably because when you think about it, it sounds kinda dumb to think god came to earth, did carpentry most of his life, then a little before his death started spreading the message he came to spread. If your plumber told you he was god...or the guy who built the deck in your backyard...what would you say?

I would ask the plumber and carpenter why I should think they were God. Seems simple enough to me.

In addition, just because something sounds dumb to you does not mean it never happened.

When a history book declares an agenda about the way you should live, your beliefs, etc...it ceases being useful as a history book. It has stopped giving an impartial telling of facts and declared it's bias. Let me say that again....it declares its bias. In doing so, it causes all information related to that bias to become suspect...it's not trustworthy.

I don't think any NT scholar would argue that the documents contained therein were intended to be viewed as history books by their authors. I certainly do not hold that view. There is a consensus among scholars that the gospels are closer to ancient biographies than anything else while the book of Acts serves as an account of how the early church was formed. If anything, this would be the document that would be closest to what we would call a historical record. The letters of Paul were correspondences written to various people/churches at the time. So no, none of the documents were even intended to be viewed as pure history, but there is a consensus among scholars that where these documents do make mention of maters subject to historical investigation, they are accurate. Not even Bart Ehrman would go so far as to say that the gospel accounts of Jesus' death by crucifixion are not trustworthy by virtue of the fact the authors spend a great deal of time writing about Jesus as the Son of God. Ehrman is vocal about NOT being a Christian. So he has no bias towards Christianity to confirm in holding the views he does. Bart Ehrman is touted by many atheists as "the man" when it comes to knowing his stuff. What does he say?

Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. (A Brief Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 ISBN 0-19-536934-3 page 136)

And please read this when you have the time:


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godles...atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

The tradition of releasing prisoners is recorded by no jews nor any Romans. If you think two guys named Jesus son of the father were being sentenced at the same time...one freed and one crucified...then your own bias has blinded you to reality. It's clearly allegory. No credible scholar believes this happened.

There is no mention of the release outside of the Bible. I have already stated this, but to reason that the gospels were wrong when they record this seems to me to be indefensible unless you approach the texts assuming that they are wrong to begin with which would make you guilty of question begging.

But let me for the moment agree for the sake of argument that the prisoner release never happened.

What follows?

That the accounts of Him being crucified are false?

Bart Ehrman certainly does not think so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If so, then maybe you will understand why I ask for you to actually substantiate your claims? I do not share your views. If you are attempting to get me to abandon mine in favor of yours, then you need to do more than just state your views.

Given what you've stated about your openness to being convinced, or lack there of, wouldn't such an attempt be futile?

 

[anonymous person]

Given what you've stated about your openness to being convinced, or lack there of, wouldn't such an attempt be futile?

Given that I have stated that I am indeed open to being convinced when it comes to certain matters, then an attempt on his part would not be futile if indeed he were attempting to convince me of something which falls within the category of views which I hold tentatively.

 

[bhsmte]

It is not what I am saying. I am asking for your reason to disagree that those who love the truth recognise that what He says is true. I would understand fine if you have meant to not say this, but instead have meant to say that you doubt that Jesus really did make that claim.

John 14:6 does at least need a divine being, in order to make it a true claim.

This all comes back to one important point, which I mentioned before, but maybe didn't make myself clear.

Determining truth to me, is the same as; determining what is most likely to be an accurate description of true events, when one is critiquing writings from many, many years ago.

As I also stated, some individuals will gravitate towards claiming truth in old writings because it is comfortable for them to do so. On the other hand, others will hold off on claiming the truth of old writings, until those writing can be somewhat substantiated, with proven methods (the historical method).

As I have already mentioned many times, when one studies the works of NT historians, there is very little of the NT, that they can conclude, is credible history.

Ask yourself this question; why don't you consider other holy texts from other religions to he true and historically accurate? If you do, you will understand the reason why many who study the NT for a living, will conclude, much of the NT, is not historically credible.

 

[oi_antz]

This all comes back to one important point, which I mentioned before, but maybe didn't make myself clear.

Determining truth to me, is the same as; determining what is most likely to be an accurate description of true events, when one is critiquing writings from many, many years ago.

As I also stated, some individuals will gravitate towards claiming truth in old writings because it is comfortable for them to do so. On the other hand, others will hold off on claiming the truth of old writings, until those writing can be somewhat substantiated, with proven methods (the historical method).

As I have already mentioned many times, when one studies the works of NT historians, there is very little of the NT, that they can conclude, is credible history.

Ask yourself this question; why don't you consider other holy texts from other religions to he true and historically accurate? If you do, you will understand the reason why many who study the NT for a living, will conclude, much of the NT, is not historically credible.

I would be pleased to answer this question for you. I will do this later when I am using a keyboard. Meanwhile, if you are able to, would you like to answer my question? Thanks, as it is tiring to ask over and over.

 

[bhsmte]

I would be pleased to answer this question for you. I will do this later when I am using a keyboard. Meanwhile, if you are able to, would you like to answer my question? Thanks, as it is tiring to ask over and over.

I answered your question, over and over again.

I don't view the NT as credible or accurate history, because it falls far short of historical method review. To determine ancient writings are true and accurate, requires this level of scrutiny for me personally.

Now, if you want to believe the contents based on faith and because you agree with what it says, by all means, knock yourself out.

Lastly, one does not need a divine being, to come up with the teachings in the NT.

 

[oi_antz]

I answered your question, over and over again.

I have not seen an answer to the following questions:

Can you please show me an example of what He said that you do not find to be true, and explanation why. Yet not a single statement from Him have you produced, nor explanation why you don't find truth in it.

Furthermore, I have not been able to find a yes or no answer to this question:

The question is not whether it is true that He said it, but whether what He said is true. Since one who does love the truth would accept the possibility that it is true that He said it, they would be challenged to consider whether what He said is true. Is this something you have done before?

 

[bhsmte]

I have not seen an answer to the following questions:

Can you please show me an example of what He said that you do not find to be true, and explanation why. Yet not a single statement from Him have you produced, nor explanation why you don't find truth in it.

Furthermore, I have not been able to find a yes or no answer to this question:

I answered your questions in my posts, if you don't see them, I can't help you.

I will say this one more time; I tend to agree with many of the NT historians when they conclude, only a few things about Jesus can be considered likely to be true, from a historical aspect:

-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified.

Beyond that, not much else of what Jesus said or did, can be considered legit true history, SO THAT IS WHY I DON'T BUY IT.

Take the claim that Jesus was divine for example. Only the gospel of John makes the clear claim, that Jesus was divine and John is the gospel, most NT historians consider to be the least credible, because it's writing style is completely different, and the lateness of when it was penned. How could Matthew, Mark and Luke, miss such an important point that Jesus was Divine, that seems like an important item to mention about Jesus?

Lastly, I will again repeat what I have said regarding some of the lessons Jesus teaches in the NT. Are some of them good lessons? Yes. Could man have come up with these same lessons without a divine entity? Absolutely.

 

[oi_antz]

I answered your questions in my posts, if you don't see them, I can't help you.

I will say this one more time; I tend to agree with many of the NT historians when they conclude, only a few things about Jesus can be considered likely to be true, from a historical aspect:

-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified.

Beyond that, not much else of what Jesus said or did, can be considered legit true history, SO THAT IS WHY I DON'T BUY IT.

Take the claim that Jesus was divine for example. Only the gospel of John makes the clear claim, that Jesus was divine and John is the gospel, most NT historians consider to be the least credible, because it's writing style is completely different, and the lateness of when it was penned. How could Matthew, Mark and Luke, miss such an important point that Jesus was Divine, that seems like an important item to mention about Jesus?

Lastly, I will again repeat what I have said regarding some of the lessons Jesus teaches in the NT. Are some of them good lessons? Yes. Could man have come up with these same lessons without a divine entity? Absolutely.

Can you please confirm that your answer is "no"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I were to take the above and substitute every instance where the word "fictional" is used with the word "non-fictional", would you object to it and ask me for reasons or proof or evidence to support the assertions?

If so, then maybe you will understand why I ask for you to actually substantiate your claims? I do not share your views. If you are attempting to get me to abandon mine in favor of yours, then you need to do more than just state your views.



I would ask the plumber and carpenter why I should think they were God. Seems simple enough to me.

In addition, just because something sounds dumb to you does not mean it never happened.



I don't think any NT scholar would argue that the documents contained therein were intended to be viewed as history books by their authors. I certainly do not hold that view. There is a consensus among scholars that the gospels are closer to ancient biographies than anything else while the book of Acts serves as an account of how the early church was formed. If anything, this would be the document that would be closest to what we would call a historical record. The letters of Paul were correspondences written to various people/churches at the time. So no, none of the documents were even intended to be viewed as pure history, but there is a consensus among scholars that where these documents do make mention of maters subject to historical investigation, they are accurate. Not even Bart Ehrman would go so far as to say that the gospel accounts of Jesus' death by crucifixion are not trustworthy by virtue of the fact the authors spend a great deal of time writing about Jesus as the Son of God. Ehrman is vocal about NOT being a Christian. So he has no bias towards Christianity to confirm in holding the views he does. Bart Ehrman is touted by many atheists as "the man" when it comes to knowing his stuff. What does he say?

Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. (A Brief Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 ISBN 0-19-536934-3 page 136)

And please read this when you have the time:


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godles...atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/





There is no mention of the release outside of the Bible. I have already stated this, but to reason that the gospels were wrong when they record this seems to me to be indefensible unless you approach the texts assuming that they are wrong to begin with which would make you guilty of question begging.

But let me for the moment agree for the sake of argument that the prisoner release never happened.

What follows?

That the accounts of Him being crucified are false?

Bart Ehrman certainly does not think so.

And why does Bart Ehrman think the gospels are reliable as historical documents? Go ahead and look that one up....because I'm really glad you mentioned him. At least you've mentioned one of three recent scholars who've looked into the existence of a historical Jesus.

 

[oi_antz]

Ask yourself this question; why don't you consider other holy texts from other religions to he true and historically accurate?

I do though recognise truths in holy texts of other religions. Can you please give me an example of a holy text that you expect I will not believe to be historically accurate? Here is an overview that I shared to a person on Facebook a few weeks back, that might be helpful to your question of me:

Buddha has some nice quotes "Holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Jesus describes this in Matthew 6:15, but i do love the Buddha's one, a lovely illustration. I find Buddha is attractive. It appeals with beauty. Veda is deep and complex, it impresses by the amount of thought it takes to understand. Koran has plain information, explanation, architecture and makes good sense, and that makes it so easy to believe if someone just wants to believe. All of these are capable of enlightening a person, teaching understandings of truth, accessing divine guidance. But only Jesus has the words of life

 

[anonymous person]

And why does Bart Ehrman think the gospels are reliable as historical documents?

Why are you asking me that?

Go ahead and look that one up....because I'm really glad you mentioned him. At least you've mentioned one of three recent scholars who've looked into the existence of a historical Jesus.

I think there are more than three contemporary scholars looking into this matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why are you asking me that?



I think there are more than three contemporary scholars looking into this matter.

Using a historical method? No...only three come to mind.

 

[anonymous person]

Using a historical method? No...only three come to mind.

Oh ok. I understand what you are saying now.

 

[bhsmte]

I do though recognise truths in holy texts of other religions. Can you please give me an example of a holy text that you expect I will not believe to be historically accurate? Here is an overview that I shared to a person on Facebook a few weeks back, that might be helpful to your question of me:

Buddha has some nice quotes "Holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Jesus describes this in Matthew 6:15, but i do love the Buddha's one, a lovely illustration. I find Buddha is attractive. It appeals with beauty. Veda is deep and complex, it impresses by the amount of thought it takes to understand. Koran has plain information, explanation, architecture and makes good sense, and that makes it so easy to believe if someone just wants to believe. All of these are capable of enlightening a person, teaching understandings of truth, accessing divine guidance. But only Jesus has the words of life

A lot of books have nice quotes and good lessons.