Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[bhsmte]

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

I answered your question, read my posts.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Ehrman???

Do you what his position is on the reliability of the NT?

 

[oi_antz]

A lot of books have nice quotes and good lessons.

I still have not been given a convincing reason why you believe Jesus said things that aren't true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Is the historicity of Jesus one such example?

 

[Davian]

I still have not been given a convincing reason why you believe Jesus said things that aren't true.

I scrolled back and was unable to find where he said that that was what he believed.

 

[oi_antz]

I scrolled back and was unable to find where he said that that was what he believed.

It actually doesn't need to be said though, in order to be accepted to be true. The necessary implication of disagreeing with John 18:37 is that the person believes Jesus says things that aren't true. Bhsmte has gone on to repeatedly explain that he rather believes this claim was not really made. But when I asked him whether he ever acknowledged it is possible that the claim was made, and did he ever test the claim, no clear answer was given. A "yes" or "no" can easily avoid these confusions. My questions are constructed for that purpose. Did you happen to notice that? If so, do you think a simple yes or no answer could have resolved this before even you got confused?

 

[anonymous person]

Ehrman???

Do you what his position is on the reliability of the NT?

I do.

But we are not concerned with his views regarding the reliability of the NT. We are concerned with Ehrman's view of the historicity of Jesus which he believes is well evidenced.

 

[bhsmte]

I still have not been given a convincing reason why you believe Jesus said things that aren't true.

First, one would need to know with some level of credibility, what Jesus actually said or didn't say. Was it a real person named Jesus saying these things, or just some anonymous author, making them up?

Impossible to determine if a real person named Jesus, said certain things that were true or untrue, if you don't have historical confidence in what he was claimed to have said, by anonymous authors.

 

[oi_antz]

First, one would need to know with some level of credibility, what Jesus actually said or didn't say. Was it a real person named Jesus saying these things, or just some anonymous author, making them up?

I suppose it is possible that this would be true for some statements that are attributed to Him. Can you give an example for instance?

Impossible to determine if a real person named Jesus, said certain things that were true or untrue, if you don't have historical confidence in what he was claimed to have said, by anonymous authors.

This is different though than the statement in John 18:37. Take for instance that a statement is attributed to Jesus when the truth is that He did not make that statement, yet the statement is true. The statement itself might not cease to convey truth simply because it is falsely attributed to Him. This is essentially the question though: which statements that are attributed to Him, can you show me that you have reasonable cause to believe are not true?

Do you believe it is impossible (notice, I am not asking for your opinion of the likelihood) that all statements attributed to Him in the bible really were originally stated by Him?

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose it is possible that this would be true for some statements that are attributed to Him. Can you give an example for instance?

This is different though than the statement in John 18:37. Take for instance that a statement is attributed to Jesus when the truth is that He did not make that statement, yet the statement is true. The statement itself might not cease to convey truth simply because it is falsely attributed to Him. This is essentially the question though: which statements that are attributed to Him, can you show me that you have reasonable cause to believe are not true?

Do you believe it is impossible (notice, I am not asking for your opinion of the likelihood) that all statements attributed to Him in the bible really were originally stated by Him?

The story of the adulterer; he who is without sin should cast the first stone is one example. That story is found no where in the oldest copies of John and did not show up in the copies, until hundreds of years later. Many NT scholars and historians believe it was a late addition and likely a made up story.

In my study of NT historians, I would say the likely hood of all quotes from the NT as actually coming from Jesus, to be highly unlikely.

And, I already addressed the other point on numerous occasions; statements can still be true, even if you don't know if a certain person said them.

 

[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, anonymous person.

 

[oi_antz]

The story of the adulterer; he who is without sin should cast the first stone is one example. That story is found no where in the oldest copies of John and did not show up in the copies, until hundreds of years later. Many NT scholars and historians believe it was a late addition and likely a made up story.

OK, so in order to use this example as validation that what Jesus is attributed as saying is not true, let us assess what Jesus is attributed as saying, and see whether it is not true.

As I see in this story, Jesus is saying that only a person who is not able to be condemned should condemn another person. Then upon finding that He was the only person fit to condemn her, rather chose to pardon her with instruction to stop living a life of sin.

The overall truth in this is that the penalty for the sin only serves a holy purpose if it is the only way to stop the sin occurring. Yet it is possible for people to recognise the consequence of sin and repent, then mercy serves a holy purpose better than condemnation.

I would like to know if you are able to explain why you do not recognise what Jesus is attributed as saying in this, is true. (Remember, the question is not "is it true that He said this" but "is what He is reported to have said, the truth?".

 

[bhsmte]

OK, so in order to use this example as validation that what Jesus is attributed as saying is not true, let us assess what Jesus is attributed as saying, and see whether it is not true.

As I see in this story, Jesus is saying that only a person who is not able to be condemned should condemn another person. Then upon finding that He was the only person fit to condemn her, rather chose to pardon her with instruction to stop living a life of sin.

The overall truth in this is that the penalty for the sin only serves a holy purpose if it is the only way to stop the sin occurring. Yet it is possible for people to recognise the consequence of sin and repent, then mercy serves a holy purpose better than condemnation.

I would like to know if you are able to explain why you do not recognise what Jesus is attributed as saying in this, is true. (Remember, the question is not "is it true that He said this" but "is what He is reported to have said, the truth?".

For about the fifth time, I will repeat, just because it can't be shown someone actually said a certain statement, has no bearing on the validity of the statement. How have you not recognized me stating this over and over.

If someone states in a book, that Joe Blow was quoted as saying the Kansas City Royals won the world series in 2015, that is a true statement, whether or not the guy actually said it.

 

[oi_antz]

For about the fifth time, I will repeat, just because it can't be shown someone actually said a certain statement, has no bearing on the validity of the statement. How have you not recognized me stating this over and over.

If someone states in a book, that Joe Blow was quoted as saying the Kansas City Royals won the world series in 2015, that is a true statement, whether or not the guy actually said it.

It seems like you are saying what I have been saying. In realising this, I am now wondering why you began this discourse. Is there a reason for that?

 

[bhsmte]

It seems like you are saying what I have been saying. In realising this, I am now wondering why you began this discourse. Is there a reason for that?

You have got to be kidding me?

Clearly, you have selectively read my posts.

 

[anonymous person]

For about the fifth time, I will repeat, just because it can't be shown someone actually said a certain statement, has no bearing on the validity of the statement. How have you not recognized me stating this over and over.

If someone states in a book, that Joe Blow was quoted as saying the Kansas City Royals won the world series in 2015, that is a true statement, whether or not the guy actually said it.

Since the statement contains a proposition about something Joe says then you are wrong when you say the statement is true whether or not Joe said it. If Joe did not say it, then it is not true that he said it. Whether or not Joe says X is dependent upon whether or not he in fact said it.

 

[bhsmte]

Since the statement contains a proposition about something Joe says then you are wrong when you say the statement is true whether or not Joe said it. If Joe did not say it, then it is not true that he said it. Whether or not Joe says X is dependent upon whether or not he in fact said it.

No kidding, which if you look at my posts in this thread, I separated the two issues.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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!

In my question I claimed that there were errors in the Bible. Instead of presenting the above immediately, you sat on this argument and asked me to show there are indeed errors in the Bible. You then fell back on this argument here, suggesting to me that you didn't want to lead with this argument, suggesting you know it is not very good.

I know that the common defense is to say that these passages about ages and etc are of little consequence, but your God clearly found them to be of so much importance that he listed them twice.

The admission that there are errors in the Bible does nothing to advance your assumption that"...this copyist mistake, if that is what it actually is, in (no) way affect(s) any of the central tenets or doctrines I hold." It is true that this passage in particular "...does not even affect my comprehension of the passage in which the error is found," but in the other passage I provided I show that it is entirely unclear which Zedekiah was actually the king.

Furthermore, if you admit that God allows corruption in his Bible, then how do you know the Romans did not alter or completely rewrite Paul's epistles that were written from prison? You in fact have no way of knowing whether or not this happened. Those epistles certainly are "essential doctrine," and if the early church was under as much heavy persecution as Christians tend to believe, then it would seem to follow that the Romans would not just allow the leader of Christianity to direct, organize, and rebuke churches all over the map. Or, if we can agree that stories of persecution of the early church are overblown, then you loosen your grip on the "Why die for a lie?" argument, which means that you essentially have nothing but decades-old, noneyewitness testimony to attest to the resurrection.

Elvis is known to have died on the toilet, but "evidence" that he is still alive is comparable to that of the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Davian]

It actually doesn't need to be said though, in order to be accepted to be true. The necessary implication of disagreeing with John 18:37 is that the person believes Jesus says things that aren't true. Bhsmte has gone on to repeatedly explain that he rather believes this claim was not really made. But when I asked him whether he ever acknowledged it is possible that the claim was made, and did he ever test the claim, no clear answer was given. A "yes" or "no" can easily avoid these confusions. My questions are constructed for that purpose. Did you happen to notice that? If so, do you think a simple yes or no answer could have resolved this before even you got confused?

Not in the way that you have constructed those questions.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Your point being, what?