Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[2PhiloVoid]

Because that is not really what this discussion is about. Take a look at QvQ'a quite reasonable post just previous. I don't quite agree with it but even so, it runs into problems within the context of this discussion, in particular the non-negotiable principles of fundamentalist theology, taken as axioms:
1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.
2. That the companions instantly understood that the death of Christ was a penal substutionary sacrifice in expiation of Original Sin
3. That any attempt to contest these principles is nothing less than a sinister attempt to deny the existence of God.
to which we can apparently now add a fourth, that if the first two are not entirely true, then I Corinthians 15 is nothing but a lie, and that the martyrs to the faith died for something they knew to be a falsehood.

Why don't you try arguing authentic Bible scholarship with these fellows and see how far you get.

I already have, many times.

 

[QvQ]

1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.

I agree absolutely
When the Bible is taken apart by Scholars, every jot and tittle examined, more than any other text in the history of the world, there are going to be all sorts of conclusions and theories.
I have never been certain if the Scholars who promoted Q as an earlier source document did not attribute those source documents to the Eye Witness Authors and mean that Q is simply a comilation like the Catholics deciding on the Cannonical Text
I don't know too much about this
My only point is the Biblical Scholars believe there were earlier souce documents, written and oral.
Documents dating to just after the Crucifixion
Any one interested Q and Corinthians are starting points into that research area

There is the rock bottom fundamentalist viewpoint that the Bible is the Word of God.
God wrote the Bible or revealed the Word to man who wrote it down.

 

[roman2819]

Yet the claim under discussion is that there is sufficient material evidence to alone prove the objective truth of the resurrection, and that material evidence is what is being asked for.

The existence of the church is already a strong material proof. Would the 12 apostles have suffered for their faith if they had not seen Jesus in person after the resurrection? It would be easy to set up the church if the Roman authorities didn't prosecute them, but the opposite happened -- Christians were beaten, buried alive, burned on crosses that lined the the streets, thrown to lions, drowned in water. Such immense sufferings would have caused the disciples to give up if they were deluded.

In ancient times, there were only a few educated scribes and historians to keep records -- and this apply to other parts of the world. Back then, they don't have computers , and even papers and writing material were not available to common people, many of whom were illiterate. In spite of that, there were still sufficient material evidence by any standard if we apply the same standard as we do for other historical events and people that we believe were real. If people refuse to accept reasonable evidence, then they won't believe even if they find a video recording of the resurrection and appearance of Jesus.

 

[Kylie]

Yup ... here we go.

The scholarly consensus.

Yeah, when the vast majority of people who know much more about a topic than you say something other than what you believe, then they must be wrong, isn't that right?

 

[Kylie]

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Which SPECIFIC Bible scholars have you been listening to lately, Kylie? Care to cite and quote a few since------------oh, by golly!--------------you insinuate that you just know so very, very much about the topic of justified true belief and historical warrant.

Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Dunn, James D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.

Herzog, William R. (1998). Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-0664225285.

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5.

Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. BRILL. pp. 2–5. ISBN 978-0391041189.

Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–126. ISBN 978-0521796781.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.

Chilton, Bruce; Evans, Craig A. (2002). Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. BRILL. pp. 3–7. ISBN 978-0391041646.

Your inferred conflation between evidence and proof is annoying. Have you ever studied Historiography? Or the Philosophy of History? Or the Historian's Craft?

Apparently not. If you had, you'd be able to cite some sources. But since you seem to rarely do so, I'm going to suppose you're merely a neophyte learner whose just trying to find her way through the maze and cobwebs of academia.

"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.

Since I have supported my claim that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus is all that Biblical scholars can say happened with anything near certainty (I gave you eight sources for that), then my statement here stands. If you hold that anything else is factual, then you are doing so with so little evidence not even Biblical scholars can agree that it happened. With such a lack of evidence, all you have is faith.

 

[Kylie]

You are correct that the same standard must be applied but @Kylie shift goal posts because she is determined not to believe the truth about God.

Here you go again, claiming you know my position better than me.

Even although scholars have proved that the Bible is credible, she will ask for more proof. She alleges that evidences archaeologists, historians, linguists that have evaluated the Bible for more than 100 years, were not credible as if she has the knowledge to evaluate their work.

Are there factual statements in the Bible? Of course. There are references to real places and real people.

But that doesn't mean that all the fantastical claims made in the Bible are true as well.

Christians believe in God based on personal experience, sufficient material evidence and faith. We do not pretend to have 100% evidence for everything. Our personal experience also provide a real basis for continuing to have faith in God. Let her use clever words to claim that our faith is blind, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.

If personal experience was reliable, then why do so many people have contradictory personal experiences?

 

[AveChristusRex]

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.

I know its picky, but Ehrman believes Christ is not divine, so I'm not sure if he is the best source to quote on the Christian faith [or to disprove the Christian faith].

 

[AveChristusRex]

"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.

This is just a personal point, but I've always considered "the faith" to not specifically be faith in the existence of God, but rather in the personalized affection and grace of God; we know within ourselves that God exists, just as one knows their consciousness exists because they act through it, and therefore the faith is that God is personal and loving of us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Dunn, James D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.

Herzog, William R. (1998). Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-0664225285.

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5.

Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. BRILL. pp. 2–5. ISBN 978-0391041189.

Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–126. ISBN 978-0521796781.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.

Chilton, Bruce; Evans, Craig A. (2002). Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. BRILL. pp. 3–7. ISBN 978-0391041646.

Ok. Those are acceptable sources in my estimation. Thank you for making the effort. I can respect that.

"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.

Bertrand Russel is always fun to quote, but his definition of faith isn't reflective of how Jewish theologians or Christians theologians define it.

But yeah, good ol' Bertrand. He always was worth a chuckle or two, but be that as it may, I'm going more towards the following definition of 'faith.'

Since I have supported my claim that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus is all that Biblical scholars can say happened with anything near certainty (I gave you eight sources for that), then my statement here stands. If you hold that anything else is factual, then you are doing so with so little evidence not even Biblical scholars can agree that it happened. With such a lack of evidence, all you have is faith.

By your rationale, I can't have faith that Jesus had to take an occasional bathroom break. Like ever.

 

[Fervent]

That does not change the fact that there are many Muslims willing to die for their beliefs.

Which is irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold.

If Christians believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Christianity is real, then Muslims believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Islam is real,

I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or you struggle to understand a rather simple point about how the beliefs originate.

And when it comes to Islam, that explanation is through the threat of violence?

Yes, Islam initially spread through the threat of violence.

Have you looked at Christian history? Do you think Christianity never had that kind of violence?

Such episodes are exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millenia. But that's not really relevant to how the beliefs originate

And what irrelevant point was that?

The point is in trying to explain the origin and initial spread of the belief. Comparing attitudes of believers centuries removed from the origins isn't relevant to the initial spread. Though again, I'm not sure if your obtuseness on this is genuine lack of comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Kylie]

I know its picky, but Ehrman believes Christ is not divine, so I'm not sure if he is the best source to quote on the Christian faith [or to disprove the Christian faith].

We're not talking about whether he is divine, we are talking about what Biblical scholars say we can even come close to knowing.

Why should I limit myself to those who believe that Jesus is divine?

 

[Kylie]

This is just a personal point, but I've always considered "the faith" to not specifically be faith in the existence of God, but rather in the personalized affection and grace of God; we know within ourselves that God exists, just as one knows their consciousness exists because they act through it, and therefore the faith is that God is personal and loving of us.

And in the same way, Muslims know within themselves that Allah exists, and people of all faiths just know within themselves that their particular deity exists too.

So you'll forgive me if I don't accept that as evidence for anything.

 

[Kylie]

Ok. Those are acceptable sources in my estimation. Thank you for making the effort. I can respect that.

So may I take it that you retract your claim about it being "ridiculous"?

Bertrand Russel is always fun to quote, but his definition of faith isn't reflective of how Jewish theologians or Christians theologians define it.

But yeah, good ol' Bertrand. He always was worth a chuckle or two, but be that as it may, I'm going more towards the following definition of 'faith.'

Nonetheless, I think my point is still valid. Faith, even the kind you present here, is never invoked when there is actual evidence available.

By your rationale, I can't have faith that Jesus had to take an occasional bathroom break. Like ever.

A person needing to take a bathroom break is not an extraordinary claim. In fact, it's incredibly mundane. If you really believed what you say here, you'd also have to conclude that you can't be sure that I've ever gone to the bathroom.

But the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Which is irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold.

And yet I've pointed out that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam have spread due to a combination of people being genuinely convinced and also by threats of violence. You can't claim that Christianity spread only through peace and people genuinely believing and Islam spread only through violence.

I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or you struggle to understand a rather simple point about how the beliefs originate.

You are trying to oversimplify it.

As I've stated several times now, both beliefs spread through both people genuinely believing and through threats of violence.

Yes, Islam initially spread through the threat of violence.

And do you think that Islam never spread through people genuinely believing it?

Do you think that Christianity never spread through the threat of violence?

Such episodes are exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millenia. But that's not really relevant to how the beliefs originate

Source for this claim please?

The point is in trying to explain the origin and initial spread of the belief. Comparing attitudes of believers centuries removed from the origins isn't relevant to the initial spread. Though again, I'm not sure if your obtuseness on this is genuine lack of comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.

Then please show me a source that Christianity was never violent throughout the first millennium, as per your claim. And the same to show that Islam was ALWAYS violent in the same time period.

 

[Fervent]

A person needing to take a bathroom break is not an extraordinary claim. In fact, it's incredibly mundane. If you really believed what you say here, you'd also have to conclude that you can't be sure that I've ever gone to the bathroom.

But the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence.

You seem to misunderstand evidential burdens, because how "extraordinary" a claim is isn't relevant, and setting different evidential burdens for claims you find implausible is nothing but invoking special pleading. It's a common form of fallacious thinking, where the actual meaning of the maxim revolves around evidence it isn't true vs evidence it is true, and for claims like the resurrection or other miracles are bound to get caught up in worldview assumptions.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to misunderstand evidential burdens, because how "extraordinary" a claim is isn't relevant, and setting different evidential burdens for claims you find implausible is nothing but invoking special pleading. It's a common form of fallacious thinking, where the actual meaning of the maxim revolves around evidence it isn't true vs evidence it is true, and for claims like the resurrection or other miracles are bound to get caught up in worldview assumptions.

Why isn't it relevant?

Or are you saying you'd demand the same level of evidence to support the claim that I had a sandwich yesterday as you would to support the claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

 

[Fervent]

And yet I've pointed out that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam have spread due to a combination of people being genuinely convinced and also by threats of violence. You can't claim that Christianity spread only through peace and people genuinely believing and Islam spread only through violence.

You are trying to oversimplify it.

As I've stated several times now, both beliefs spread through both people genuinely believing and through threats of violence.

And do you think that Islam never spread through people genuinely believing it?

Do you think that Christianity never spread through the threat of violence?

Source for this claim please?

Then please show me a source that Christianity was never violent throughout the first millennium, as per your claim. And the same to show that Islam was ALWAYS violent in the same time period.

You pointed out no practical difference, you attacked a strawman. And are continuing to attack a strawman. So are you intentionally attacking a strawman, or do you genuinely not understand what it is I am asking for an explanation of?

 

[Fervent]

Why isn't it relevant?

claims are claims are claims. Personal incredulity is fallacious.

Or are you saying you'd demand the same level of evidence to support the claim that I had a sandwich yesterday as you would to support the claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

The level of evidence required would be the same, because a claim is a claim is a claim. Incredulity is not an argument in itself, and requiring extra burdens because you find something implausible is nothing more than blatantly invoking special pleading.

 

[Kylie]

You pointed out no practical difference, you attacked a strawman. And are continuing to attack a strawman. So are you intentionally attacking a strawman, or do you genuinely not understand what it is I am asking for an explanation of?

How can I point out a practical difference when my entire point is that there IS no practical difference?

Both Islam and Christianity have spread, sometimes through the threat of violence, and other times because people genuinely come to believe.

 

[Kylie]

claims are claims are claims. Personal incredulity is fallacious.

The level of evidence required would be the same, because a claim is a claim is a claim. Incredulity is not an argument in itself, and requiring extra burdens because you find something implausible is nothing more than blatantly invoking special pleading.

So, what kind of evidence would it take for you to accept my claim that I can wish really hard and magically teleport to anywhere in the world that I want?

Perhaps you'd ask me to demonstrate it for you?

So, does that mean that if I told you I went to the toilet yesterday, you'd refuse to believe me unless I showed you a photograph of the contents of the toilet bowl before I flushed?